FME 2024

History Lessons

By Lee Pitts LEE PITTS

Vice President Kamala’s solution to cure the high inflation caused by the Biden/Harris administration over the past four years is price controls on private-sector businesses to cure price gouging, or what she mistakenly called price “gauging.” Her proposal was one of the worst of the few ideas she has uttered thus far in her campaign. No wonder her handlers don’t want her to do any interviews or answer any questions. The idea that she could get elected and impose such controls should scare cowboys right down to the bottom of their boots. Price controls have been tried around the world for centuries and they have always failed. Just ask any rancher who was alive during the reign of “Tricky Dick” Nixon.

1973

I’ll never forget my first date in 1973 with the woman who has been my wife now for over 50 years. I wanted to make a really good first impression so I took her to a highly regarded steakhouse I couldn’t afford with white tablecloths and three forks per place setting. She’s a beef lover like me so you can imagine our surprise when we were told that there was no beef available! At a steakhouse!

This was because Richard Nixon was in a close Presidential race for reelection and unemployment stood at 6 percent and inflation was higher than it is now. He outlined his response in a nationally televised address by saying, “I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States.”

Please subscribe me to the Livestock Market Digest for: □ 1 Year at $35 □ 2 Years at $45

□ Payment Enclosed

Nixon used the power of an Executive Order to initiate a price freeze “to cut profiteers off at the knees” who he claimed were causing out-of-control inflation. Nixon said, “Meat prices must not go higher. With the help of the housewife and the farmer, they can and should go down.”

After the price freeze, any increases in price would have to be approved by a “Pay Board” and a “Price Commission,” with an eye toward eventually lifting controls (conveniently after he’d be re-elected).

Boy was Nixon ever wrong. Nixon, a Republican, used language about greedy corporations 50 years ago that sounds almost identical to that being used today by socialist Kamala Harris.

For a brief period, Nixon’s ploy appeared to work; the stock market rallied and according to polls, 75 percent of Americans liked Nixon’s plan. And inflation did come down temporarily but the respite in high prices was, to use the words of today’s SEC Chairman... “transitory.”

The price of food and other commodities fell like a rock. So much so that the New York Times on page one on March 30, 1973, said “Ranchers stopped shipping their cattle to the market, farmers drowned their chickens, and consumers emptied the shelves of supermarkets.” But the wreck did not come until after Nixon won in a landslide over Democratic Senator George McGovern.

I’ve seen a lot of wrecks in my 50-year cattle career but I’ve NEVER seen a crash like the one the beef industry experienced in 1973 and 74. Because ranchers held back their cattle when price controls were initiated (thus no beef at the restaurants) there was a wall of cattle that hit the market after the election causing a crash for the ages. Just ask any old mossback cattlemen what’s the worst he’s ever seen and he will most assuredly shake his head and say “1973.”

A Good Idea

If Kamala really wanted inflation to go away and food prices to stop skyrocketing, all she and Joe Biden had to do was stop the agribusiness merger mania that has created monopolies and oligopolies across the food industry. There were plenty of actions Biden and Harris could have taken, like stopping all the mergers in the food business that have married BIG business with BIG government, which is the very definition of fascism. These entities have used their monopolistic power to raise prices to head-shaking heights. We’re talking about mergers like the Kroger and Albertsons merger that would combine the second largest supermarket chain in America, Krogers with 13.9 percent of the food sold in grocery stores, with the number four supermarket chain, Albertsons with 8.1 percent of the market.

Livestock Market Digest (1SSN 0024-5208) (USPS NO. 712320) is published monthly except semi-monthly in September in Albuquerque, N.M. 87104 by Livestock Market Digest, Inc. Periodicals Postage Paid at Albuquerque, N.M. POSTMASTER-Send change of address to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

For advertising, subscription and editorial inquiries write or call:

Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458 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 Sales

FALL MARKETING EDITION AD SALES

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

FIELD EDITOR

DELVIN HELDERMON, 580/622-5754 1094 Koller Rd, Sulpher, OK

ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF

— MY CHECK IS ENCLOSED FOR — One Year: $35 Two Years: $45 Single copy: $10

Clip & mail to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194 lit Yes.

KRISTY HINDS Graphic Designer

All subscriptions non-refundable.

Koger/Albertsons says they need the merger so that they can compete with the number one supermarket chain (Walmart at 34.8 percent) and the number three chain (Costco at 12.2 percent). Add it all up and the remaining three chains would sell 69 percent of the food bought by the American consumer at grocery stores. Walmart’s share of grocery sales alone is more than twice as high as A&Ps was when the Department of Justice forced its breakup. The DOJ continues to bless agribusiness mega-mergers, with some of the largest occurring during the past 16 years, 12 of which have been during a Democratic administration.

For now, the proposed Kroger-Albertsons merger, which would be the largest grocery merger in our nation’s history, is on hold until the Colorado District Court rules on a lawsuit attempting to block the deal. The lawsuit argues that Kroger’s $24.6 billion acquisition of Albertsons would eliminate too much competition and would ultimately harm consumers. The trial is set to begin soon.

Today Kroger and Albertsons collectively own and operate nearly 5,000 stores in 48 states employing a combined 700,000 workers. If you do not recognize either of their names it’s because the behemoths don’t want you to know they own more than 40 former standalone grocery store brands, like Safeway, Fred Meyer, Jewel-Osco, Ralphs, Dillons, Tom Thumb, Vons, etc.

Krogers and Albertsons is also facing competition from Target and Amazon. They contend that if the merger doesn’t go through the same thing will happen to grocery stores that happened to department stores that have almost disappeared from the American landscape. Interestingly, those department store closures were brought to you by some of the same retailing giants trying to monopolize the grocery business.

Karen Gardner, of Center for Science in the Public Interest, says if the merger goes through, “Two CEOs would be in control of the majority of food sold in America, and that doesn’t seem like a good idea to me.”

Monopoly: It’s Not Just A Game

The “four-firm concentration ratio” is often used as a yardstick. For example, if 40 percent of a market is controlled by four firms it is said to be an oligopoly which occurs when a few companies exert significant control over a given market. Together, these companies may control prices by colluding with each other. A monopoly is 70 percent of market. For example, the top four beef packers control 85 percent of the beef market which falls comfortably within the parameters of a monopoly. And at 69 percent, the top four firms after an Albertson/Kroger merger would be just one percentage point shy of being a monopoly. The Biden/Harris administration did nothing to stop merger mania which would have been much more beneficial than government price controls, usually seen only seen in socialistic or communistic countries.

According to Food & Water Watch (FWW), in a report titled “The Economic Cost of Food Monopolies - The Grocery Cartels,” their research showed an alarming trend. “From 1993 to 2019, the number of grocery stores nationwide declined by roughly 30 percent, as the combined market share of the four largest grocery retailers TRIPLED to 69 percent. Today, an ever-shrinking number of companies control what we grow and what we eat.”

FWW says that “Walmart grew from opening its first supercen-

ter selling groceries in 1988 to capturing $1out of every $3 spent at grocery retailers today. Walmart’s strategy of race-to-the-bottom prices squeezed out many smaller grocers and other local retailers. And, Walmart has been known to raise food prices once it becomes the dominate grocery retailer in town.

“Supermarket and warehouse chains, in turn, exert influence further up the supply chain,” says FWW. “Some charge manufacturing companies ‘slotting fees’ for the privilege of stocking their products, making it more difficult for new brands to emerge. Others have vertically integrated their supply chains: Kroger, Albertsons and Walmart own milk-bottling plants, and Costco is building chicken processing facilities. This frenzy of horizontal and vertical mergers hit virtually every sector of the food system in the 1990s and early 2000s. Food industry mergers and acquisitions continue today, with over 300 in 2019 alone.”

Given The Green Light

Food & Water Watch examined the market share of the dominant companies across 55 grocery categories and, “The research found that more than 60 percent of the analyzed grocery categories are tight oligopolies/monopolies. Just eight of the 55 categories (15 percent) could be considered highly competitive and over a third exceed the ‘highly concentrated’ threshold used by the U.S. Department of Justice in merger reviews.”

The Kraft-Heinz’s merger in 2015 during the Obama years made the conglomerate a corporate powerhouse. According to FWW, “It is among the top companies in one-fifth of all food categories we surveyed. General Mills, Conagra and Campbell Soup Company also topped multiple food categories. This is not a broken system. It is functioning as it was designed: to funnel wealth from local communities into the hands of corporate shareholders and corporate executives.”

Industry insiders are giddy about the next BIG THING in grocery shopping: Online shopping. “Which had explosive growth during the pandemic and will be the next big disruption to the grocery market,” according to FWW. “Major players like Walmart and Instacart are cornering the delivery market by operating at razor-thin or negative margins. Walmart employs more working adults who rely on SNAP (food stamps) than any other company among the states included in the study — 1.5 times as many as the next employer, McDonald’s. Kroger chains also feature prominently in the ranking.”

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission analyzed grocery mergers and found that growing market concentration usually leads to a rise in food prices. “Simply put, market power enables intermediaries like retailers and processors to capture an ever-growing share of food dollars, at the expense of farmers, food chain workers and eaters.”

According to Food & Water Watch, just four companies make up three-quarters of all yogurt sales. Three companies capture 85 percent of all liquid baby formula sales and around 95 percent of powdered formula. PepsiCo captures 88 percent of all dip sales in the United States, largely through brands that do not carry its name (like Fritos, Lay’s and Tostitos). Danone dominates the refrigerated soymilk market with 80 percent of all sales and Conagra controls 65 percent of single-serve prepared pasta dishes.

“General Mills and Conagra are among the top four companies in 9 out of the 55 categories we surveyed. Campbell Soup Company is in seven categories, and PepsiCo and Del Monte are both in six. Kraft-Heinz, however, blows them all out of the water at 12 categories (22 percent of the total). It is the lead company in five of those categories.”

The DOJ and the FTC are supposed to consider the impacts on market consolidation of proposed mergers. Using these agencies’ very own measurement, over a third of grocery categories we surveyed exceed their “highly concentrated” market threshold. Regardless,

the agencies continue to greenlight mergers and acquisitions within these market categories.

Good Question

Giles Stockton has been a lone voice warning about the danger of the U.S. playing the monopoly game. Stockton said when it was first proposed, “This Kroger-Albertsons merger might seem remote from our daily ranching duties, but inevitably it will have a negative effect on the price of feeder calves.” Stockton says, “The farm to retail spread has not been going in our favor for a long time. Over the last 50 years the producer’s share has been cut in half from 71.3 percent to 36.5 percent. This is also the time period where the four largest packers went from controlling 26 percent of the market to 85 percent. Most of the retail spread redistribution resulted in increased profits for the retailers, although the packers have also taken their cut. When Congress rescind-

ed country of origin labeling in 2015 something changed in the market dynamics. We ranchers experienced that change as a nearly 50 percent cut in the price of feeder calves, but retailers also began losing ground to the packers.”

According to economist Dr. Robert Taylor, we have lost 83,000 independent feedlots over the past 25 years with 48,000 of those just in the last 10. Meanwhile, the number of feedlots with a capacity of over 50,000 head have increased from 45 to 77. Independent feeders have disappeared, but the feeding capacity has stayed the same.”

Taylor asks a great question: “If feeding cattle has been unprofitable over the last 10 years, why is it only the independent feeders go out of business while the large feedlots with close ties to a packer thrive? One possible explanation is that what is being reported to USDA as the market value of a fed steer is not the true price paid. Vertically aligned feedlots are possibly

getting an unreported premium or other nondisclosed advantages. Clearly the cattle industry is now rapidly experiencing vertical integration, much as the pork industry did in the 1990s.”

There are other retail grocery trends that could hurt ranchers. Like we said, the dominant retailers are developing their own vertically integrated supply chains. Costco has invested in egg and broiler production and Walmart has created a dedicated supply chain for Angus beef. We can expect to see more of that in the future.

The merger of Krogers and Albertsons still needs approval by the FTC and the Department of Justice. There’s a very small chance it won’t get approved because virtually all mergers over the past 40 years have been allowed.

Gee, I wonder what all the politicians got out of the deals? ▫

Riding Herd

by LEE PITTS

State Of Confusion

“The weather is almost always something other than normal.” — Andy Rooney

Iguess I’m what the looney-left calls a “climate denier” as I don’t believe in man-made climate change. As such, I’m always looking for data that will help me prove my point so I was elated to receive from my buddy Darol a map of the “all time” statewide high temperature readings for every state. It was made by Chris Martz using data from NOAA, which is short for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Although the map said it was for “all-time” the earliest statewide high temperature reading I found was for Montana in 1893, when it reached 117 degrees 131 years ago.

If you divide the 131 years that we have data for by the number of states that tells us how often a state should have reached their highest temperature, which turns out to be every 2.62 years. That means in the first 24 years of the 21st century

nine states should have set new records for their “all time” high temperature. We’re told over and over again that we’re experiencing the hottest temperatures ever recorded so guess how many states experienced their highest temperature on record in the 21st century? It wasn’t nine, in fact it was far less. Only THREE states reached their highest temperature, Washington in 2021, Colorado in 2019 and South Carolina in 2012. That’s it. Does that sound like global warming to you? I didn’t think so.

A quick survey of the map indicates that many of the states had their highest temperature ever recorded during the “dirty thirties” when there were far fewer cars on the road than there are now. So, fossil fuel burning cars must not be the culprit. Right? The year 1936 seems to be the most prevalent year in which states had their highest temperatures and in that year there were only 128,053,180 people in the U.S, far fewer than the roughly 340 million in the country today. If man is capable of changing the weather wouldn’t you think that temperatures would be much higher when the population is almost tripled? But that’s clearly not the case.

My home state, California, achieved its highest temperature ever in Death Valley in 1913, which is also the national record. The highest temperature ever recorded anyplace on earth was in Libya way back in 1922 when it reached 136 degrees. One would think that if cow farts caused the global temperature to change wouldn’t you expect a higher temperature in Texas which has many more cattle than Libya ever did. But the highest temperature ever recorded in Texas was 120 degrees back in 1936. So cows must not be the culprit.

Hmmm... somehow the the-

ory of man-made global warming is falling apart.

The most dramatic temperature swing ever recorded in America happened one day in January in 1943, when South Dakota went from minus four degrees to 45 degrees in two minutes! That’s a 49 degree change in 120 seconds! South Dakota also has the distinction of being the state with the coldest day in February 1936, at minus 58! Five months later in July they had their hottest day on record at 120 degrees.

Now, that’s climate change!

Yet no one back then was insisting we all drive electric cars and have solar panels on their roof. If the climate change fanatics did a little research they’d find that most of America’s weird weather happened in the distant past, yet no one back then was altering their entire lifestyle because of it.

But I’m not finished debunking the theory of man-made climate change. The world’s greatest rainfall total occurred in 1966 when nearly 72 inches of rain fell in one 24-hour period. The five deadliest tornadoes in American history all occurred between 1840 and 1936. People may claim that we’re having more cyclones, tornadoes, hail and earthquakes due to manmade climate change but the facts don’t support them. The fact is that our climate is caused more by the shift of continents, solar activity and something called Milankovich Cycles (whatever that is) than it does the fact that our Climate Czar, John Kerry, has a carbon footprint bigger than Sasquatch with his 6 houses, 12 cars, two yachts and private jet. ▫

Details Announced for Jim S. Williams Saddle & Sirloin Club Portrait Induction

Jim S. Williams, V8 Ranch, Hungerford, Texas will be inducted into the prestigious Saddle & Sirloin Club Portrait Award on November 17, 2024, during activities at the North American International Livestock Exposition.

His portrait will join 378 other members, who have had their portrait displayed in the Saddle and Sirloin Gallery at the Kentucky Exposition Center. The award is the highest honor bestowed on an animal agriculture leader who has made major contributions to the livestock industry in the U.S and abroad as judged by their peers.

Williams’ contributions and accomplishments have been well documented as he has led the family Brahman operation to many heights and honors.

Richard Halstead, the artist commissioned for Saddle and Sirloin Portraits for the

past three decades is completing an oil portrait of Williams that will be unveiled at the awards banquet in November.

The Williams Portrait Committee is currently soliciting funds for the portrait and induction ceremony, as all expenses must come from private donations, and any excess funds will go to a scholarship endowment.

Your donation is tax-deductible. Online donations can be made at www.jimwilliamsdonations.com. Checks should be made payable to the “Jim S. Williams Portrait Fund” and mailed to Cattlemen’s Congress, 21 Land Rush Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73107. The Cattlemen’s Congress show has graciously agreed to oversee the fundraising efforts for this project. For additional information on contributing or about the induction ceremony, please visit www.jswportrait.com or contact Dr. Chris Skaggs, Nominations Committee Chair at Chris.Skaggs@ag.tamu.edu or 979/255-7702.

Inducing Famine

Agricultural officials raise concerns over big banks’ ESG & climate agendas/CFACT

From February--but important to know that some of the states are waking up to the scam of induced food shortages and planned hunger in the US and overseas — Meryl Nass

BONNER COHEN, PH. D.

Recent setbacks in the fortunes of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing have not kept a bloc of deep-pocketed financial institutions from adopting policies fundamentally at odds with farmers’ ability to grow food, a coalition of state agricultural officials said in a Jan. 29 letter to six big banks.

The banks – Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo – are part of the U.N.-sponsored Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). Agricultural officials from 11 states and one secretary of agriculture warned in their letter that “we hold serious concerns about the commitments made by your bank as part of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), and the potential impacts on the agricultural sector; specifically, food availability and price increases on consumers, credit access for our farmers and agriculture product producers, and overall negative economic consequences.”

“Due to the potential impacts on agriculture, we are seeking more information on what appear to be troubling environmental commitments by your banks that target our farmers, ranchers, and agriculture producers, with grave consequences for consumers and that undermine the security of our food supply,” the state officials wrote. “More specifically, we understand that you have joined the NZBA and committed to ‘transition[ing] all operational and attributable GHG emissions from [your] lending … portfolios to align with pathways to net zero by mid-century, or sooner.’ To accomplish this goal, NZBA banks must

require their customers to measure and disclose the GHG emissions in specific sectors, including agriculture.”

“Implementing these commitments would have severe consequences for American farmers – including cutting America’s beef and livestock consumption in half, switching to inefficient electric farm equipment, and moving away from nitrogen fertilizer necessary for American agriculture to thrive,” the officials write. “We are deeply troubled that your banks have given the U.N. Environment Programme (ENEP) authority to ‘review’ and ‘monitor’ your banks’ climate targets for ‘consistency’ with U.N. criteria, especially given UNEP’s leading role to inciting Sri Lanka to adopt its disastrous fertilizer ban. The documents you have signed indicate that most of you will establish emissions targets for agriculture in 2024 or sooner. With this deadline upon us, we request information and documents relating to your commitments.”

The Perils of Net-Zero

“Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture requires a complete overhaul of on-farm infrastructure – one of the goals of the NZBA,” the letter goes on. “This would have a catastrophic impact on our farmers. Proposed net-zero roadmaps describe dramatic, impractical, and costly changes to American farming and ranching operations, such as switching to electric machinery and equipment, installing on-site solar panels and wind turbines, moving to organic fertilizer, altering rice-field irrigation systems, and slashing U.S. ruminant meat consumption in half, costing millions of livestock jobs.” ▫

The Truth About Traceability

BY CARL RAY POLK JR.,TEXAS & SOUTHWESTERN CATTLE RAISERS ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT

Ranching is something to be proud of. It’s a tradition and foundation that roots us in hard work. Time and sweat invested today keeps this way of life alive for tomorrow. This is what I love and what I want to pass to the next generation – but that reality is fragile. A single animal disease outbreak could erase this for not only myself but future generations.

Protecting ourselves is paramount. A core pillar of preventing a detrimental animal disease outbreak is a traceability program that operates at the speed of commerce. We need a traceability program that allows for rapid response in the event of an outbreak and minimizes disruption to the industry.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) final rule for an animal disease traceability program is set to begin November 5. Livestock producers will be required to implement tags that are both visibly and electronically readable for specific classes of cattle.

Understandably, many cattle raisers are approaching these new regulations with caution. However, it’s important to put rumors fueled by cattle market commentary videos aside and set the record straight. The rule will not track your finances or your greenhouse gas emissions. The rule was not created to place additional taxes on your operation. Tags do not have GPS.

USDA’s animal disease traceability rule modernizes a decade-old regulation that required metal clip tags for

brucellosis vaccination or tuberculosis testing for specific classes of livestock crossing state lines. If you were not required to have a metal clip tag before, you will not be impacted by the new electronic tag now.

Only sexually intact cattle over 18 months old, all female dairy cattle, male dairy cattle born after March 11, 2013, and all cattle used in rodeo, shows or exhibitions will be required to comply.

We share many of the concerns of cattle raisers across the nation. While the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association supports a traceability program and believes it can protect the industry, the program should never compromise the data privacy of our members. The program should work for the industry, not against it.

The current USDA animal disease traceability plan does not fully align with our expectations for data handling and storage. While USDA has assured the industry that data is not publicly available and that steps are in place to restrict access to authorized government officials working on high-impact animal diseases, we are demanding more.

The responsibility for data management should not lie within USDA. Instead, we advocate for a more decentralized approach where the industry has a significant role in managing and protecting its own data. This can be through third-party groups like the U.S. CattleTrace, which Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association has been a member of since inception.

A third party would limit government access to data, releasing only necessary data when and if an animal disease outbreak were to occur. This

infrastructure has already been developed, tested and is ready to deploy. There is absolutely no reason to spend valuable time and money within USDA recreating the wheel.

We do not take the threat of a disease outbreak lightly given the spanning geography and rapid speed that our industry operates. This is why for decades we have joined other industry partners to participate in conversations about a traceability plan and process that works for all of us.

However, our time is up, and the industry’s failure to agree and enact an appropriate program has created an opportunity for the government to come in and attempt to fix the problem.

Consistently opposing new traceability measures without proposing viable alternatives does not contribute to solving the broader issue of disease prevention and management. Those who are screaming the loudest about USDA’s current traceability plan and who have consistently stood in the way of industry creating our own solution need only to look in the mirror as to the reason why we are where we are today.

The choice is ours: be part of the solution or be willing to accept the consequences. We at TSCRA will continue to look for solutions ▫

Cargill Acquires

Two U.S. Feed Mills

To grow with the agriculture retail and large ranching/ farming segments in the western and central regions of the U.S., Cargill has acquired two feed mills from Compana Pet Brands – one in Denver, Colorado and the other in Kansas City, Kansas. With the addition of the two facilities, Cargill is better positioned to expand the production and distribution capabilities of its Animal Nutrition and Health business in the U.S. The transaction was finalized in September 2024. Terms were not disclosed.

“These two feed mills are a perfect fit for our Cargill Animal Nutrition and Health business in the U.S. to better position us for long-term growth of our full portfolio and serve a range of customers, from the larger farmer/rancher to the local retailer who sells horse treats and pet food,” said Mariano Berdegue, Senior Vice President for Cargill’s Animal Nutrition & Health Americas business.

With the Denver mill acquisition, Cargill welcomes more than 35 employees. The mill has dedicated packing lines, which allows for growth with ag retail customers who serve the backyard/hobby farmer and pet owner segments. Cargill will also be able to meet the needs of large farming and ranching operations in the region with the expanded capacity and some additional investments in the operation. The goal is to make this facility a modernized, flagship feed mill.

The newly acquired Kansas City mill is located close to Cargill’s Kansas City feed facility and enables the company to continue to be a key supplier in the area and grow with customers in the region.

“This transaction is mutually beneficial as Cargill will continue to manufacture our product,” said Greg Pearson, CEO, Compana Pet Brands. “We are excited to work together in the years ahead.”

These new acquisitions expand Cargill’s capabilities in feed production and distribution in the U.S., expanding their ability to offer world-class products, services, and solutions in animal nutrition, performance, and health for dairy, livestock, and lifestyle/pet feed segments. ▫

Idaho Secures Major Win in Federal Stock Water Rights Battle

BY MACKENZIE GUY / MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION

In a landmark decision, the federal court in Boise ruled in favor of Idaho on August 28, 2024, in United States of America v. State of Idaho. This ruling marks a significant victory for Idaho’s ranchers and property owners, affirming that the federal government must follow state laws regarding water rights, just like everyone else.

This Idaho stockwater conflict began when the federal government claimed thousands of stockwater rights—water rights used for livestock—on Idaho lands through a state process that many ranchers did not fully understand or were unaware of. In response, Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) intervened to protect the ranchers’ rights and ensure the federal government could not bypass

state law. Representing these ranchers, MSLF directly challenged the federal overreach in court in January of 2024 and argued that the U.S. government must adhere to Idaho’s laws, just like any other party. Over the years, the U.S. government tried to sidestep state laws, positioning itself as exempt from the regulations that apply to everyone else. This overreach was a clear violation of established legal precedents, including the 1978 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. New Mexico, which affirmed that state laws govern stockwater rights, even on federal lands.

Key Rulings: Idaho’s Wins

The court’s decision decisively upholds Idaho’s authority over water rights. It ruled that the federal government must comply with the McCarran Amendment, a law that requires federal agencies to participate in state water rights proceedings on equal terms with all other parties. This means that Idaho’s process for assessing and forfeiting stockwater rights applies to the U.S. government as well. The ruling prevents the federal government from stockpiling water rights to gain leverage over ranchers, ensuring that all parties, including the federal government, must use water for legitimate purposes or risk losing those rights.

Addressing the Complexities

While the court’s ruling was mostly favorable, it did create some uncertainty regarding

newer stockwater rights. The court limited the requirement of livestock ownership to older, “constitutional” stockwater rights, leaving open the question of whether the U.S. must own and water livestock to maintain more recent rights obtained through newer administrative processes. Although this aspect of the decision was less definitive, it does not undermine Idaho’s broader victory and sets the stage for future legal challenges to clarify these issues.

What This Means for Idaho’s Ranchers

The court’s ruling sends a clear message: the federal government cannot exempt itself from Idaho’s water laws. This decision is a crucial step in protecting the rights of Idaho’s ranchers, who rely on these water resources to maintain their livelihoods. By reaffirming that the U.S. must “play ball” under the same rules as everyone else, the court has safeguarded Idaho’s control over its water rights.

A Unified Stand Against Federal Overreach Ranchers like Paul Nettleton, Tim Lowry, and Don Pickett, along with the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, have fought tirelessly to hold the federal government accountable. Represented by MSLF, they stood up against the federal government’s attempts to bypass state authority. This decision is a resounding affirmation of state sovereignty and property rights, setting a precedent that could have far-reaching implications for water rights management across the West. ▫

Navajo Nation Depts. Collaborate to Address Feral Horses Problem on Reservation

SOURCE: NAVAJO-HOPE OBSERVER

The Navajo Nation is facing an escalating challenge with feral horses, and efforts are being intensified to find a solution.

On Aug. 21, Gloria Tom, the manager of Navajo Nation Fish and Wildlife, organized a meeting between her department and the Navajo Nation Department of Agriculture to strategize a new approach to the issue.

“This shouldn’t be political, but it is,” said Tom, highlighting the complexities surrounding the feral horse problem.

Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren, who frequently travels across the reservation, has witnessed the growing impact of these horses firsthand.

Earlier this year, in response to the increasing numbers of feral horses, Nygren and the Natural Resources Department reinstated the equine reward program, encouraging the capture of the animals. This recent meeting was aimed at reevaluating a plan originally developed during the Russell Begaye Administration, with a focus on adapting it to the current situation.

“These horses are becoming a huge problem,” Tom stated. “The reason Fish and Wildlife is involved in this strategy is because we’re seeing a decline in our wildlife, particularly in mule deer, which hold significant cultural importance for us. The overgrazing by these horses is displacing the mule deer and degrading their habitats.”

Tom pointed out the problem is like a wave that rises and falls with each change in administration.

“Some administrations take charge in addressing the problem, while others let it slide,” she said.

Nygren echoed this sentiment, expressing his commitment to working closely with Natural Resources and other departments to find lasting solutions.

“If our departments are seeing a decline in our wildlife and a disruption in our plants, this is bigger than just feral horses,” Nygren said. “These horses are overpopulated, and it’s impacting us. I’m committed to continuing our work with the departments involved in this strategy so we can revitalize our land and wildlife.”

Information provided by OPVP ▫

• Custom Home on 36+ acre estate in Dragoon Mountain Ranch

• 36+ acre homesites in St David, AZ

• 80 Acre Farm land with 16” Irrigation Well in Willcox, AZ

• Custom Home on 4+ acres in Cochise, AZ

• 40 acre off grid land in Portal, AZ

520-403-3903 Arizonahomesandlandsales.com Rick Frank, Designated Broker • 520-403-3903

THE SAND CAMP RANCH

(PRICE REDUCED) 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 2,380 +/- deeded acres, 6,074 NM State Lease Acres, 23,653 Federal BLM Lease Acres and 480 acres Uncontrolled, 32,107 +/- total acres (50.17 Sections). Grazing Capacity set by a Section 3 BLM grazing permit at 405 Animal Units Yearlong. The ranch is watered by five primary wells and an extensive pipeline system. This ranch is ready to go, no deferred maintenance. Price: $3,672,000. This one of the better ranches in the area. It is nicely improved and well-watered. You won’t find anything comparable for the price. Call or email for a brochure and an appointment to come take a look.

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.

SOLD

Scott McNally, Qualifying Broker

Bar M Real Estate, LLC

P.O. Box 428, Roswell, NM 88202

Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237 Website: www.ranchesnm.com

Beef Calf Prices & Forage are Stalling the Herd Rebuild

BY ABBI PRINS / COBANK

America’s beef supply relies heavily on a large network of small producers to raise calves. In fact, 25 percent of the beef cow inventory can be found on operations with 50 or fewer head. Since these operations generally do not rely on these animals as a sole source of income, economic decisions do vary from larger operations. When unexpected events such as widespread drought damage pasture conditions, forage production and beef cow retention rates suffer. Drought is one of the primary reasons the number of cows producing calves has declined in recent years. This is not unusual, as animal inventories continuously cycle through expansion and contraction phases.

However, the length and depth of the decline for beef cow numbers has been a bit surprising, if not concerning. The U.S. is currently in its fifth year of retracting beef cow numbers, falling 2.5 percent year-over-year to 28.2 million head. Historically speaking, these inventories are the lowest since 1961, based on USDA data. And some of the top analysts in the industry do not expect the beef-cow sector to return to 2023 levels for three to four more years. Some are even suggesting contraction will continue two more years beyond that.

Pasture conditions are rebounding

Weather plays a vital role in both forage quality and quantity, important to note as pasture and feed costs make up 50 percent of the expense portion in most livestock budgets. After persistent drought conditions

took root in 2021 and 2022 in states with the highest beef cow populations, relief arrived in 2024. As spring and summer grazing began this year, all regions have shown positive changes in pasture conditions. The situation has also improved in the Texas counties with the largest inventory of beef cows in 2024, with no drought reported by the U.S. Drought Monitor. With hay prices softening in 2024 compared to the start of the pandemic, cow-calf operators can start rebuilding their winter feed supply once they have recovered financially from expensive hay costs in recent years. To be certain, these prices are still considerably higher than during the previous herd rebuilding cycle from 2014 to 2019. However, if there is not enough hay to feed the current herd or additional replacement heifers, producers will not hold on to heifers to start rebuilding their herds.

Does keeping heifers make financial sense?

When it comes to cow-calf operations, a financial analysis helps determine if a producer will make a better margin from keeping a calf or selling it. Softening feed prices have improved incentives to retain heifers, however beef calf prices are at record high. These unique market conditions mean a no-brainer decision for some cow-calf operators to sell new crop calves for immediate cash flow.

According to the Livestock Marketing Information Center and USDA, average prices in 2024 for 550-pound Kansas heifers were $276 per cwt. and $314 per cwt. for steers. If a weaned calf is priced at $294 per cwt. at 550 pounds, it could

be sold for $1,617 to be finished at a feedlot. What’s the other side of this decision tree? The following values are a general approximation, as every operation is different. Accounting for operational costs, raising that heifer for one year could cost $1,315, or over $2,600 for the two years before she has her first calf, according to the Kansas State University Beef Cow-Calf Budget. Average purchase prices of a bred heifer in 2024 ranged from $1,500 to $2,600 per head in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas. This data analysis suggests a $300 upside for producers to sell calves rather than raise them when only comparing the market sale and first year expenses. Right now, it’s not worth the risk to hold onto the heifers as the potential upside of selling the calf has immediate pay off.

Beef prices to drive retention narrative

Should steer and heifer calf prices remain record strong, it could be 2026 or 2027 before we see heifer retention rates and the beef cow population tick back up. The July USDA Cattle on Feed report noted that heifers encompassed 39.6 percent of cattle on feed, showing that cow-calf producers are continuing to sell more calves to feedyards after replacing cull cows — even after accounting for improving pasture conditions.

Even when ranchers start keeping more heifers, rebuilding the beef cow herd will be a slow roll. For example, it will be 2026 before a heifer calf born in 2024 has her first calf and joins the beef-cow population. However, it’s more likely 2025 or beyond will be the first year of retention.

Fewer cattle entering pro-

cessing plants will lead to continued high beef and cattle prices for cow-calf and feedlot owners, and tighter packer margins. According to the Sterling Beef Profit Tracker, beef packers were losing close to $100 per head in July 2024. This spiral will end at some point because even if cattle prices continue to skyrocket, the number of animals available to be sold is finite.

Overall, after a couple of

tough years with poor weather impacting forage production and interest rates now bumping 8 percent, it is critical for producers to have cash flow to pay down debt and build up feed inventories before adding to the herd. Once the herd does start rebuilding, a drastic change in beef cow numbers is unlikely as the growth could look more like a slight bump in cow inventory. ▫

Utah Takes a Stand Against Globalist, Environmental Extremist Land Use Agenda

SOURCE: PROTECT THE HARVEST

On August 20, 2024, Utah filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), asking the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to rule on the constitutionality of the federal government indefinitely holding unappropriated lands within a state. The suit comes after Utah leaders claim there has been “decades of legal analysis.”

Federal land management agencies currently control more than 70 percent of Utah’s land, with approximately half currently appropriated, or designated by the United States Congress as wilderness areas, tribal lands, military use or national forests, parks, or monuments. Appropriated lands will not be affected by the lawsuit. The 18.5 million acres that remain in question account for 34 percent of Utah land, and are currently controlled by the BLM, yet have no specific, Congressionally identified use.

BLM is actively closing trails and restricting access to some of the most popular “public” lands in the state. For example, in September 2023 BLM announced closure of 317 miles of roads and trails near Moab to motorized travel. For all practical purposes, this decision resulted in the closure of nearly 120 camping sites. Despite protests and appeals from numerous outdoor enthusiast groups and the state, a federal judge ruled the roads would remain closed indefinitely.

Thousands of additional miles of roads and trails are also being targeted for closure. The BLM cited what has become an environmental extremist mantra for justifying land use limitations, stating the closures are necessary to conserve wildlife habitats, promote vegetation growth, and protect cultural sites.

An 1866 law known as R.S. 2477 allows Utah to build roads on federally managed lands for public use, and in 2012 Utah sued the Department of the Interior and BLM to settle the title question and adjudicate use of those roads. The case has been held up in court for the past dozen years, amounting to a middle finger salute to the state and citizens who ultimately own the federal land. This feels like yet another egregious overreach by our federal government.

Utah countered, claiming the roads are necessary to access state trust lands that generate revenue for public schools. BLM ignored the state’s requests to keep the roads open.

Utah Rep. Phil Lyman and gubernatorial candidate recently said on X, formerly known as twitter:

“I oppose the radical environmentalist agenda to lock up our lands and shut down our historic roads, and we need to be doing everything we can as a state to oppose oppressive federal overreach.”

Utah maintains that continued federal ownership of unappropriated land deprives the state of rights, resources, opportunities and the ability to properly manage natural resources. The state cannot police, tax or build infrastructure on federally managed lands. Utah has also experienced BLM dereliction of its responsibilities regarding resource management, one example being the BLM’s failure to effectively control wildfires.

Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz said:

“Even if you believe that Washington bureaucrats should manage land from 2,000 miles away, you simply have to admit they have not done a very good job. The federal government consistently demonstrates their incompetence in properly managing our land.”

“It is obvious to all of us that the federal government has increasingly failed to keep our lands accessible and properly managed,” Utah Governor Spencer Cox said in a press conference. Cox was also critical of BLM’s livestock grazing policies, which he stated “are destroying the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers who preserve these lands…People who have no idea, no tie to the land, no tie to the history, no tie to our state, are making these decisions that are causing real harm.”

BLM’s New Public Land Rule Created to Destroy Productivity

In May 2024, in lockstep alignment with the globalist agenda to centralize federal ownership and control of land, BLM implemented a new Public Lands Rule that effectively makes nonuse, cleverly labeled “conservation,” of lands an official “use.” Perhaps only a federal agency of the U.S. government could reinvent the defini-

tion of nonuse as a “use.” The intent is to eliminate the productive use of BLM-managed lands, even though these lands produce a significant amount of natural resources the nation relies on, including food and fuel. The rule defies BLM’s own founding principles. The agency’s website states its mission is to “sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

Actions BLM is taking prevent “we the people” from access to lands ultimately owned by “we the people.”

The Federal Lands Management and Policy Act (FLPMA) of 1976 mandates that BLM lands be managed for “sustained yield,” which has been defined as “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use.” BLM is defying its own reason for being!

Redge Johnson is the Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office Executive Director. Johnson says that if the state prevails in the lawsuit, it would manage former BLM lands to retain their productivity, including grazing, mining, energy development and recreation, via Utah’s Department of Land Management. However, it’s important to understand state management of the lands would not exclude conservation measures, but would instead take a truly balanced approach, unlike the BLM approach of denying public access to public lands.

Governor Cox stated:

“The BLM has increasingly failed to keep these lands accessible and appears to be pursuing a course of active closure and restriction. It is time for all Utahns to stand for our land.”

Utah Control of Land Would Eliminate Environmental Extremists’ Revenue

Predictably, there has been an outcry about the lawsuit from environmental extremist groups that outwardly complain landscapes won’t be protected and sensitive species would be at risk, and Utah would sell land to “greedy developers.” The most beautiful, diverse, and culturally significant lands in Utah are already preserved in various ways. As Utah media personality, Lincoln Brown wrote: “There are parts of Utah that are breathtaking, places in this state that stand as testimony to the artistic hand of God. By contrast, some places are about as picturesque as the average litter box and could be put to good use.”

The environmental extremist outcry is most likely because the removal of federal control over land would eliminate a major source of revenue for activist groups: the “sue and settle” racket. Environmental extremist groups routinely sue land management agencies over proposed projects or changes in land use, often claiming proper environmental impact statements haven’t been completed. When the cases go to court, land management agencies typically offer to settle, resulting in the project in question being halted or delayed, with environmental extremist groups receiving federal taxpayer-funded

settlements in the process. Ironically, while environmental extremist groups make loud rants about the use of federally managed land for livestock grazing, mining, and petroleum extraction, there has been relatively little complaint about the installation of so-called green energy infrastructure on those lands, including questionably “renewable” wind and solar energy projects.

Utah Victory Would Be a Multi-Faceted Win

If the Supreme Court rules in Utah’s favor, it would be a major victory for states’ rights, national food and energy security, and set an important precedent in the fight against environmental extremists, federal government overreach, and globalists’ desires.

Utah Attorney General, Sean D. Reyes, said:

“The Framers of the (U.S.) Constitution carefully limited federal power to hold land within states. Current federal land policy violates state sovereignty

and offends the original and most fundamental notions of federalism.”

Our land’s natural resources, both renewable and nonrenewable, are vital to our security and prosperity. Throughout the West, federally managed lands accommodate thousands of leases for gas, oil, coal, renewable energy, minerals, and helium. BLM oversees grazing on 155 million acres, with around 18,000 permits where livestock sustainably use non-arable lands to produce food for humans, preserve the natural environment, and promote biodiversity. About 40 percent of the nation’s beef cattle spend time on public lands, as do 50 percent of the nation’s sheep herds.

The United States has been called “the land of plenty.” If successful, Utah’s lawsuit against the BLM will be a vital step in maintaining that claim. Protect The Harvest promotes and defends A Free and Fed America™.

Share the Spark Project Boosts Wildfire Prevention that Targets Invasive Grasses

BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS

Wildfires in western states have increased tremendously in number, size and devastation in recent decades, impacting ranchers and private property, wildlife and ecosystems, rural communities, western economy and human health and safety. Efforts to prevent and control wildfires have also increased but are often scattered and independent. Today there is more realization that combined efforts can be more effective, and there are more opportunities for funding some of these efforts.

Justin Hossfeld was a rancher all his life, managing ranches in Montana, Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. When he retired from ranching in 2019 he and his son started an ag engineering and resources company called Out West. This company is still

going, but in 2020 Justin also joined Envu as a national sales manager for range and pasture. Envu is an environmental science company focused on providing solutions to rangeland management issues related to invasive weeds.

“Fire frequency has increased dramatically, largely driven by invasive annual grasses including cheat grass, ventenata, and medusa head. They grow their footprint by about 14 to 15 percent per year. Year after year, across thousands of acres, we’ve lost a lot of ground to these annual grasses and often their presence has increased to the point where they allow a fire to become much larger,”

Justin says.

“Knowing this, the federal government has come up with grant money to try to help control fires, but now we also have wildlife groups like Rocky

Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, the Audubon Society and other NGOs (non-government organizations) collaborating on funding to prevent fires,” he says. Today there is grant money available for this purpose that’s not just through NRCS and other government agency funding opportunities.

“The US Forest Service has a Wildlands Fire grant program in which a person can apply for a grant, but now we also have some NGOs that have witnessed the degradation of ecosystems and wildlife habitat, especially for sage grouse and other ground-nesting birds. As the habitat is declining, the fire risk is increasing, so these groups are starting to put money out there to help fight fires,” he says.

This can be a many-pronged attack; there are several ways to reduce fire risk including use of herbicides, strategic grazing at certain times of year, and formation of local groups of first-responder firefighters in rural areas. Many things can be done, if people are allowed to do them. In years past, some of these efforts were not allowed

strategies that are available. We want to help them achieve their restoration or fire mitigation goals,” says Marymor.

Wildfire is currently an important topic; there are many fires burning in the West right now. “Oregon and Washington have some major fires. Here in Colorado we have some fires in the wildland-urban interface; these fires are very close to towns or in high-density housing areas.” The increasing danger has heightened general awareness of the need for wildfire reduction.

“Unfortunately, wildfires are only at the top of people’s mind when they start happening, but the best time for land managers to think about wildfires is before they happen, ideally, years before a fire comes through. For people that live and work in forested landscapes, that means thinking about not just thinning trees

with invasive annual grasses like cheatgrass, ventenata and Medusahead which are not native to North America and are a novel fuel source on the landscape. Our western U.S. rangelands are not adapted to these annual grasses,” says Marymor.

These foreign plants were brought with settlers from other continents, as seeds stuck in clothing or the wool of imported sheep, etc. in the late 1700s through the 1800s and were spread primarily through contaminated hay, crop, seed and packing materials.

“ There were fewer trees on the landscape because the fires were more frequent but also less devastating.”

on public land or in wildlife preserves.

“This is another exciting thing today; there’s been a lot more movement by the BLM, the Department of Defense, the US Forest Service, etc. to start doing some fire mitigation on their properties, which are all intermixed with private land. They are now more receptive to allow us to join them as a partner to treat their land and our land and create collaborative countermeasures to prevent fires,” Justin says.

Noe Marymor is the Education Outreach and Grants Coordinator for Envu Range & Pasture. “My background is in wildlife and range management. My role at Envu is to work with anyone and everyone interested in doing rangeland restoration and fire mitigation work, especially as it relates to problems with invasive annual grasses.

“I work with conservation districts, counties, state game and fish agencies, and federal agencies to help them understand the invasive annual grasses and the different management

but also implementing true forest health restoration,” she says.

When we look at how wildfire in the southern Rockies functioned 200 to 300 years ago, there were fewer trees on the landscape because the fires were more frequent but also less devastating. We need to try to match our forestry treatments to historically what would have been on these sites. We are never going to prevent all wildfires, but if a fire is lower intensity when it comes through, it is more easily controlled and firefighters can get to it. Good forestry management is the key. Our western rangelands, especially west of the Rocky Mountains, were always dominated by bunchgrasses; those ecosystems are designed to have a lot of open space (a little bare ground between those plants, rather than a thick mass of annual grasses). Thus when a fire went through, it burned at low intensity.

“A lot of the fires happening now are vastly different from those historic wildfires due to the changing landscape. I work

Over time, these invasive grasses have spread across the west, providing a continuous fine fuel that drives more intense flames.

“They grow so tightly together that there is no bare ground to slow down a fire before it gets to the next plant. The whole area bursts into flame, like when you ignite a piece of tissue paper.

In this situation we get fires that burn hotter and faster. With that heat, they end up killing a lot of the native grasses and sagebrush,” she says.

This eventually converts a productive native rangeland— which is our best wildlife habitat and grazing land—into nothing but cheat grass. The fire burns so hot that it kills everything else.

“We can use grazing in many ways to reduce fine fuels and the seeds of annual grasses, but grazing is often limited to how many acres you can impact at the proper time,” Justin says. By utilizing grazing when possible, however, we can increase the efficacy of herbicides, which could lead to using less herbicide, and with better outcome. Grazing can be an excellent complement to herbicide treatment. Grazing off the thick mat of annual grasses prior to use of herbicide opens it up and allows the herbicide to have better contact with the soil; it can be more effective in preventing germination of those annual grass seeds.

“Grazing some of the areas that were earlier off-limits to grazing or to having cattle on them at that time of year can be beneficial for the cattle and for the stockman. If the federal agencies or a wildlife preserve will allow grazing to reduce the fuels and cheat grass seedbank, this really helps.

“The annual plants grow every year, set seed, then the old plants become a mat on the ground and protect the new young plants the next spring. This mat of dead material becomes a miniature greenhouse for the seedlings to come up into, but also acts as connective fuel to carry a fire,” Justin says.

We need some ways to take the annual grasses out of the picture and get native bunchgrasses back. “This battle needs to be very strategic. This is where collaborations between the federal government, local governments, the ranching communities and a lot of these NGOs can come together. We can cooperatively look at areas where we want to save landscapes from further infestations and creeping in of annual grasses,” he says.

“If we can strategically remove annual grasses and fire

Hall Ranch Aerial

risk over time, it will help. In earlier years there has been a lot of effort to do this, but these efforts were not coordinated. A lot of money and a lot of effort has been expended but it maybe wasn’t done in a strategic enough manner to stop the ever-increasing risks.” It has not been as effective across the board as it could have been.

“This is what we are trying to get people aware of, especially with our Share the Spark campaign,” Marymor says.

“ing livestock.”

And the biggest benefit— when it comes to wildfire mitigation—is that the native perennial grasses are not as tinder-dry and flammable, and grow in bunches with more bare ground in between them. If a fire does start, it doesn’t burn nearly as hot because there is more moisture in the plants.

Grazing can be an excellent complement to herbicide treatment.”

Share the Spark was launched by Envu in 2023 to drive awareness about effective wildfire prevention measures and the grants available to ranchers, land managers and county weed coordinators to help fund these initiatives. “Despite the availability of significant grants to help fund wildfire prevention solutions, many potential applicants are unaware of these opportunities or are deterred by the lengthy application process.

We want to help connect the people in charge of wildfire mitigation with the funding to do it properly, as well as educate ranchers and land managers about the tools and technologies that can be used on a large scale to reduce the risk of uncontrollable wildfires.”

Some of the strategies for reducing wind-driven grass fires include the use of herbicides to control annual grasses. “For example, Rejuvra ® herbicide contains a new mode of action that is able to deplete the cheat grass seed bank,” Marymor explains.

It keeps the seed from germinating, for about four years. Most herbicides have a temporary benefit and must be repeated each year, but Rejuvra has a much longer residual effect. Research at Colorado State University, published in 2017, tested the field longevity of cheat grass seed and found that it is actually only viable for three to four years.

“So if you can use a herbicide treatment that will get you into that fourth year with no new seed production, you can have long-term control and start to make a big difference.”

Marymor says that Envu provides support to make sure herbicide applicators have all the ecological and technical knowledge they need to be successful, in addition to offering grant access support through Share the Spark.

“I cover the western U.S. and enjoy traveling around and visiting with some fantastic partners. I can help them develop funding sources to enable them to implement their invasive annual grass control programs, so I do a lot of grant writing and grant management with those partners,” she says.

“Additionally, we like to visit with landowners about the grazing opportunities after these treatments. We typically see a two-to-three times increase in growth in the native perennial vegetation because the cheat grass is no longer there to take up all the soil moisture and nutrients,” she says. “The native perennials also stay green much longer in the season than the cheat grass does. This leaves more perennial forage on the landscape for wildlife and graz-

“The invasive annual grasses are parasites on our western rangelands, so if we have the tools to stop them it’s a no-brainer to go after them,” says Marymor.

The cheat grass landscape and frequent hot fires destroy wildlife habitat as well as the wildlife. Fire is the biggest danger for sage grouse survival, for instance, destroying their habitat. There is also attention now on maintaining migration path-

ways for mule deer and pronghorn—making sure they have high-quality winter range so they can survive the winter.

There is currently a lot of attention from wildlife groups (and wildlife refuges) on using cheat grass control to help bring back damaged wildlife habitat. In earlier years some of the wildlife groups and preserves, in naïve attempts to protect wild-

life, banned the use of grazing or herbicides in the areas they managed but now most of them realize that these tools, used properly, can be very beneficial.

“We want to educate people and help them find solutions to reduce the threat of wildfires. We will never be able to prevent lightning strikes that spark fires, but we can spark a change for good that helps restore the

native landscape and relegates wildfires back to the type of natural event that we can safely live with.”

The Share the Spark website serves as a comprehensive resource for grant information and application process guidance. “The website provides links to granting agencies, application process tips and news that can help you find and ap-

It is not a breed… it is a type… a kind of female that makes the right kind of cow. Selling females from herds with maternally focused genetics, that are range raised, and developed to make long lasting, functional range cows.

Sell ing: Red Angus, Black Angus, Black Baldies, & Red Baldies

Jason & Kim Cullen Goertz 307-331-2917

kcullen@wyoming.com

y 6, 2025

Stone Temple Rock

ply for grants that keep your community safer from wildfires. Land management practitioners are also invited to register for a free upcoming webinar on August 20, called Increasing the Success of Invasive Annual Grass Restoration Projects.”

There are now thousands of people and projects around the West involved in the effort to reduce or eliminate devastating wildfires. Justin says it takes a major commitment to go out and identify the acres that need attention and then round up all the stakeholders (private property owners, federal agencies, wildlife groups, etc.) that it takes, to get this done. “Then the grant application must be written in such a way that the people who are going to fund it can see that it’s a meaningful project to fund,” he says.

“What we typically see is one

Stone Temple Rock

person becomes very motivated to do this, and then gets out there and looks at the process it takes to do it, and becomes overwhelmed and then they don’t do it or don’t continue to follow it through. To get an effective project going, you need to have someone who is very good at the legal side, writing the grant, doing all the paperwork, etc.

“You need to have a partner who can handle bringing in the herbicides, lining up the grazing, and the applications, and working with all the other supporting entities that may need to be included,” Justin says.

“Then you need other collaborators so you can communicate to the local community and all the landowners to show them the value of it. It takes 4 to 6 people to get a successful and meaningful wildfire grant, and

not many people understand the number of stakeholders and amount of effort it takes, to do it. It’s a very worthwhile effort, but it takes a good team to get it accomplished,” he says.

“I always tell people in my speaking engagements that if they want to do this, they need to be talking to people. You need to talk to your local county commissioners, your county weed coordinators, and then find someone who understands how to write a grant and write it correctly. You need to talk to your local cattle growers’ associations or maybe an NRCS person to communicate to all the landowners in the area, to get that collaborative engagement,” he explains.

This includes some of the local RFPAs (Rangeland Fire Protection Associations) in western states. “We are now working

with the RFPA in Jordan Valley--on the Oregon, Idaho and Nevada borders. We worked with Eric Morrison, Jordan Valley Cooperative Weed Management Area Coordinator. He went to the BLM Fire Department and the local RFPA and got them together, and they pulled in all the people necessary, and now that project is about to start up on about 6000 acres this year,” Justin says.

“When there is an RFPA in an area, or you have the right person talking about the need, you can get a much better buy-in and more credibility with the local people when you try to do this. This is one of the keys to networking and getting grant money; make sure the people who will be affected by the project are being contacted by someone they understand and respect. When you have this, you have more credibility and much better support and participation.”

A grant has more chance of being funded when someone can show it has a great amount of benefit. “When you loop in the ranching community, the wildlife community, your local towns and cities, and protecting society and the local economy, and can write a grant that shows you are preserving and protecting things for multiple stakeholders, the people who award that grant money are much more likely to approve it. The people who are sitting on millions of dollars for possible grants are being bombarded by thousands of applicants.

“They tend to pick the ones that will have the most benefit, across the widest demographic. If it was just helping ranchers, it would be meaningful, but if you can show it would help the ranchers, the local community, the wildlife and the watershed, it would have more chance of success—if it can do all of those things.” ▫

The First AI-Powered Tool for Deed Plotting

Acres.com, the land intelligence platform, introduces DeedAI, the first AI-powered tool designed to automatically plot deeds with accuracy and speed. This firstof-its-kind tool eliminates the complexities of manually mapping legal descriptions in a metes and bounds format, empowering Acres Enterprise users to seamlessly map calls, curves, and distances with just a few clicks.

“DeedAI allows anyone— from land professionals to first-time users—to quickly convert confusing legal descriptions into fully mapped boundaries, without the usual headaches and time. This feature aims to further streamline how land transactions and analysis are handled for Acres’ customers, enhancing efficiency and accuracy across the board,” said Carter Malloy, Founder and CEO of Acres.

DeedAI is part of Acres’ Enterprise suite of advanced

mapping and land intelligence tools, which continue to push the boundaries of innovation in the land sector. By leveraging AI technology, the platform simplifies a process that has traditionally been cumbersome and time-consuming.

How DeedAI Works DeedAI allows users to plot deeds either manually or with AI assistance. With the AI autofill feature, users can paste the text from a deed into the platform, and DeedAI will automatically plot points based on the legal description. Users can also manually input calls, adjust curves, and calculate distances, with the option to close shapes automatically or export results as KML files or comprehensive PDF deed reports. In just a few steps, users can convert complex legal descriptions into accurate, fully mapped boundaries—saving time and reducing the risk of human error. To learn more, visit get.acres.com/deedai

USFWS Proposes Endangered Species Protections for Both Subspecies of the Regal Fritillary Butterfly

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced a proposal to list both subspecies of the regal fritillary, a large butterfly, under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Based on

change and drought exacerbate threats to its rare habitat. Changes in temperature and moisture could impact bloom times and the overall productivity of native violet species, which the eastern regal fritillary’s cat-

erpillars need to survive.

Despite the loss of grassland habitats across the rest of its native range, the eastern regal fritillary has persisted thanks to proactive efforts at Fort Indiantown Gap. The installation has successfully maintained the last population of the eastern regal fritillary in the world through land management and conservation, including prescribed burning, mowing, population surveys, and propagation.

a review of the best available science, the Service is proposing to list the eastern regal fritillary (Argynnis idalia idalia) as endangered, and the western regal fritillary (Argynnis idalia occidentalis) as threatened with an accompanying 4(d) rule. The proposed rule is now available in the Reading Room for public inspection and will be posted in the Federal Register tomorrow, opening a 60-day public period through October 7, 2024. This recommendation is informed by an independently peer-reviewed Species Status Assessment.

This Species Status Assessment (SSA) report provides the best available biological information and commercial data to inform the Service’s decisions for the regal fritillary under the Endangered Species Act, including classification determinations for the subspecies and any other actions, as needed. The SSA will be updated as needed. This version incorporates the most recent data available.

Once found from New Brunswick to North Carolina, the eastern regal fritillary is now limited to a single location at the Fort Indiantown Gap National Guard installation in Annville, Pennsylvania. The western regal fritillary is found in 14 states in the native grasslands of the central and northern Great Plains and portions of the Midwest (Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming). Both subspecies need violets to support larval growth, nectar sources that sustain breeding females into the fall, and native grasslands with tall vegetation that provide shelter for all life stages.

The eastern subspecies is in danger of extinction throughout its range. Because it is limited to a single location in the eastern U.S., where the National Guard has actively managed its only remaining grassland habitat, individual butterflies cannot disperse to other sites if this habitat is lost or degraded. The ongoing effects of climate

In collaboration with the Service, Fort Indian-

didate Conservation Agreement (CCA) to formalize its commitment to conserve the eastern regal fritillary. The agreement, finalized in February 2024, will be appended to the installation’s Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, which identifies key natural resources and the actions needed to manage them.

In May 2024, the Service, Fort Indiantown Gap, and Temple University received more than $1 million from the Department of the Army to help implement the actions identified in the CCA, including managing habitat, developing a long-term monitoring protocol for the existing population, and establishing a new population in collaboration with the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

The status assessment found the western subspecies is not in immediate danger of extinction but is likely to be in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future due to these primary threats: habitat loss, grassland conversion resulting from agricultural and urban development, pesticide use, invasive plants, climate change, drought,

local climate events, and collection to mention some.

In addition, the Service is proposing an accompanying 4(d) rule for the western subspecies under the ESA to allow for tailored landscape management actions to balance conservation and land management considerations. The proposed rule recognizes the vital role of grazing practices in maintaining grassland ecosystems. As a result, the proposed 4(d) for the western regal fritillary would exempt most activities associated with livestock grazing from incidental take, so ranchers would not need approval from the Service to continue those activities. For a complete list of those exemptions, please see the 4(d) rule.

How to submit comments

Comments on the proposal may be submitted during the 60-day public comment period, August 6 through October 7, 2024, through one of the following methods: Online at regulations.gov, Docket No, FWSR6-ES-2023-0182 By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6ES-2023-0182, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. ▫

cowboy

town Gap has developed a Can-

Speyeria_idalia

AUCTION MARKETS

Harvard Study Finds Wind Turbines Will Cause More Warming In Minnesota Than Emissions Reductions Would Avert

BY ISAAC ORR

A2018 study conducted by scientists from Harvard, published in the academic journal Joule, found that wind turbines cause significant local increases in surface temperatures in the areas where they are located. Wind turbines cause local temperature increases at the surface of the earth by causing air to mix throughout portions of the atmosphere, and Minnesota would be one of the states impacted most by this phenomenon.

Warming Wind Turbines

According to the study, wind turbines measuring between 100 and 150 meters (328ft to 498 ft) operating at night can pull down warmer air from as far as 1,640 feet in the air down to the surface, warming the surface of the earth, where it would impact the people, plants, and animals living near the turbines.

The study looks at what would happen if the United States tried to obtain all of its energy from wind turbines. It found the mixing of warmer air and cooler air results in a temperature increase of 0.54 degrees Celsius (0.97 degrees F) in the areas where the wind turbines would be located, as you can see in the figure below from the study. The amount of warming experienced in some regions would be even greater, as Southwestern Minnesota could see a temperature increase of 0.6-0.8 degrees C due to wind turbines, while Northeastern Minnesota would see an increase of 0.3-0.5 degrees C.

Most of the warming would occur at night, according to the study:

“The wind farm region experiences warmer average temperatures (Figure 1A),

with about twice the warming effect at night compared with during the day (Figures 1B and 1C). Warming was generally stronger nearer to the center of the wind farm region.”

All Energy Sources Have Impacts

This study is interesting because it acknowledges that all energy sources, whether they be coal, natural gas, wind or solar have environmental impacts. It seems to be one of the few studies that attempts to evaluate the costs of wind turbines, along with their supposed benefits, and use this cost/benefit to figure out which sources of energy have the fewest environmental impacts. The authors claim this will be important when discussing which carbon-free sources of electricity will be used in the future, but I believe it informs our current energy decisions,. According to the study:

“The climatic impacts differ in (at least) two important dimensions. First, the direct climatic impact of wind power is immediate but would disappear if the turbines were removed, while the climatic benefits of reducing emissions grows with the cumulative reduction in emissions and persists for millennia. Second, the direct climatic impacts of wind power are predominantly local to the wind farm region, while the benefits of reduced emissions are global.”

In other words, the warming impact of wind turbines is immediate, and highly localized in the areas that are the “hosts” to the installations. The supposed benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions are global, not local. This means places like Minnesota will see an increase

in temperature from wind turbines that exceeds amount of potential future global warming that would be averted from completely reducing Minnesota’s greenhouse gas emissions to zero.

Minnesota Emissions Reductions

According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota emitted about 150 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2016. Using the same logic used by the Obama Administration to craft the Clean Power Plan, if we completely eliminated all of these emissions to zero, it would avert only 0.004 degrees C by 2100, which is an amount far too small to measure!

In fact, the amount of global warming averted (0.004 degrees C) would be 138 times smaller than the warming Minnesota would incur from building out wind turbines to power all of our electricity use (0.54 degrees C), as you can see in Figure 5(d) from the study below. The orange dotted line shows surface temperature increases in the areas with wind turbines, and the orange solid line shows the temperature impact of wind turbines on the entire continental United States. The blue and grey shaded areas show the differences in surface temperatures in the United States from reducing our national emissions.

As you can see, surface temperatures in the United States increase more due to wind turbines mixing air in the atmosphere than would be offset by reducing emissions. This is especially true in areas like Minnesota, where the wind turbines would be operating.

The only time that reduced emissions might impact surface

temperatures more than the wind turbines, themselves, is if the entire world reduces their carbon dioxide emissions, but if you believe China will actually reduce their emissions, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Conclusion

In light of this study, it makes zero sense to build wind in Minnesota if our Governor truly wants to “make sure there is still ice on that lake in January,” because surface temperatures will

increase much more from the wind turbines than they would fall by reducing emissions. A note to the Governor, increasing surface temperatures would reduce the amount of ice on that lake in January.

Center of the American Experiment has been one of the leading organizations advocating for Minnesota to repeal its antiquated ban on new nuclear power plants. We have also been some of the strongest supporters of allowing hydroelectric power that we already

New HPAI Cases Emerge as Migration Challenge Looms

BY CHRIS SCOTT / MEATINGPLACE.COM

Animal health officials in the United States are confirming new outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in both dairy cows and birds, amid the imminent annual migrations of wild bird species to winter habitats.

USDA’s Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS) confirmed an HPAI outbreak at a commercial turkey farm in Merced County, Calif., that affected 62,800 birds as of Sept. 18. The last confirmed HPAI outbreak in the Golden State was reported by APHIS in mid-January in an expansion of HPAI infections that the agency began registering in February 2022.

APHIS also reported six more outbreaks of H5N1 in dairy cows last week in California, raising the state’s

confirmed total to 16 herds since the middle of August, the agency announced. The nationwide total of dairy farm outbreaks currently stands at 214 across 14 states since January, according to USDA. Meanwhile, the number of new HPAI cases in poultry in Canada is holding at zero since a confirmed outbreak in Alberta on Feb. 19, 2024, according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). That outbreak involved nearly 4,000 commercial birds, including laying hens, pheasants and partridges that were part of a commercial hunting operation, according to the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH).

Only one control zone currently is in place across Canada at a non-commercial backyard operation in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, the agency noted. ▫

purchase from Canada to count toward our renewable energy mandates.

If Governor Walz and liberal legislators worry about the impact of global warming on Minnesota, then they need to own up to the fact that the surface temperature impacts of wind turbines mixing air in the atmosphere will far outweigh the amount of warming that would be averted from reducing emissions and seek to legalize new nuclear, large hydro, and promote carbon capture and

sequestration technologies that provide reliable electricity without carbon dioxide emissions.

In the spirit of full fairness, it should be noted that the findings of this study are based on General Circulation Models (GMS), which overestimate the amount of global warming that is observed with weather balloons and satellites by a factor of two, so the results of this study may well be as legitimate as Governor Walz’s COVID-19 models.

However, it should be noted

that all of the policies renewable energy specialist interest groups try to pass in Minnesota to avert climate change are also based on GCM’s, so it is highly inconsistent for them to trumpet GCM’s as gospel in one instance (when it promotes something they like), and completely ignore them in another (when their findings conflict with their policy preferences).

is a former Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment. ▫

Isaac Orr

Advertise in the

Contact Randy Summers

ADVERTISING

REPRESENTATIVE

Office: 505/243-9515 Cell: 505/850-8544

rjsauctioneer@aol.com

Spring 2025 Student Internships Available Through TX & SW Cattle Raisers Association

Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, the largest and oldest livestock association in the Southwest, announced applications are now open for the spring 2025 internship programs.

These unique internship programs provide students with opportunities to work alongside Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association staff and industry leaders. Students will expand their professional network and learn and grow from staff across administration, communications and marketing, education and events departments.

Spring 2025 opportunities include:

TSCRA Internship: Semester-long internship in Fort Worth offers a variety of opportunities in administration, communications, education, events, membership and more. Interns will gain firsthand experience in the day-to-day functions of the association and get a behind-the-scenes look at hosting the 2025 Cattle Raisers Convention & Expo, the largest agricultural event in the Southwest.

TSCRA Government Relations Internship: Semester-long internship in Austin during the 89th Legislative Session focusing on federal and state policy-related issues, including private property rights, natural resources, animal health and more.

Nebraska to Launch “Full-Blown Attack” on Cultivated Meat In 2025

BY CHRIS SCOTT / MEATINGPLACE.COM

Nebraska is poised to become the fourth U.S. state to formally institute laws that restrict the sale of cultivated meat, now that Gov. Jim Pillen has signed an executive order prohibiting state agencies and contractors from buying cultivated meat products starting in 2025.

Pillen is working with the Nebraska Department of Agriculture (NDA) to develop new guidelines to “protect the state’s agriculture industry as well as consumers, from lab-grown meat,” he announced in a speech last week before beef producers in West Point, Nebraska.

“Nebraska farmers and ranchers, like those here today, are committed to producing the best food products anywhere,” he noted as part of the announcement.

Pillen also is calling on the NDA to begin developing a rulemaking process to ensure that any cultivated meat products sold in stores in Nebraska are “properly labeled and are not marketed next to natural meat on the same shelves.” Plans also call for the Nebraska state legislature to begin drafting a law to ban lab-grown meat in the Cornhusker State that could go into effect next year, the announcement said. A public hearing on the draft regulations is scheduled for Oct. 8, NDA Director Sherry Vinton said in the announcement from Pillen.

Florida became the first state to enact a cultivated meat ban criminalizing the manufacture and sale of cell-cultured meat that went into effect July 1 and prompted an outcry from investors in biotech and food companies, in addition to sparking a lawsuit by alternative protein company Upside Foods. Similar legislation was introduced In Alabama and Ohio soon after the initial move on cultivated meat by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in May. ▫

Surging Russian Plywood Imports, Shuttered U.S. Sawmills, and the Cost of Inaction

BY NICK SMITH / HEALTHY FORESTS HEALTHY COMMUNITIES

Two-and-a-half years after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, you may be surprised to learn that manufactured wood products constitute over 50% of the trade between the United States and Russia in 2024.

As American sawmills in the West close their doors, Russian plywood imports are surging into U.S. markets. According to Wood Central, Russian plywood imports have jumped 53 percent in recent months.

While the United States struggles with a national wildfire and smoke crisis, Russia has become one of the primary suppliers of socalled “Blood Timber.” This influx of Russian timber is occurring despite sanctions on many Russian exports due to the Ukraine war. Environmental and trade experts warn that American reliance on Russian timber may inadvertently support Russia’s ongoing conflict.

Here at home, decades of anti-forestry obstruction and environmental litigation have delayed responsible forestry practices, leaving U.S. forests vulnerable to wildfires. As a result, wildfires are becoming more frequent and severe, decimating landscapes, destroying homes, and polluting the air across the West. With millions of acres burning each year, the impact on communities is devastating.

Proactive and science-based forest management can help reduce these risks, while providing wood fiber to make things we use everyday.

The consequences are clear: while America fails to manage its forests, wildfires rage, sawmills close, and foreign entities profit. If current trends continue, communities will remain at risk, forests will burn, and American jobs will be lost— all while Russian oligarchs continue to benefit from the U.S. plywood trade.

Now is the time to push for responsible forest management policies, revitalize domestic timber production, and reduce reliance on foreign imports to protect both American jobs and our environment. ▫

This Is What Happens When the Government Owns the Land

Burnt to a Crisp – Thanks Washington

SOURCE: COMMITTEE

TOUNLEASHPROSPERITY.COM

One of the hallmarks of America’s economic success has been the private ownership of the land. Think of the Oklahomans-to-be racing their stagecoaches across the wilderness to stake their claims. Whoever got there first took ownership of the property – with the ones allegedly jumping the gun called “sooners.”

Roughly half of the land west of the Mississippi in the year 2024 is still owned by the government. Much of it is forest.

Our friend Amos Enos of Landcan.org, one of the nation’s leading land conservation groups, has analyzed how the government is horrifically managing these vast tracts of land:

Federal lands are in a crisis. Twelve of 15 million acres of our federal forests in California in the majestic Sierras have been burnt to a crisp and the culprit is not so much the media touted global warming, but the environmental movement and the Clinton Forest plan held steadfast by his successors. We confront 50 years of built up fuel loads in federal forests that our Native American predecessors burnt every year for 5 millennia, so instead of grassland forest floors, we now have kindling half the height of our Ponderosas…

Environmental litigants prevent any forest management, the result is an environmental travesty. Federal strategies have been demonstratively ineffective not only on forest fire management but also endangered species recovery. USFWS has only recovered (3%) of the thousands of listed endangered species.

Ironically, the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on federal land purchases and “tree planting programs.” For every tree planted, these fires have burned at least 10 to the ground.

Forest fires are a MAJOR emitter of greenhouse gasses. For a fraction of the cost of the Green New Deal we could save the planet by letting private owners manage the lands. Want to reduce the debt? Let’s start selling millions of acres of federal lands. ▫

Better Meat Lands $1.4M from DoD

BY LISA M. KEEFE /

The Better Meat Co. is one of seven companies recently awarded U.S. Department of Defense grants under the government’s Distributed Bioindustrial Manufacturing Program, and the only one addressing a protein component to the federal government’s stated goal of building a “safe and secure American bioeconomy,” the company said in a release.

The grant, for $1.4 million, will be used to increase the volume production of Sacramento, Calif.-based Better Meat’s Rhiza mycoprotein, an all-natural, shelf-stable protein source, free of common allergens, for use in a wide variety of food applications.

Better Meat Co. recently received a “no questions” letter from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in response to its determination that its Rhiza mycoprotein is GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe).

“The United States will be greatly advantaged by taking a leadership role in biomanufacturing, especially when it comes to efficient, innovative methods of food production,” Better Meat Co. CEO Paul Shapiro said in the release.

Companies receiving other DoD grants announced at the same time include Battelle, Columbus, Ohio; Modular Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Genomatica, San Diego; Industrial Microbes, Alameda; ZymoChem, San Leandro; and Biosphere, Oakland, all in California. ▫

Manitoba Pork Concerned With U.S. Laws in Plea To Govt.

BY CHRIS MOORE / MEATINGPLACE.COM

Manitoba Pork is urging the federal government to defend Canadian agriculture amidst rising protectionism in international trade.

The company’s General Manager Cam Dahl expressed concern over increasing trade barriers, particularly with the U.S. with the renegotiation of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) looming.

Dahl highlighted California’s Proposition 12, which imposes animal welfare standards on pork sold in the state, including imports from Manitoba. “It’s fragmenting the integrated North American market,” he said, noting the costly burden on farmers who must meet varying standards in different U.S. states.

In addition, Dahl pointed to the U.S. reintroducing Country of Origin Labelling (COOL), which would discriminate against Canadian pork, particularly Manitoba’s three million annual isowean exports, valued at half a billion dollars. Dahl warned this could hurt farmers, jobs, and the economy, calling on the Canadian government to engage on these issues and the CUSMA renegotiation.

“We’re seeing a rise of ‘America First’ and protectionism from both sides of the political spectrum in the U.S.,” Dahl said. ▫

Florida and Alabama Ban Meat Manufactured from Animal Cells

BY JACLYN DE CANDIO FOR PROTECT THE HARVEST

Alternative, “cellbased,” meats concocted and grown in laboratories have ignited a political firestorm involving multimillion-dollar startups, global elite climate change crusaders, NGOs, farmers, ranchers, federal regulators, state legislatures, and governors. The latest cell-based “meat” laws, which are outright bans, involve the Florida and Alabama legislative bodies passing laws prohibiting the sale of these alternative “meat” products in their respective states. Governors in both states subsequently signed the legislation, making it state law.

The Alabama bill passed on May 7, 2024, and prohibits the manufacture, sale, or distribution of food products made

from cultured animal cells. This follows a similar Florida bill passed a week earlier. Of note, the official cattle advocacy associations of both states were strong supporters of these actions.

What’s lab-grown meat?

Cell-cultured “meat,” also called lab-grown “meat,” differs from any other “alternative protein” products previously sold. Unlike plant-based “meat” knockoffs like those manufactured by Impossible Foods, which deceptively advertises “Ground Beef Made From Plants,” cell-based “meats” are made by replicating cells taken from live animals. The stem cells replicate in steel vessels, usually nourished by fetal bovine serum taken from unborn calves.

Eventually, replicating cells form enough material to create something approximating “meat.” This technology is more than a decade old, with the first product for human consumption created in 2013 by a Dutch scientist.

As defined by the Congressional Research Service, this process involves producing meat cells in a lab from an initial sample of animal muscle cells that do not require animals to be slaughtered. In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the production of lab-grown meat.

Given the technology and energy required to grow enough “meat” to produce a single hamburger patty, the cost remains prohibitive for anyone other than those with extreme wealth.

The goal of those involved in developing these products is to eventually bring the price down through industrial-scale production at large manufacturing plants.

The war on lab-grown meat

At a recent press conference, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis made a statement addressing the state’s ban declaring, “We’re not going to do that fake meat. That doesn’t work.” He made it clear the pushback was focused on fighting globalism and promoting increased investment in local farmers and ranchers.

The decision was made, in part, as a response to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) commitment to mandating the implementation of cellular-based agriculture under the guise of addressing climate change.

WEF, together with the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations (UN), and numerous high-profile billionaire

elitists, advocates against animal agriculture’s alleged yet debunked adverse climate change impact.

The potential negative impact on agriculture, especially in states with a strong livestock economy such as Florida, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Montana and others, would be devastating. The authority to regulate lab-grown food is relatively new, with few long-term studies conducted.

Friends and foes of labgrown “meat” proteins

Between 2018 and 2022, nine states implemented standards requiring the identification and marking of lab-grown “meat.” The support for bans and restrictions is strong among the farming and ranching communities and their advocacy associations. There are other concerns the agriculture community points to including environmental impact, lack of regulations and food safety.

Cell-based startups UPSIDE Foods and Eat Just were the first to receive federal government approval to sell products to retailers and food service, although they do not have any for sale as of this writing. UPSIDE decided to fight back, creating a change.org petition asking consumers to tell their political leaders “to stop policing” their food choices.

The Meat Institute (formerly the North American Meat Institute or NAMI) reports that several inventors in the biotech space are already speaking out loudly against state bans as they argue it will hinder innovation. UPSIDE Foods receives support from Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Cargill, Tyson, USDA and others. Eat Just has numerous venture capital funders, including VegInvest/Ahimsa Foundation, which largely exists to replace the use of animals for food.

Standing strong

This debate won’t be disappearing anytime soon. It is estimated more than 150 companies are currently working on various cell-based “meat” products. Nevertheless, numerous states are supporting their animal agriculture businesses, the vast majority being family-owned, multigenerational, local operations. Going forward, evidence is mounting that cellbased “meats” are not the remedy for adverse climate claims, nor for affordable “meat” that could improve food security. The University of California at Davis published a study that suggests lab-grown meat generates a carbon footprint higher than traditional beef production.

At Protect The Harvest, we believe farmers and ranchers will continue fighting for A Free and Fed America™, and we will continue advocating for them. If Americans use Alabama and Florida as templates, resources used in pursuit of lab-grown “meat” may soon be available for use on truly important technologies that address an ever-growing need for increased, science-based, factbased, truthful, common sense, food production around the world.

Colorado Parks & Wildlife First Annual Report Does Not Include Livestock Depredations

BY MARIANNE GOODLAND MARIANNE.GOODLAND@COLORADOPOLITICS.COM

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has released the first annual report on reintroducing wolves into Summit and Grand counties last December.

The report covers April 1, 2023, more than eight months before the wolves were released in Colorado, through March 31, 2024.

It notably excludes any mention of the dozens of livestock killed by the wolves in the two counties, claiming the timeline for the report didn’t fall within the “biological year” as defined by CPW.

However, CPW’s decision to use April 2023 to March 2024 as a “biological year” appears to be a matter of choice. Other states—notably Oregon, Montana, Washington, Wyoming, Arizona, and New Mexico— base their annual reports on a calendar year. In the past, Idaho has based its report on a biological year that runs from May 1 to April 30, a nod to the reproductive cycle of wolves. However, Idaho hasn’t produced an annual report since 2016.

By ending the “biological year” on March 31, the CPW report excluded any mention of wolves killing livestock, primarily in Grand County. However, wolves that migrated from Wyoming have been killing livestock in Jackson County for the past four years.

On April 2, the first livestock depredations occurred from the wolves that moved to Grand County from Oregon last December.

Grand County Commissioner and rancher Merrit Linke believes the decision to end the biological year on March 31 is deliberate. He told Colorado Politics this week that he thinks the “biological year” end date was chosen to avoid any discussion of the killing of livestock in his county.

Almost all Oregon wolves that came to Colorado last December came from packs with a history of depredations before coming to Colorado, including during CPW’s self-defined “biological year” of April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024.

According to the state of Oregon’s depredation report, five wolves, including two identified by CPW as 2309-OR and 2312-OR, came from Wallowa County, where there was a history of livestock attacks in 2023. In some cases, however, the department could not say what had attacked the livestock.

The two wolves, known as 2309-OR and 2312-OR, are believed to be the mating pair that has produced three pups and are responsible for the killing of at least nine sheep and seven cattle in Grand County.

The pair has been dubbed “Bonnie and Clyde” by area ranchers.

Among the wolves brought to Colorado, at least two from the Five Points pack were based in Umatilla and Union counties. The pack had as many as 12 adults and pups born in April 2023. Four of the Five Points wolves were lethally managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service after the wolves were determined to be chronically depredating.

Another wolf came from Grant County, where three separate wolf packs attacked livestock at least 10 times a week before the wolves were brought to Colorado.

The CPW report does not mention that the wolves that came from Oregon came from several packs with a history of depredation, nor does it mention the promise made by the CPW Director on Sept. 12, 2023, in a legislative hearing at the state Capitol that they would do everything possible not to bring “problem” wolves to Colorado.

The report also doesn’t mention CPW’s communications failures when the wolves were released last December. This includes failing to notify elected officials in the counties where the wolves were released or livestock producers in those counties where wolves were in the area.

That led to months of criticism at the state Capitol by lawmakers and devastating impacts on relationships between livestock producers, landowners, and CPW staff.

Travis Duncan of CPW told Colorado Politics this week the agency had been planning and designing the report for many months, “and the pace of depredations did not affect the agency’s decision. Wolves are born in April, making this a good marker for reporting on their success in Colorado,” he said.

As to why the report omitted any mention of the communications failures or complaints by lawmakers, Duncan said, “The report is an account of CPW’s efforts during the wolf biological year and not a play-by-play of reactions from lawmakers and the media to agency decisions.”

The 12-page report discusses the wolf status, management, monitoring and research, and education and outreach.

The “translocation” criteria dictated that wolves brought to Colorado had to be wolves had to between one and five years old, not to be breeding males or females, and “had to not be from a currently chronically depredating pack...None of the wolves that were captured were deemed to be unsuitable for translocation,” the report said.

It did not cite any information from Oregon on the history of depredation.

The report noted that between April 1, 2023, and March 31, 2024, CPW helped put out 7.25 miles of fladry, a rope mounted along the top of a fence, which includes strips of fabric or colored flags that will flap in a breeze. However, ranchers noted that fencing means wildlife can’t move through the area. The five locations with the fladry were all in Jackson County, where ranchers have lost more than two dozen cattle, sheep, and working dogs to wolves that migrated into Jackson County from Wyoming. Ranchers, including Don Gittleson of Walden, who has lost seven cattle and working dogs to wolves, say the non-lethal deterrents proposed by CPW don’t work.

CPW’s report claimed 200 pairs of cattle were protected in

the five locations that used fladry in 2023.

As to ranchers’ requests for lethally managing wolves killing livestock, CPW has so far hesitated to come up with a definition of chronic depredation, which would allow for permits to kill wolves.

The agency noted it received requests for depredation permits from a North Park producer (Don Gittleston said he’s asked for one) and a second request from the North Park Stockgrowers Association.

“This situation was not deemed to be chronic by CPW and USFWS, in consultation with one another,” the report said but failed to explain that CPW has never come up with a definition of chronic depredation.

“When a situation is deemed chronic, Chronic Depredation permits to landowners will only be issued when agency resources are not able to address the situation directly,” the report said.

Under the report’s section on education, outreach, and media responses, CPW only pointed to news releases it had issued. “Media response occurred at the local, regional, state, national, and international levels,” the report said. It did not include even one news report, pro or con, that reported on the wolf project.

CPW announced last week it would relocate wolves from the Copper Creek pack in Grand County (i.e. Bonnie and Clyde and their pups) to another location based on the wolves’ appetite for livestock instead of wildlife.

If ‘Cultivated’ isn’t Defined, Does it Exist?

BY JOANNE CLEAVER / MEATINGPLACE.COM

Dictionary.com — the online word-definition site based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary — now includes “cultivated meat,” it announced in a statement.

The definition of both cultivated and cultured meat, per the word-legitimizers, is “meat grown artificially in a laboratory from animal cell cultures.”

Inclusion bestows a “halo effect” of credibility, said Lindsay Dow, a consultant who runs her own practice, Lindsay Does Languages. The very fact that the term is now in the dictionary might invoke pushback, she said, from those trying to prevent the term from gaining the power that comes from being formally defined.

“But even that pushback still increases the discussion and use of the term, so there’s definitely potential for a long-term unexpected benefit in terms of the increase in conversation and awareness around cultivated meat and alternative meat options,” she said. “In terms of implications for policymakers, to my mind, a word being ‘respected’ in this way implies that the general public are taking it seriously and it’s not just a ‘trend’ or a ‘fad’.”

Dictionary.com also owns Thesaurus.com. In 2018, Dictionary. com was acquired by Rock Holdings, a portfolio company. Officials at Dictionary.com, apparently at a loss for words, declined to comment on the new entry or the process for researching and choosing new words or phrases to include.

This article originally appeared in Alt-Meat. ▫

Michigan Representative Introduces Cultivated Meat Ban

BY JOANNE CLEAVER / MEATINGPLACE.COM

AMichigan state representative, who also is a cattle farmer, has introduced a bill intended to ban cultivated meat from being sold in the state. Republican Rep. Jim DeSana’s House Bill 5879 is being considered by the agricultural committee.

In a statement, DeSana derided the “follow-the-science” crowd, whom he grouped with covid-related public health directives. “I don’t want lab-grown meat as a substitute for the real thing and I don’t want to get my protein by eating bugs. Let the chickens eat the bugs the way nature intended; we’ll eat the chickens,” he said in the statement.

The legislation defines “cultivated meat” as “a meat or meat product that was produced from cultured animal tissue produced from in vitro animal cell cultures outside of the animal from which the cells were derived.”

F&F CATTLE CO. Producers of quality foundation BARZONA cattle since 1975

MIKE FITZGERALD

575/673-2346

130 Fitzgerald Lane, Mosquero, NM 87733

ffcattleco@plateautel.net

“This is about protecting our ranchers and about protecting the integrity of our food supply,” DeSana said. He and his spouse raise sheep, cattle and chickens in a semi-rural district south of Detroit. ▫

R.L. Robbs

520-507-2514

R.L. Robbs

R.L. Robbs

R.L. Robbs

520-507-2514

520-507-2514

520-507-2514

4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, AZ 85643 osonegro@powerc.net Willcox, AZ

4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, AZ 85643 osonegro@powerc.net Willcox, AZ

4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, AZ 85643 osonegro@powerc.net Willcox, AZ

4995 Arzberger Willcox, AZ 85643 osonegro@powerc.net Willcox, AZ