Riding Herd
“The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it.”
by LEE PITTS
– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL
July 15, 2017 • www.aaalivestock.com
Volume 59 • No. 7
A Sonny New Day
L
Oklahoma checkoff officials tried to keep it hush-hush as much as possible because it is, after all, pretty embarrassing. And we’re supposed to feel better about the missing funds because when the gal pled guilty at her trial she said “she was very sorry.” She’s going to try and pay back some of the money but you can’t make very much money working in prison these days. Another story you probably won’t read much about in the glossier livestock press concerns the Montana Beef Council officials who are keeping equally mum about a decision handed down in a U.S. District Court there that affirmed yet another ruling that said the USDA’s Beef Checkoff program, as currently administered, violates the First Amendment. The District Court put in place a preliminary injunction prohibiting the private Montana Beef Council from retaining beef checkoff funds without the payers’ consent. This action took place after a magistrate previously recommended the injunction in December 2016, agreeing with R-CALF, the plaintiff in the suit, that the Checkoff was being run unconstitutionally. R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard said of the verdict, “For well over a decade R-CALF USA members fought to reform what we considered a terribly mismanaged national beef checkoff
continued on page three
continued on page ten
NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING
Where the leather is scarred, there is a great story to tell. 1.9 million pounds) of Brazilian beef products due to public health concerns, sanitary conditions, and animal health issues. It is important to note that none of the rejected lots made it into the U.S. market.” In halting Brazilian fresh beef imports Secretary Perdue said, “Ensuring the safety of our nation’s food supply is one of our critical missions, and it’s one we undertake with great seriousness. Although international trade is an important part of what we do at USDA, and Brazil has long been one of
our partners, my first priority is to protect American consumers. That’s what we’ve done by halting the import of Brazilian fresh beef. I commend the work of USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service for painstakingly safeguarding the food we serve our families.” One of the main reasons the importation of fresh Brazilian beef was stopped was because foot and mouth mitigation measures may have been breached in Brazil. R-CALF had been saying that for months but Obama’s Ag Secretary didn’t
have the courage to do the right thing and shut down the Brazilian imports. There were plenty of other reasons to halt the imports, not the least of which was the disclosure that Brazilian meatpackers, including JBS, had been bribing inspectors and politicians, including the President of Brazil, for favorable treatment and generous loans. Brazil’s largest food-processing firms, JBS and BRF, were raided by Brazilian officials for allowing rotten meat to be distributed in Brazil and exported to Europe. R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard said, “We applaud Secretary Perdue’s decision to halt imports of fresh Brazilian beef but we question why the Secretary did not also halt imports of pre-cooked beef from Brazil after finding that Brazil’s food continued on page two
The Time Has Come BY LEE PITTS
T
hings aren’t going well for the beef checkoff these days. We’ve all seen the surveys conducted by firms who want to keep getting the contract from the Beef Board about how wildly popular the beef checkoff is. The last one I saw said that 66 percent of producers felt the checkoff enhanced the profitability of their operations. At first glance that would seem to indicate ranchers are more than happy with the way their beef bucks are being spent. But the last survey unveiled at the NCBA convention showed that there were seven percent fewer of you who agreed with that statement. I don’t ever remember seeing even the faintest indication of negativity since they began conducting these surveys. Nine percent FEWER folks felt the program did a good job of representing your interests. And keep in mind, these polls were taken before it was quietly announced that an employee of the Oklahoma Beef Checkoff had embezzled more than $2.6 million from the state checkoff over a seven-year period to fund a children’s clothing boutique. And she was the person charged with making sure there was accountability in the checkoff! For seven years it seems no one was checking up on her and you’d think someone would have noticed that much of your money was missing.
P
ardon me but I’d like to use this column to take care of a little correspondence I’m behind on. My friend, who we’ll call Mr. You-Know-Who, has a bevy of ranching brothers scattered from one end of the Great Basin through Utah and into Wyoming. I thoroughly enjoyed meeting a couple of You-Know-Who’s brothers and I’d like to meet Tom in Wyoming because I’ve never met anyone from Wyoming I didn’t like. They have such great people there and I don’t know if it’s the water they drink or because they’re so spread out. I know You-Know-Who’s cowboy brothers read this column and they’ll know who I’m referring to. Rather than using up a roll of stamps to send them this important message I’ll just take care of it in one fell swoop without having to buy any stamps. I think You-Know-Who is the only one of the family who doesn’t ranch, although he sure looks good in the cowboy hat I gave him and he’s got a Catahoula cross dog that certainly shows signs of being cowy. You-Know-Who is the most easy-going, even-tempered person I’ve ever met. I won’t tell you exactly how old he is because that would be rude. I’ll just say he’s spent at least eight decades on this spinning orb we call home. Although he looks about 60. Because Mr. You-KnowWho is so amicable and easy-going I was surprised when he told me he’d just got home from reading the riot act to his eye doctor. He said he’d given him a good dose of both barrels. It was so out of character of him, so I asked why. It seems after you reach a certain age in my state it becomes necessary to have a written statement from an eye doctor saying that you see good enough to drive at night. I guess they don’t care if you can’t see in the daytime. Maybe that’s why they put all the braille on the steering wheels of cars and trucks. You-Know-Who took the form to his eye doctor to get it signed but didn’t take
BY LEE PITTS
ike the President who nominated him, our new Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, is a different breed of cat. It didn’t take long for the just-confirmed Ag Secretary to show that he’s got a different agenda than other recent Ag Secretaries who talked a good game but soon fizzled out. Soon after his confirmation Perdue halted all imports of fresh beef from Brazil. It’s something R-CALF and this newspaper have said for months needed to be done and darned if he didn’t do it. The suspension of Brazilian imports came after USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) revealed concerns over safety issues and “irregularities” in several Brazilian meatpacking plants, including a plant owned by JBS. The USDA said they had “recurring concerns about the safety of the products intended for the American market.” USDA officials said FSIS inspectors had been inspecting 100% of all meat products arriving in the United States from Brazil and they refused entry to 11% of them. “That figure is substantially higher than the rejection rate of one percent of shipments from the rest of the world,” said the FSIS. “Since implementation of the increased inspection, FSIS has refused entry to 106 lots (approximately
Mr. YouKnow-Who
www.LeePittsbooks.com
Page 2
HWY 4
STOCKTON
SALE SITE
J17 M ARIPO
SA RD
VALLEY HOME
HWY 99 OAKDALE
HWY 120 ESCALON
SALE MANTECA HEADQUARTERS
MODESTO
#N
TO FRESNO
Facility located at: 25525 East Lone Tree Road, Escalon, CA 95320
ESCALON LIVESTOCK MARKET, INC.
LIVESTOCK SALES 3 days per week on
Monday, Wednesday, & Friday MONDAY: Beef Cattle WEDNESDAY: Dairy Cattle S
NT IGNME CONS OME! WELC r more
Call fo ation inform ning sig on con stock. your
MIGUEL A. MACHADO President Office: 209/838-7011 Mobile: 209/595-2014
July 15, 2017
SONNY NEW DAY TO SACRAMENTO
FARMINGTON
ELM
Livestock Market Digest
FRIDAY: Small Animals Poultry – Butcher Cows JOE VIEIRA Representative Mobile: 209/531-4156 THOMAS BERT 209/605-3866
CJ BRANTLEY Field Representative 209/596-0139
www.escalonlivestockmarket.com • escalonlivestockmarket@yahoo.com
CAREN COWAN.......... Publisher LEE PITTS.................... Executive Editor CHUCK STOCKS......... Publisher Emeritus RANDY SUMMERS...... Sales Rep
RANDY SUMMERS 505/850-8544 Email: rjsauctioneer@aol.com
MARGUERITE VENSEL..Office Manager JESSICA DECKER..........Special Assistance CHRISTINE CARTER......Graphic Designer
safety system is inadequate to meet U.S. food safety standards. “We are dismayed that it has taken longer than three months for the USDA to take steps to protect the safety of our food supply and the safety of our livestock herds,” said Bullard. “This inexplicable delay highlights the absolute need for mandatory country of origin labeling. If mandatory COOL had been in place, then consumers could have chosen to immediately avoid beef products from Brazil back in March when it was first discovered that Brazil’s meatpackers were unlawfully exporting tainted beef.” National Farmer’s Union President, Roger Johnson, said, “Since the 2015 repeal of COOL food safety scandals can undermine consumer confidence in the entire beef industry, harming American producers’ bottom line. This incident underscores the importance of COOL to protect American beef producers and consumers alike. We applaud the USDA’s decision to suspend the importation of fresh Brazilian beef, and we urge them to avoid similar circumstances in the future by following more rigorous importation standards.” Even before Perdue’s action R-CALF and the Cattle Producers of Washington (CPoW) had already grown tired of waiting for the government to do the right thing, so they filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against the U.S.D.A. Their lawsuit alleges that “USDA regulations that allow beef and pork to be classified as “domestic products,” even when those meat products are imported from other countries, confuse consumers and harm American farmers.” “Transnational beef packers are supplanting U.S. beef production with imported beef, including from countries with questionable food safety practices,” said Bullard. “Unfortunately, our U.S. Department of Agriculture is helping them by making sure consumers cannot distinguish imported beef from USA beef. This is harming America’s farmers and ranchers and is not what Congress intended. We hope our lawsuit helps U.S. consumers choose to buy American beef.” Public Justice and the Terrell Marshall Law Group filed the lawsuit on behalf of R-CALF and CPoW and argued, “The USDA regulations violate the text of the Meat Inspection Act. The Act requires that the more than 800 million pounds of beef born, raised and slaughtered annually in other countries and then imported to the United States should include labeling indicating the meat’s country of origin.” One of the issues that R-CALF hopes President Trump addresses as he renegotiates NAFTA is the lack of COOL labels on foreign meat that was imported into the U.S. as live cattle and hogs from Canada and Mexico.
continued from page one
Beth Terrell of Terrell Marshall Law Group said, “The current Administration has talked a lot about supporting U.S. workers and creating U.S. jobs. Its policy on meat labeling, however, gives multinational companies an unfair advantage over ranchers whose products are raised and slaughtered here at home. The USDA should return to common sense labeling that gives consumers truthful information and U.S. ranchers a fair shake in the marketplace. Farmers and families should both be able to expect the U.S. government will be on their side.” Scott Nielson, president of CPoW, echoed that sentiment: “Cattle Producers of Washington proudly raise a safe wholesome product under the rules and regulations required by our lawmakers. We should not be forced to compete with beef from other countries that do not have the same health and safety standards without the ability to allow the American consumer to make an informed decision about what they are feeding their families.” “We urge Secretary Purdue to halt all meat imports from Brazil (including frozen beef) until he conducts a thorough investigation of Brazil’s meatpacking plants and concludes that every one of those plants is fully complying with U.S. food safety laws and until mandatory COOL is fully implemented in the U.S. so consumers do not have to wait for the government to act before taking steps to ensure the safety of their food,” said Nielson. David Muraskin, a Food Safety and Health Attorney at Public Justice says, “Consumers understandably want to know where their food comes from, and proper labeling would not only allow consumers to make informed choices at the market, but would also be a boon for American farmers.” According to R-CALF, “When COOL is not properly applied to imported meat and livestock, domestic ranchers and farmers tend to receive lower prices for their meat because multinational companies can import meat and misleadingly present it as homegrown, rather than paying domestic producers for their products.” Ranchers should take note that the highest prices ranchers ever received for their cattle were paid by feeders and packers during the time we had COOL. It was no coincidence. When Obama’s USDA caved in to the World Trade Organization and got rid of it, cattle prices crashed faster than ever before in history. The quickest way back to profitability and fair prices for cattle producers is to implement COOL immediately. In the meantime, the suspension of beef imports from Brazil will remain in place until the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture takes corrective action which the USDA finds satisfactory. Considering Brazil’s track record, let’s just hope no bribes are involved.
July 15, 2017
Livestock Market Digest
THE TIME HAS COME program. And, for well over a decade we faced an impenetrable wall of top-ranking USDA officials whose connections to the multinational meatpackers’ lobby caused them to steadfastly oppose every single reform proposal we advanced. Yesterday, after a meaningful, law-based evaluation of our concerns, we won. We hope this will be just the first step of correcting over a decade’s worth of beef checkoff program mismanagement.” Thanks to R-CALF’s lawsuit it is now officially clear that the Montana Beef Council is a private corporation organized under the laws of Montana that collects and keeps 50 cents from every beef buck collected and sends the other fifty cents to the Beef Board. R-CALF argued in court that, “The USDA requires that the Montana Beef Council engage in promotional activities that promote beef and beef products. The USDA also requires that the Montana Beef Council certify that it will not use any of the money that it receives under the Beef Checkoff Program to promote “unfair or deceptive” practices, or to “influence governmental policy.” We also now know, because the court said so, “That the Montana Beef Council is a private corporation whose members include representatives of the largest multinational beef packers. The council promotes the message that there is no difference between domestic beef produced under U.S. food safety laws and beef produced in foreign countries. It has paid for advertisements for the fastfood chain Wendy’s, for example, to promote hamburgers that use North American beef, meaning beef that can come from anywhere on the continent, but not necessarily Montana or even the United States.” Therefore, argued R-CALF, “The Government violates the First Amendment when it compels a citizen to subsidize the private speech of a private entity without first obtaining the citizen’s ‘affir-
Page 3 continued from page two
mative consent.” The NCBA and Checkoff folks are finally reaping their reward for arguing before the Supreme Court in order to save the checkoff in the Charter case that it was a government program run by the USDA. That doesn’t jibe with this court’s ruling who said that the Montana Beef Council is a private corporation. “The USDA does not control how the Montana Beef Council spends the money that it obtains from the federal Beef
One of the solutions to this beefy dilemma, which is really no solution at all, was the creation of a mechanism for Montana ranchers who disagreed with how the Montana Beef Council was spending their money to send their entire checkoff tax to the national Beef Board, who turns right around and gives most of it to the NCBA, another group who makes no distinction on beef, “Whether the cattle were born in Montana, Manitoba, or Mazatlán.”
The District Court put in place an injunction prohibiting the private Montana Beef Council from retaining beef checkoff funds without the payers’ consent. Checkoff Program,” ruled the court. David Muraskin of Public Justice, lead counsel for R-CALF, said the District Court’s decision will “finally provide Montana ranchers leverage to control how their money is spent and their goods are advertised. Without government accountability and control the checkoffs amount to nothing more than a massive transfer of wealth from farmers and ranchers to multinational corporations, which is against our values and laws.” J. Dudley Butler, who has returned to the private practice of law after spending nearly three years as Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration in the Obama administration, said, “For too long the Big Meat Packers and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association have used their allies in Washington to squelch the voices of rural America. We hope this is a step towards fairer treatment of farmers and ranchers and a more accountable food system.”
Clearly, this is no real solution. A much better answer has been proposed by Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey and Mike Lee of Utah who have put forth bipartisan legislation that would seriously reform the checkoff programs to make them more transparent and accountable to producers. Their bill would... 1. Stop federally mandated checkoff dollars from being transferred to parties that seek to influence government policies or action relating to agriculture issues. 2. Enforce the prohibition against conflicts of interest in contracting and all other decision-making operations of the checkoff program. 3. Stop federally mandated funds from being used for anti-competitive programs or from being spent to disparage another commodity in the marketplace. 4. Increase transparency of the individual boards’ actions by shedding light
on how federal checkoff funds are spent and the purpose of their expenditures. 5. Require audits of each program every five years to ensure their activities are in compliance with the law. Fred Stokes, founding member of the Organization for Competitive Markets, said: “Egregious abuses of U.S. farmers’ and ranchers’ mandatory checkoff tax dollars have been exposed in the beef, pork, dairy, egg, and other checkoff programs. The half-billion dollars that these programs take from farmers have become the cash cow for organizations that work against fair competition and market transparency, forcing independent family farmers and ranchers to essentially fund their own demise. Successful passage of this proposed legislation is critically important to restoring fair markets and rebuilding our domestic family farm and ranch agriculture.” Contrary to a notion that some have fostered, that this publication is against the checkoff, we are, and always have been, proponents of the checkoff that rancher’s approved in the first place after three tries in the 1980’s; the checkoff before the dead- broke NCA transformed and merged itself into the seriously rich NCBA by stealing your checkoff dollars. There’s never been a better time to remake the checkoff into what it was meant to be in the first place, a self-help program run by, and for, the ranchers who pay for it. Not a slush fund to pay NCBA CEO’s half a million dollars per year; to do research, create and promote products for multi-national meatpackers who don’t pay into the checkoff; and to finance a bevy of beef bureaucrats to push an agenda that most of the tax-paying ranchers don’t agree with in the first place. We either fix the checkoff now, or our cattle producer population will continue to shrink as they finance their own destruction with every beef checkoff tax dollar they pay.
Page 4
Livestock Market Digest
July 15, 2017
Supreme Court Deals Blow to Property Rights Chief Justice Roberts: “Today’s decision knocks the definition of ‘private property’ loose from its foundation.” BY ERIC BOEHM HTTP://REASON.COM
W
hen governments issue regulations that undermine the value of property, bureaucrats don’t necessarily have to compensate property holders, the Supreme Court has ruled. The court voted 5-3, in Murr V. Wisconsin, a closely watched Fifth Amendment property rights case. The case arose from a dispute over two tiny parcels of land along the St. Croix River in western Wisconsin and morphed into a major property rights case that drew several western states into the debate before the court. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a scathing dissent, wrote that ruling was a significant blow for property rights and would give greater power to government bureaucrats to pass rules that diminish the value of property without having to compensate property owners under the Firth Amendment’s Takings Clause. “Put simply, today’s decision knocks the definition of ‘private property’ loose from its foundation on stable state
law rules,” Roberts wrote. The ruling “compromises the Takings Clause as a barrier between individuals and the press of the public interest.” Donna Murr, in a statement provided by the Pacific Legal Foundation, the libertarian law firm that represented the family in the case, said her family was disappointed by the result. “It is our hope that property owners across the country will learn from our experience and not take their property rights for granted,” Murr said. “Although the outcome was not what we had hoped for, we believe our case will demonstrate the importance of taking a stand and protecting property rights through the court system when necessary.” In 2004, Murr and her siblings sought to sell one of two parcels of land that had been in the family for decades. Murr’s parents bought the land in the 1960s, built a cabin on one parcel, and left the other parcel undeveloped as a long-term investment. The family attempted to sell the vacant parcel to pay for renovations to the cabin, but were prevented from doing so by regulations restricting the use of land along rivers like the St. Croix approved by the state in the 1980s, long after the purchase of both lots. Those regulations effec-
tively gutted the value of the Murrs’ property. The property was appraised at $400,000 before the Murrs tried to sell it. When the family came to the county, now the only eligible buyer, the county offered $40,000. The Murrs filed a lawsuit against the state and county, arguing that they should be compensated for the lost value of the property, arguing the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees governments must compensate property owners when land is seized or otherwise made un-useful for public purposes. To avoid liability in the case, the state and county told the Murrs they could combine the two parcels of land for regulatory purposes. This meant that even though the two pieces of land were separate and the Murr family paid taxes on them separately, the family would be unable to make a takings claim for one of the two parcels. In short, they could sell both lots together, but not one or the other. Lower courts agreed with the government interpretation and the Supreme Court upheld the court rulings. “Treating the lot in question as a single parcel is legitimate for purposes of this takings inquiry, and this supports the conclusion that no regulatory taking occurred here,”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “They have not been deprived of all economically beneficial use of their property.” Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kennedy in the majority opinion, while conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent. The Supreme Court’s newest member, Justice Neil Gorsuch, did not participate in the case. The ruling could have implications that go well beyond the 2.5 acres of land in Wisconsin. Several western states filed amicus briefs in the case on behalf of the Murr family (as did the Reason Foundation, which publishes this blog). Though states like Nevada and Arizona did not have a direct interest in the Murrs’ ability to sell their vacant land, they saw the case as having important implications for conflicts over federal lands. Many state governments own contiguous lots and large bodies of water near areas owned by the federal government (military bases, national parks, etc). If those government bodies are allowed to merge contiguous lots for regulatory purposes, the federal government could
impose severe restrictions on state land and wouldn’t have to pay consequences, warned Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University who authored the amicus brief on behalf of those western states. Writing Friday at The Washington Post about the ruling, Somin said it is “likely to create confusion and uncertainty going forward.” “In at least some cases, today’s indeed ruling allows the government to avoid compensating property owners for the taking of their land, merely because they also own the lot next door,” he writes. “But the vague nature of the test established by the Court makes it very hard to figure out exactly when that might happen.” Roberts, in his dissenting opinion, stressed that the court’s ruling in Murr could allow for “ad hoc, case-specific consideration” of takings claims, thus undermining constitutional protections that should be consistent and predictable for property owners. Meaning more leeway for governments to do what Wisconsin did to the Murrs. “The result is that the government’s goals shape the playing field,” Roberts wrote, “even before the contest over whether the challenged regulation goes ‘too far’ even gets underway.”
EPA Proposed Rule Rolling Back WOTUS SOURCE: EPA, WESTERN CAUCUS
O
n June 27,2017 the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Army, and the Army Corps of Engineers (the agencies) released a proposed rule to rescind the Clean Water Rule and
re-codify the regulatory text that existed prior to 2015 defining “waters of the United States” or WOTUS. This action would, when finalized, provide certainty in the interim, pending a second rulemaking in which the agencies will engage in a substantive re-evaluation of the definition
of “waters of the United States.” The proposed rule would be implemented in accordance with Supreme Court decisions, agency guidance, and longstanding practice. This proposed rule follows the February 28, 2017, Presidential Executive Order on “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” The February Order states that it is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of Congress and the States under the Constitution. To meet these objectives, the agencies intend to follow an expeditious, two-step process that will provide certainty across the country. The proposed rule would recodify the identical regulatory text that was in place prior to the 2015 Clean Water Rule and that is currently in place as a result of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s stay of the 2015 rule. Therefore, this action, when final, will not
change current practice with respect to how the definition applies. The agencies have also begun deliberations and outreach on the second step rulemaking involving a re-evaluation and revision of the definition of “waters of the United States” in accordance with the President Trump’s Executive Order.
Courtesy of the Congressional Western Caucus On February 28, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13778 requiring the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to review the Obama Administration’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule and rescind any aspect of WOTUS inconsistent with federal law in order to ensure economic growth, restore the Rule of Law and minimize regulatory uncertainty.. On March 25, 2014, the EPA and the Corps released a proposed rule that would assert Clean Water Act jurisdiction over nearly all areas with even the slightest of connections to water resources, including man-
made conveyances. WOTUS was slated to go into effect August 28, 2015. Fortunately, the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay and temporarily blocked implementation of this rule. The Obama Administration’s WOTUS Rule would cause significant harm to rural Americans throughout the country, including farmers, ranchers, small businesses, water users and other property owners. This flawed mandate directly contradicts prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions, which imposed limits on the extent of federal Clean Water Act authority. More than 200 organizations and local municipalities have publicly declared their opposition to the proposed WOTUS rule as a result. The Heartland Institute has stated, “In reality, the language of the EPA rule is so vague this ‘clarification’ could grant Washington, D.C. jurisdiction over any body of water anywhere. It was to apply to any water or wetland deemed to have a ‘significant nexus’ to any navigable waterway, with the significant nexus, as described by a Wall Street Journal editorial, so widecontinued on page five
July 15, 2017
Livestock Market Digest
Page 5
6666 Veterinarian & Horse Division Manager Named 2017 Golden Spur Winner
D
r. Glenn Blodgett, resident veterinarian and manager of the 6666 Ranch horse division, has been named the 2017 National Golden Spur Award winner, the most prestigious honor given by the ranching and livestock industries in recognition of accomplishments by an individual. In his 35 years at the largest individually owned ranch property in Texas, Blodgett has been an industry leader in equine embryo transfer and artificial insemination, and the ranch has become the all-time leading breeder of both racing and performance American Quarter Horses. Blodgett will be honored by industry leaders at a dinner hosted by the National Ranching Heritage Center (NRHC) October 14 at the McKenzie-Merket Alumni Center at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. “Honorees for the past 39 years have represented virtually every aspect of the agribusiness industry and all of the major U.S. livestock and ranching areas,” said NRHC Executive Director Jim Bret Campbell. “This award recognizes that a single individual has earned notable respect and admiration from peers within the industry.” Established in 1978, the award is a joint recognition given by six of the leading state and national organizations in the ranching and livestock industry: American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA), National Cattlemen’s Foundation, Ranching Heritage Association (RHA), Texas Cattle Feeders Association, Texas Farm Bureau and Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association.
“When you talk about Dr. Blodgett, you have to talk about credibility,” said AQHA Past President Johnny Trotter. “The horse business is more of a reputation-based business than it is just a horse-trading business…. He has a reputation and it’s not all about making a quick dollar on a horse. First and foremost, he’s a fine person with all the integrity and credibility that goes with it. Second of all, he is a good businessman, good horseman and a tremendously successful veterinarian.” A native of Spearman, Texas, Blodgett received his bachelor’s degree in animal science from Oklahoma State University and his degree in veterinary medicine
from the Texas A&M University of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. He has since been recognized as an outstanding alumnus of both universities. After receiving his veterinarian degree, Blodgett joined Spur Veterinary Hospital, a mixed veterinary practice in Spur, Texas. Then he became self-employed at Hansford County Veterinary Hospital in Spearman servicing primarily large-animal clientele. He joined Burnett Ranches, LLC (Four Sixes Ranch) near Guthrie, Texas, in 1982 and subsequently earned the ranch numerous awards and distinctions including the coveted AQHA Best Remuda Award in 1993. Blodgett oversees all of the vet-
erinarian and reproductive services at the Four Sixes, as well as horse breeding and management responsibilities. Blodgett was named Equine Practitioner of the Year in 1990 by the Texas Veterinary Medical Association after being cited as a driving force behind the Texas Racing Commission’s adoption of medical rules, policies and procedures. He was appointed to the Texas Racing Commission in 1988, served the commission as vice chairman from 1993 to 1995 and received the 2011 Racing Council Special Recognition Award. Blodgett began representing Texas as an AQHA director in 1991, a director-at-large in
2011, an executive committee member in 2012 and president in 2015. He was inducted into the Texas Horse Racing Hall of Fame in 2015 and serves on the American Horse Council Board of Trustees. The American Association of Equine Practitioners presented Blodgett with a Distinguished Life Member award in 2016 for his leadership and exemplary service. The award dinner will begin at 6 p.m. Saturday, October 14. Individual tickets are $100 ($75 for RHA members), and a table for eight is $1,250. Tickets must be purchased in advance by contacting Vicki Quinn-Williams at vicki.quinn-williams@ttu.edu or calling (806) 834-0469.
G N I S I T R E V D A T THE BEUSE IN WESTERN VAL CK INDUSTRY! LIVESTO
WOTUS continued from page four
ly interpreted as to include ‘any creek, pond or prairie pothole’ and ‘any land within a 100-year floodplain and 1,500 feet of the high water mark or, alternatively, within the 100-year floodplain and 4,000 feet of waters within their claimed jurisdiction.’ Essentially, the WOTUS rule would put EPA in charge of every piece of land occasionally containing any amount of concentrated water, practically down to the puddle level.’” On May 12, 2015, the House passed H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, by a vote of 261-155. This critical legislation required the EPA and Corps of Engineers to formally withdraw the agencies’ proposed rule that would redefine WOTUS and any subsequent final rule. In July 2015, Chairman Gosar submitted revelatory evidence into the Congressional Record from senior Army Corps of Engineer employees that expressed serious legal and scientific deficiencies with the Obama Administration’s WOTUS rule.
Call Randy TODAY at 505.850.8544 or email rjsauctioneer@aol.com
Reser ve you r
Livestock M space now in arket Digest ’s
Annual Fall Marketing E ditio
n
ADVERTISING DEADLINE: August 1
Page 6
Livestock Market Digest
July 15, 2017
Fire May Be the Only Remedy for a Plague Killing Deer and Elk BY CARL ZIMMER NEW YORK TIMES
M
ark D. Zabel wants to set some fires. Dr. Zabel and his colleagues are developing plans to burn plots of National Park Service land in Arkansas and Colorado. If the experiments turn out as the researchers hope, they will spare some elk and deer a gruesome death. Across a growing swath of North America, these animals are dying from a mysterious disorder called chronic wasting disease. It’s caused not by a virus or bacterium, but a deformed protein called a prion. When ingested, prions force normal proteins in the animal’s body to become deformed as well. Over the course of months, the multiplying prions can gradually wreck the animal’s nervous system, ultimately killing it. This year is the 50th anniversary of the discovery of chronic wasting disease. In the September issue of Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, Dr. Zabel, an immunologist at Colorado State University, and his former graduate student Aimee Ortega survey what scientists have learned about the slow-spreading plague. It makes for ominous reading. “There’s a lot that we still don’t know and don’t understand about the disease,” Dr. Zabel said in an interview. Once chronic wasting disease gets a foothold, it can spread relentlessly. It’s now documented in 24 states, and continues to expand into new ranges. In some herds, as many as half of the animals carry prions. It’s only been in recent years that scientists have gained crucial clues to how the disease spreads. Direct contact, it turns out, isn’t the only way that the prions get from one animal to another. Sick animals and cadavers spread prions across the landscape. Plants and soil may remain coated with deformed proteins for years. Dr. Zabel now suspects that the only way to rid the land of them is to set controlled fires. It was at Colorado State University, in 1967, that wildlife biologists first observed some captive mule deer developing a strange new disease. The animals lost weight and aware-
ness of their surroundings. The symptoms slowly worsened until the mule deer died. “They’re not hard to pick out at the end stage,” Dr. Zabel said. “They have a vacant stare, they have a stumbling gait, their heads are drooping, their ears are down, you can see thick saliva dripping from their mouths. It’s like a true zombie disease.” It wasn’t until much later that researchers discovered that chronic wasting disease belongs to a small group of conditions caused by prions. But other prion diseases are known only to affect livestock or people, not wildlife. Scrapie, for example, is a deadly disease that afflicts sheep. A number of studies indicated that bone meal contaminated with scrapie prions passed the prions to cows. The cows developed a prion disease of their own, called bovine spongiform encephalopathy, nicknamed mad cow disease. In rare cases, people who ate beef from the sick cows developed prions in their own brains. As of 2016, 231 people had died from the condition worldwide. Scientists long suspected that deer and related species developed chronic wasting disease by picking up scrapie from sheep flocks kept at Colorado State University. The disease then turned up in other states and Canada as animals were shipped to private game farms. A shipment of elk to South Korea brought the plague there as well. But Dr. Zabel now believes that the birth of chronic wasting disease may be more complicated. “I’m starting to second-guess the original hypothesis,” he said. Prions are misfolded versions of a naturally occurring molecule called cellular prion protein. Experiments carried out in Dr. Zabel’s lab, published in January, suggest that cellular prion protein in deer and related species may be unusually prone to misfolding. “We were able to generate a new prion,” Dr. Zabel said. “Maybe this is a spontaneous disease.” That result might explain a startling finding last year: researchers came across a prion-riddled reindeer in Norway, the first time chronic wasting disease had been found in Europe. Since then, two more have
Advertise to Cattleman in the Livestock Market Digest!
been found in the same herd, and Norway in April approved the culling of over 2000 reindeer to stop the spread. “The jury is still out on the origin. This new outbreak in Norway just complicates the matter,” Dr. Zabel said. Dr. Zabel and other scientists are trying to figure out how chronic wasting disease has become so successful. One factor is how the prions spread through an animal’s body. They aren’t limited to the brain in deer, elk or moose. The prions also sweep through lymph nodes and the spleen. As a result, Dr. Zabel and other scientists have found, infected animals can release huge numbers of prions. “We found it in urine, in saliva and in feces,” he said. “They shed continually until they die.” Other members of a herd can get sick by making direct contact with a shedding animal. But the way the disease is spreading across North America suggests that the prions are also using other routes to get to new hosts. If deer got sick only by direct contact, for example, you would expect the outbreak to be most severe in the Midwest, where populations are densest. But some of the worst outbreaks are in the Rocky Mountains, where there are fewer animals. Mathematical models suggest that animals are getting sick from prions in the environment. In additional to the prions shed while a sick animal is alive, its cadaver can release another bounty of deformed proteins onto the ground. Some studies suggest that
these prions can end up on grass and other plants, which are then eaten by healthy animals. Some prions in the soil may bind to minerals. It’s possible that animals may sometimes pick them up if they eat bits of dirt. Compared with viruses or bacteria, prions are impressively rugged. To decontaminate prion-covered lab equipment, scientists have to heat them to 600 degrees Celsius, or 1112 Fahrenheit. In a forest or on a prairie, a prion may be able to hang around for years, still able to infect a new animal. As herds migrate along the same route year after year, the supply of prions in the environment may keep increasing. “It’s starting to make sense,” said Dr. Zabel. Scientists don’t know enough about the ecology of prions to predict how bad chronic wasting disease will become in future decades. Mountain lions and other predators may lower the infection rate by picking off sick animals as they wander away from their herds. Scientists have also found genes that give some animals resistance to prions. It’s hoped that resistant animals will reproduce enough to main the populations of herds. Still, Dr. Zabel worries, the supply of prions in the environment someday might push many herds past a tipping point. “That could result in herd decimation and population declines,” he said. Dr. Zabel is also concerned about the potential threat chronic wasting disease might
someday pose to humans. So far, there have not been any documented cases in which people got sick from eating meat from sick animals. “That doesn’t mean it won’t happen,” Dr. Zabel warned. His own experiments showing how easily cellular prion proteins can fold into a dangerous shape suggest that prions may have a potential to become more harmful. “We may just be in the early stages,” he said. In their review, Dr. Zabel and Ms. Ortega write that researchers have found a number of ways to fight prions. Researchers have found they can rid surgical instruments of prions in an ozone bath, for example. But such treatments are impractical in the wild. “You cannot treat half of the continental United States with ozone,” he said. Instead, Dr. Zabel and his colleagues hope to test controlled burns. While the fires won’t be hot enough to destroy the prions, they might kill off enough prion-laden plants to lower the odds of healthy animals getting sick. The researchers will test this hypothesis by seeing if the prevalence of chronic wasting disease drops after they set their fires. Dr. Zabel said he has encountered some stiff skepticism about his plan. But he still thinks it is the only plausible way to put a brake on the prions. “If you eliminate the plants that have prions on the surface, that would be a huge step forward,” he said. “I really don’t think it’s that crazy.”
California Moving to Seize Public Beach Closed Off by Tech Billionaire BY ANGELA HART / SACBEE.COM
C
alifornia is taking steps to seize control of private land leading to a pristine stretch of secluded beach property south of Half Moon Bay, with the hope of restoring public access. Martins Beach in San Mateo County was closed to the public after tech billionaire Vinod Khosla purchased nearly 90 acres of beachfront property in 2008. The venture capitalist locked the gated entry to the beach, posted “do not enter signs” and hired security guards to keep people out. In lawsuits, he argues the beach is private property. But a bill from state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, would allow the State Lands Commission to direct $1 million into a new fund set up solely for the Martins Beach land acquisition, and possibly use eminent domain to take control of 6.4 acres sought to guarantee public access. At present, the commission cannot use public funds for eminent domain. Hill’s bill would change that, and allow public, private and nonprofit donations to be deposited into the new account. The acreage includes a road that winds from
Highway 1 down to Martins Beach, and part of the beach itself. The state said it’s worth $360,000, but Khosla wants $30 million for the easement, according to analysis from Hill’s office on Senate Bill 42. The commission in December directed its staff to research how to use eminent domain to secure the property. “We are resolved to provide public access to this public resource,” Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, chairman of the commission, said at the time. “We are aggressively moving in that direction.” Previously, the public had access to the beach for nearly a century. Khosla in September sued the State Lands Commission, the California Coastal Commission and San Mateo County. He argues that the government is harassing him and trying to force him to surrender his private property rights in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Other lawsuits against Khosla’s business holding company have been brought by the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation, which is also trying to restore public access to the beach. “It’s critical that we allow the State Lands Commission to carry out their important mission of safeguarding the public’s access rights to waterways and the coastline,” Hill said before the bill passed the Senate floor.
July 15, 2017
Livestock Market Digest
Page 7
Consider the No-Depreciation Cow-Calf Operation BY ALAN NEWPORT / BEEFPRODUCER
U
nlike many assets, cows actually appreciate in value for a while, and you could capture that as profit. There’s a more profitable way to run a cow operation than the “normal” model. Specifically, you can eliminate cow depreciation, capture heifer appreciation, and create asset turnover to increase profits. In a traditionally managed cow-calf operation, cows are kept until death, or a non-production event. Through the years, depreciation robs the owner of a considerable dose of equity, and the cow must pay her keep with profitable calves at the same time her declining value is robbing the rancher of asset value. Further, the classic model of a cow-calf operation is that of an asset-management business: It holds great gobs of capital in the form of depreciable assets, spends varying amounts on upkeep and some inputs, and tries to overcome depreciation and create profitability by selling a product (calves). It’s that depreciating, non-working capital that creates such a headwind. Here’s an alternative to the traditional cow-man’s ranch: Cows are raised at home or can be bought as light heifers and then kept no longer than peak value (appreciation) at 4-5 years old. Then they are sold and younger stock takes their place. This sells a major asset (cows) before depreciation begins to rob profit from the operation. Selling cows younger also increases monetary turnover and therefore can further increase profits. Most often, heifers are raised or bought at about 450-550 pounds. Commonly they increase in value by $1,000 or more and raise two or three calves before moving on, says Wally Olson, an Oklahoma rancher who turned this idea into a working model and now teaches it as part of his marketing schools.
Appreciate, not depreciate The whole idea of appreciation goes over the heads of most people, Olson says. “Most people just will not, or cannot, hear the word appreciation,” he says.”But a heifer usually appreciates from a weaned calf going forward to about four or five years, if she becomes a producing cow.” Take a look at any market report to see this, or better yet combine market reports with real prices from the country. However, remember that from May through August the replacement cow markets are pretty dead, Olson warns. With that in mind, in the June 7 Ag Marketing Service report from Oklahoma National Stockyards, medium- to large-frame heifers in the 450-pound range sold for $157 to $162 per cwt. therefore $707 to$729. Bred cows listed as 2 to 4 years old were bringing 1,210 to 1,360.
(Remember, this is not country prices and it is in the poor pricing season for cows.) Bred cows listed as 7 to 8 years old were bringing $985 to 1,075. Notice in the chart labeled “Recent example of real cow values in Oklahoma” that peak value is reached at three to five years old. This is typical year in and year out. A key practice to make this no-depreciation cow herd produce is you keep pretty much all your heifers every year, Olson says. Also, don’t spend a bunch of money on heifer development. Just put a bull with them. The ones that get bred will be cows. They will also be the easy keepers. The others will be sold as feeder heifers. “This is the ultimate selection, because you’re only selecting for the heifers with high reproductivity,” Olson adds. If your cost to carry livestock (cost of gain) is kept low enough, you should still have a profit in the feeder heifers. Those sold will be replaced with more light heifers and the process starts over again. “I tell people run the ranch on steer calves and build wealth on your heifers,” Olson says. He says heifers are an ideal asset because they will appreciate much more than a steer can appreciate by gain alone.
Budget the possibilities If you look at the small chart with this story, you’ll see a significant difference in expected value from the two types of heifers based on prices just a few weeks ago. The original purchase price at a 450-pound weight suggests a $675 value. Keeping them to 1,000 pounds for 550 pounds of gain cost about $1 per day or 75 cents per pound of gain. Olson always calculates a per-day cost to keep animals because he can better apply it to cows as well as gaining cattle such as steers or heifers and because the amount of gain will vary. Note in his budget the 1,000-pound bred heifers were worth about $1.50 per pound, or $1,500, and returned almost 38 percent over their cost of $1,087.50. The 1,000-pound open heifers were worth about $1.22 per pound, or $1,220, and returned 12 percent over their total cost. Olson used a 50 percent conception rate because that’s been a fair average for his system. This budget suggests a 25 percent gain on the whole lot. Cash in hand will depend on what you decide to sell or keep. Further, if you re-run these calculations with prices from the first week of June you’ll see a the higher purchase price of the heifers, had they been purchased at about $1.65 per hundredweight rather than raised, would potentially eat up most of the profit for them. That should emphasize another of Olson’s admonitions to keep daily updates on your total livestock inventory and look
for opportunities to profit from them. Here are some keys to make this method work Besides understanding the truth about depreciation and appreciation of cows, there are a few other paradigms you might want to change. • If you buy cows, do it in the off season when prices are lower, when everybody is baling hay. • Must know your cost to keep livestock, preferably on a daily basis. You really don’t know rate of gain, therefore the cost of gain. Knowing cost to keep gives you a better measuring stick across livestock classes. • Know the tax consequences (an expense) of your actions. For example, profits from selling market animals are ordinary income. Under the right conditions, selling breeding stock may result in capital gains only, which is at a lower rate. • Be flexible. If you are willing to change your processes at times and to run things as much as possible contrary to everyone else you can make more money. • Keeping your cost structure low is a huge part of this equation. Olson says, “I think you should be able to run a heifer for $1 per day.” • You need to know your inventory and value at all times so you can make decisions when opportunities present themselves.
Here’s how younger cows generate higher income Here’s a simplified example how changing from a traditionally managed herd with the oldest cows about 10 years old generates less income versus a no-depreciation cow herd as Wally Olson suggests and has operated. In this case, we’ll suppose a 1,000-cow herd and for simplicity we will include no culling or death loss. We’re also making calculations with a 100 percent weaned calf crop and 100 percent conception, also for simplicity. We will say we’re selling all cows by 5 years of age and so will need a 20 percent replacement rate. We will use the cow and heifer prices from the chart labeled “Recent examples of real cow values in Oklahoma.” That would include bred heifers at $1,400, 500-pound heifer calves at $690, 5-year-old cows at $1,500, and 10-year-old cows at $605. Remember we’re just looking at values rather than accurate budgets, and especially at appreciation versus depreciation. The first choice the two ranches would make is keeping heifers to breed them or selling them as calves. Keeping 200 heifers and breeding them, once bred, would yield a value of $280,000. Selling those heifers at 500 pounds would gross $138,000. The difference in value, therefore the appreciation you could capture, would be $142,000. The second choice we need to examine is whether to sell older, depreciated cows, or 5-year-old
cows in their prime. Again, for simplicity, we’re going to compare things as similarly as possible, so we’ll measure the value of selling 200 cull cows against the value of selling 200 prime-aged cows. Using our values above, the 200 5-year-old cows would bring roughly $300,000. The 200 10-year-old cows would bring $121,000. That’s a difference in value, technically a loss to depreciation, of $179,000. In reality, you would sell fewer cull cows each year for less income, when compared with the 200 prime-aged cows. You would also have fewer bred heifers because not all will get pregnant,
yet you still would add young, bred cows of higher appreciated value to your herd, then have the option to capture than appreciation along the way by selling before they drop in value (depreciate). Also, for anyone really picking apart these ideas, we note in this example you would actually have a smaller calf crop to sell each year by roughly 10 percent or more, because you’re increasing the percentage of non-breeding females in your herd. On the flip side of that equation, the older cows are logging real depreciation that deflates the value of their calves every year they stay on the ranch.
A Look at the Amazon/Whole Foods Deal from 10,000 feet BY KAREN CHRISTENSEN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR & EXTENSION SPECIALIST, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS / MEATINGPLACE.COM
B
ig news in the food-selling world. Amazon, one of the most tech-driven companies has announced it will purchase Whole Foods Markets. It will be interesting to watch how this develops and changes how food is marketed, ordered and delivered. I will be watching the skies for organic eggs and free-range broilers that could now get their wings and be delivered by drones. I hope this is not a negative for small farmers that produce organic foods because they cannot produce enough to satisfy the potentially huge new market for products that up to now were only available in major cities or at least highly urban areas. It would be ironic if this move could result in a new demand for products, both produce and meat, that can only be filled by large, corporate farms. I am supportive of having choices in food production. Those that want organically produced food should be able to source those products if they can afford it and feel it is best for their families. I also believe we should be able to produce high quality protein, like chicken meat and eggs that can benefit from efficiencies that large farms and technology allow for. I must add that considerations for welfare must be a part of producing animals for food whatever the system. Let’s let the consumer decide what products they prefer by their buying choices instead of small groups with defined agendas dictating what choices we have or do not have. I want to make sure that everyone has access to high quality protein that I believe benefits the health and well-being of everyone, including growing children. But I strongly believe in choice. All systems of food production have a place in the market. So let’s stop making food availability more restrictive and be grateful that we have the knowledge and resources to produce food for everyone’s preferences. In the meantime I will be watching for flying turkeys!
Page 8
Livestock Market Digest
July 15, 2017
Baxter BLACK
A Practical Guide to Grazing Term Permit Renewal BY FRANK FALEN BUDD-FALEN LAW OFFICES, LLC
O
ne of the most important issues facing the 18,000 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grazing permittees and lessees and nearly 6,000 Forest Service permittees is grazing permit renewal. Although Congress has granted to each of you a temporary reprieve from being thrown off your allotments because of the failure of the agencies to get through a timely renewal process, the BLM and Forest Service are still charged with completing the term renewal process at some point. For BLM, this renewal requires the completion of a “standards and guidelines” determination. For the Forest Service, this renewal requires the gathering of monitoring data. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental statutes is also required for both agencies. While it is up to the federal agencies to complete these requirements, grazing permittees grazing and lessees can, and should, still play an important role in the permit renewal process. The following are a few suggestions: 1. Be thoroughly engaged in the monitoring process. If monitoring shows that there is an issue on the allotment, work with your federal agencies to determine the cause of that issue. The regulations only require a change in use or management of a term permit if livestock grazing is a significant cause of an environmental issue on the allotment. However, if range or riparian issues are being caused by excess wild horse use, wildlife use, recreation use, geomorphological or material element or some other factor, livestock grazing should still be continued. Documenting the significant cause of any range or riparian issue is critical when it comes to term permit renewal. 2. Some type of NEPA compliance will be required for term permit renewal. NEPA review can range anywhere from a full-blown environmental impact statement to a categorical exclusion. Both the BLM and Forest Service allow the use of categorical exclusions to renew term permits so long as (a) the monitoring data or rangeland health evaluation shows that the allotment is meeting all rangeland health standards or that livestock grazing is not the causal factor in failing to meet a standard; (b) the allotment does not contain any “extraordinary circumstances,” (c) the permit is being renewed under substantially the same terms and conditions as the prior permit, and (d) Endangered Species Act and other types of reviews
have been completed. “Extraordinary circumstances” could include things like the presence of a Mexican wolf den, the need to change the management of the land to another use, significant cultural or historical sites, a request to analyze the development of water sources, fences, or other physical improvements, etc. According to the current BLM Instruction Memorandums for sage grouse, the mere presence of the species is not, in and of itself, an “extraordinary circumstance.” With all of these factors, the most important thing that has to occur is written documentation. If the agency can document why it is reaching the decision it did, it is going to be significantly harder to challenge. If the agency makes a decision and does not have a supporting rationale at the time of the decision, an administrative or legal challenge is likely to follow. 3. If the agency determines that either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement is necessary, a permittee also needs to have significant involvement prior to the “public comment” period. One of the ways that radical environmental groups like to attack grazing permit renewal is based on an allegedly “inadequate NEPA document.” Based on a quick review of the reported court cases, one of the most likely areas of attack is if an agency fails to consider all direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts and connected actions between renewal of the permit and other uses of the allotment. For example, if the allotment is also subject to oil and gas or other mineral development, developed recreation, or other permitted use, those uses have to be analyzed in the permit renewal NEPA document. Additionally, permit renewal NEPA documents are attacked if the agency fails to adequately analyze alternatives. Note that the agency does not have to fully evaluate every possible alternative to permit renewal , but if the agency is going to exclude a viable alternative from consideration, it has to explain why. Third, litigation and appeals can be filed if there is a perceived data gap. Like the alternative analysis however, as long as the agency notes and explains its rationale for not endlessly collecting data, the courts will defer to the agency explanation. Now is the time to begin discussing term permit renewal with your agency personnel to see where your permit is on the schedule and to explore any ways you can assist with this process. This is not a process that permittees should ignore, particularly since so many ranches have to have a reliable term permit to survive.
ON THE EDGE OF COMMON SENSE www.baxterblack.com
White Oaks Rodeo
T
he 4th of July weekend means different things to different people. Each of us may have a special memory of some 4th of July. Maybe it’s when you got married or had a baby or took that vacation to Yellowstone. To a lot of folks in the livestock business it means RODEO. The Independence Day that stands out in my mind was years ago. The big rodeo at White Oaks, New Mexico. You probably won’t find White Oaks in your Rand McNally since it’s a ghost town but it’s down around Carrizozo and Capitan north of the Mescalero Indian reservation. It wasn’t exactly a card carryin’ PRCA show so it was right down my alley! Two pardners and I arrived the mornin’ of the fourth in a fish drownin’ hat soakin’, slicker testin’ downpour! We entered up without looking at he stock. Just then the arena director on a four-wheel drive came up the draw drivin’ the bucking stock. There were mares and colts, range, ready and to say they were thin, would be kind. The bull ridin’ turned out to be cow ridin’ (they also doubled as doggin’ stock). The facilities were not quite National Finals approved. The arena was two football fields long and fenced in by sheep wire and cedar posts. The chute gate was made out of airport landing and baling-wired to a railroad tie. Airport landing, for those of you who weren’t in the Seabees in the Pacific is a sheet of corrugated steel, six foot by eight foot and dotted with grapefruit sized holes. Each sheet weighed about three hundred pounds! By the time the tape deck played “Barebackers get
Ready,” the arena was a ‘five buckle deep’ quagmire! This was to be Conrad’s first bareback ride. We got the riggin’ down on the fightin’ mare and I lent him my spurs. We kept whispering instructions and encouraging words. He reared back, pointed his toes and nodded his head. The four men on the airport landing grunted it open about eighteen inches where it stuck! The mare bolted to the daylight. Con’s first voluntary leg movement ended by lodging his left spur in a hole in the corrugated steel sheet! He had one hand in the riggin’ and one foot stuck fast to the chute gate. He bravely hung on until he was twenty feet long from hand to toe! Then he lost his grip and dangled, head down, from the gate, his hat cutting a furrow in the mud as he swung back and forth like a pendulum. “All that cowboy gets is your applause!” My turn came and they lowered me down on the mustang’s back. It was like straddling a two by eight. I called for the pony. We escaped the chute but she never bucked! She broke in to a dead run and covered the two hundred yards like the starship Enterprise! It was beginnin’ to look like she might not slow down. I bailed out just before she cleared the arena fence and lit out for parts unknown. By the end of the rodeo I looked like a dyin’ duck in a thunderstorm, Con’s ankle was the size of his head and the chute was in pieces. We were lucky, though. I heard later a feller broke his leg and one of the doggers was never found! www.baxterblack.com
Never Before Have So Few Fed So Many BY WES ISHMAEL / BEEF
S
ustainably producing such largesse is borne by a combination of things, of course: old and new, innovation built upon experience and attention to details in both genetics and management. Never before in history have so few fed so many and fed them so luxuriously as U.S. agricultural producers do today.
That observation is unoriginal, though the reality is often taken for granted — even by producers. “Since World War II, we have been the beneficiaries of the decreasing cost of food to where we spend less than 10 percent of our annual disposable income for food. One could argue that our entire consumer economy depends on having inexpensive food,” explained Dr. Laura Kahn at
last fall’s annual convention of the Texas Cattle Feeders Association. “Agriculture and the food security it provides is really the foundation of civilization itself.” Kahn is a physician and research scholar with Princeton University’s program on science and global security at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Afcontinued on page fourteen
July 15, 2017
Livestock Market Digest
Page 9
Missouri Land Sales
See all my listings at: • NEW LISTING! 80 Acres - 60 Acres Hayable, Live Water, Location, Location! paulmcgilliard.murney.com Only 8 miles west of Norwood, 3 miles east of Mansfield, 1/4 mile off Hwy 60. Paul McGilliard Well maintained 3 bed, 1 1/2 bath, 1432 sq. ft. brick/vinyl home, nestled under Cell: 417/839-5096 the trees. Full basement (partially finished), John Deere Room. This is your farm! MLS#60059808 1-800/743-0336 Murney Assoc., Realtors • 139 ACRES - 7 AC stocked lake; hunting retreat. Beautiful 2BR, 1BA log cabin. Springfield, MO 65804 Only 35+ miles northeast of Springfield. MLS#60031816 • 167 Acres, Cattle/Horses/Hunting Estate 5000 sq ft inspired Frank Lloyd Wright designed home. 3 bed, 2 1/2 baths, full w/o finished basement, John Deere room, bonus room. This estate is set up for intensive grazing, 3 wells, 3 springs, 4 ponds, automatic waters. Secluded, but easy access, only 22 miles east of Springfield, off Hwy 60. MLS# 60081327 • HOBBY FARM Deluxe 30 acres, 3 bed, 3.5 bath, 3100 sq ft custom built, 1 owner home, Webster Co, Rogersville schools, 13 miles from Springfield. RV drive through barn, horse barn, large hip roof barn, kennel, & small animal barn, year-round spring-fed creek. This farm has it ALL! MLS#60043538
Livestock Market
Digest REAL ESTATE GUIDE HeAdquArters West Ltd. ST. JOHN’S OFFICE: TRAEGEN KNIGHT
P.O. Box 1980 St. John’s, AZ 85936 www.headquarterswest.com 928/524-3740 Fax 928/563-7004 Cell 602/228-3494 info@headquarterswest.com
Filling your real estate needs in Arizona
Socorro Plaza Realty
Fallon-Cortese Land
On the Plaza
NEW MEXICO
Donald Brown
Qualifying Broker
P.O. Box 447 Fort Sumner, NM 88119
505-507-2915 cell 505-838-0095 fax
575.355.2855 office 575.355.7611 fax 575.760.3818 cell
#5 Plaza PO Box 1903 Socorro, NM 87801 www.socorroplazarealty.com dbrown@socorroplazarealty.com
nick@ranchseller.com www.ranchseller.com
Bottari Realty Paul Bottari, Broker
775/752-3040
www.bottarirealty.com
Ranch Properties now available through Bottari & Associates Realty, Inc Mason Mountain Ranch: 3782 deeded acres plus small BLM permit. Summers up to 300 pair in the past. Recent improvements to stockwatering sources, and new set of corrals. Landowner Elk Tag. $1,750,000.
Ruby Valley Ranch: 937 acres at foot of the Rubies with surface water rights for approx.. 160+ acres and permits for 285 acres of underground water for irrigation. On paved road. Some improvements. Price: $950,000.
Elko County 566 acre Organic Farm: this farm is located approx. 15 miles South of Wells on the East side of US Hwy 93. There are 249 acres under three pivots, one full and two wipers. Price: $725,000.
Fish Creek Ranch: 2957 deeded acres in Eureka Co. Nevada. Pending Sale. Price: $4,000,000.
Bar O Ranch: Elko County, Nevada. Approx. 500 deeded in Pilot Valley at the foot of Pilot Peak plus summer and winter range on BLM. 3 homes plus othClover Valley Z Bar Ranch: 598+- deed- er improvements. $1,200,000. ed acres at the foot of the mountains and Cove Springs Ranch: White Pine County, Nevada. on paved state route. Approx. 150 acres with 2,568 acres with BLM permits adjoining the ranch out harvest and pasture surface water rights out the gate. Rated at 400 head year around. Two homes, of several streams. Four (4) homes from 1100 good water with approx. 1800 acres water righted. sq.ft to 6,320 sq.ft. 3 shops including 2 heated, Two pivots with good shallow well. Price: $3,500,000. the larger being 5000 sq ft. Green house and gravity flow water system served by two wells North Butte Valley Ranch: Elko County, Nevada. that supply water with and without power. A This ranch has 550 acres of deeded base with water truly unique property. If you’re looking for a rights on approx 226 acres. The deeded lands sits in family ag property that can be self-sustaining or the center of the BLM allotment which is divided into a corporate retreat this may be the one you’re 6 pastures with a total of 2,420 aum’s from 4/15 to looking for. Price: $2,400,000. 12/22. Approx. 286 hd. Home with 3 bedrooms and 2 baths off grid. On county road Price: $1,700,000.
O’NEILL LAND, llc P.O. Box 145, Cimarron, NM 87714 • 575/376-2341 • Fax: 575/376-2347 land@swranches.com • www.swranches.com
WAGONMOUND RANCH, Mora/Harding Counties, NM. 4,927 +/- deeded acres, 1,336.80 +/- state lease acres, 2,617 +/- Kiowa National Grassland Lease Acres. 8,880.80 +/- Total Acres. Substantial holding with good mix of grazing land and broken country off rim onto Canadian River. Fenced into four main pastures with shipping and headquarter pasture and additional four pastures in the Kiowa lease. Modern well, storage tank and piped water system supplementing existing dirt tanks located on deeded. Located approximately 17 miles east of Wagon Mound on pavement then county road. Nice headquarters and good access to above rim. Wildlife include antelope, mule deer and some elk. $2,710,000
MAXWELL FARM IMPROVED, Colfax County, NM. 280 +/deeded acres, 160 Class A irrigation shares, 2 center pivots, nice sale barn, 100 hd feedlot. Depredation Elk Tags available. Owner financing available to qualified buyer. Significantly reduced to $550,000
MIAMI HORSE TRAINING FACILITY, Colfax County, NM. Ideal horse training facility, 4 bedroom 3 bathroom approx. 3,593 sq-ft home, 332.32 +/- deeded acres, 208 shares of irrigation, all the facilities you need to summer your cutting horse operation out of the heat and far enough south to have somewhat mild winters. Approximately 6,200 ft elevation. $1,790,000
RATON MILLION DOLLAR VIEW, Colfax County, NM. 97.68 +/- deeded acres, 2 parcels, excellent home, big shop, wildlife, a true million dollar view at end of private road. $489,000
MIAMI 80 ACRES, Colfax County, NM. 80 +/- deeded acres, 80 water shares, expansive views, house, shop, roping arena, barns and outbuildings. $485,000 COLD BEER VIEW, Colfax County, NM 83.22 +/- deeded acre, 3,174 sq ft, 5 bedroom, 3 ½ bathrm, 2 car garage home situated on top of the hill with amazing 360 degree views. $485,000
FRENCH TRACT 80, Colfax County, NM irrigated farm with home and good outbuildings, $350,000
MIAMI 20 ACRES, Colfax County, NM. 20 +/- deeded acres, MIAMI HORSE HEAVEN, Colfax County, NM. Very pri- 20 water shares, quality 2,715 sq ft adobe home, barn, vate approx. 4,800 sq-ft double walled adobe 4 bedroom, grounds and trees. Private setting. This is a must see. $425,000 3 bathroom home with many custom features. 77.50 Reduced to $395,000 +/- deeded acres with 77.25 water shares, large 7-stall COLMOR PLACE, Mora County, NM 354 +/- deeded acres, horse barn, large insulated metal shop with own septic, I25 frontage, house, pens, expansive views. Ocate Creek runs large hay barn/equipment shed. $1,500,000 through property. $275,000
521 West Second St. • Portales, NM 88130
575-226-0671 or 575-226-0672 fax
Buena Vista Realty
Qualifying Broker: A.H. (Jack) Merrick 575-760-7521 www.buenavista-nm.com
TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES • 100 acres, Kaufman County TX, Long County Rd frontage, city water, excellent grass. $3750 per acre. • 240 acres, Recreation, hunting and fishing. Nice apartment, 25 miles from Dallas Court House. $3250 per acre. • 270 acre, Mitchell County, Texas ranch. Investors dream; excellent cash flow. Rock formation being crushed and sold; wind turbans, some minerals. Irrigation water developed, crop & cattle, modest improvements. Just off I-20. Price reduced to $1.6 Million. • 40 acre, 2 homes, nice barn, corral, 30 miles out of Dallas. $415,000.
Joe Priest Real Estate
1-800/671-4548
joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com
Bottari Realty
Bar M Real Estate
Paul Bottari, Broker
775/752-3040 Nevada Farms & raNch PrOPerTY
SCOTT MCNALLY www.ranchesnm.com 575/622-5867 575/420-1237
www.bottarirealty.com
Ranch Sales & Appraisals
Scott Land co. Ranch & Farm Real Estate
1301 Front Street, Dimmitt, TX 79027 Ben G. Scott – Broker Krystal M Nelson –CO/NM QB#15892 800-933-9698 day/eve. www.scottlandcompany.com • www.texascrp.com
BANKRUPTCY COURT SALE - DVR RANCH - Quay/ Harding Co., NM – Located on both north & south shores of the Ute Lake reservoir – Logan, NM is a 22,429.44 ac. +/- ranch (10,444.44 deeded – 12,385.5 State Lease) watered not only by wells & pipeline but also the lake itself on both shores. Excellent location on all weather roads & pvmt.
CANYON VIEW RANCH – 1,542 deeded ac. +/- just out of Clayton, NM, beautiful, good country, well watered, volcanic rock mining operation offers addtl. income, on pvmt.
G BAR FARM – Tuc., NM, 194 ac. +/-, well improved w/ home, barns, pens, 138.6 ac. Arch Hurley conservation district water rights, well suited for combination farm/ UTE LAKE SUBDIVISION – beautiful, new custom built livestock operation! home, 5,046 +/- sq. ft. on 3.230 ac. +/-, 4 bdrm., 3 ½ bath BOX CANYON RANCH – Quay Co., NM – well & an attached two car garage. improved & watered, 2,400 ac. deeded, 80 ac. State BUY THE IMPROVEMENTS – LEASE THE LAND! Lease, excellent access from I-40. Union Co. – 640 ac. +/-, nice home w/landscaped yard LAKE VIEW RANCH – San Miguel Co., NM - 9,135 ac. w/mature trees, nice shop, cattle pens & modern pivot +/- (6,670 +/- deeded, 320 +/- BLM, 40 +/- State Lease, sprinklers. 2,106 +/- “FREE USE”) well improved, just off pvmt. on EXCELLENT OWNER FINANCING! ABERCROMBIE co. road., two neighboring ranches may be added for RANCH – Huerfano Co., CO – 7,491 ac. +/- of choice additional acreage! grassland watered by wells & the Cucharas River, on LITTLE BLACK PEAK - 37.65 sections +/- Central NM pvmt. ranch w/good, useable improvements & water, some MESA DEL GATO RANCH – 6,423.45 AC. +/- in two irrigation w/2 pivot sprinklers, on pvmt. w/all-weather tracts of 3,735 ac. & 2,688.45 ac., all deeded, approx. road, 13,322 ac.+/- Deeded, 8,457 ac. +/- BLM Lease, 7 mi. apart offered as one ranch, broker will assist w/ 2,320 ac. +/- State Lease. contracts on either or both of the tracts, good country DONLEY CO., TX. – 160 ac. +/- CRP. Good hunting. for year-round cow/calf operation or summer yearling Irrigation potential. OWNER FINANCING AVAILABLE! grazing. MOTIVATED TO SELL – King Co., TX. – 330 acres GREY FOX RANCH – Guadalupe Co., NM – 2,919.85 +/- with excellent quail & whitetail hunting. Hunting cabin. ac. +/- of deeded land, all native grass, located in close CRP until 2019. PRICE REDUCED! proximity to the Mesa Del Gato Ranch for addtl. grazing.
Please view our websites for details on these properties, choice TX, NM & CO ranches (large & small), choice ranches in the high rainfall areas of OK, irr./dryland/CRP & commercial properties. We need your listings on any types of ag properties in TX., NM, OK & CO.
THE TURKEY TRACK RANCH: First time offering of one of the largest cattle ranches within the state of New Mexico. The historic Turkey Track Ranch, once owned by Cap Mossman, the famous lawman, has been under one family ownership for over 70 years. The ranch is situated in three southeastern New Mexico counties and encompasses over 253,000 acres. The ranch extends from the Pecos River Valley on the ranch’s western bound-ary for over 40 miles to above the “Caprock Escarpment” in Lea County. The acreage includes, 37,000 +/- deeded acres, 167,625 federal BLM lease acres and 48,800 NM State lease acres. The grazing capacity is set by the BLM at over 3,000 AUYL. The ranch is operated from a headquarters located above the Caprock in Lea County and two additional cow camps all complete with living facilities and working pens. The pasture design includes 13 larger pastures and numerous smaller pastures and traps. Livestock water is provided by approximately 30 serviceable wells and miles of buried pipeline. In addition there are numerous large earthen tanks scattered throughout the ranch. The terrain and vegetation is diversified ranging from shinnery oak lowlands to tight grama grass turf. This is a must see. It could be one of the last opportunities to own a large piece of history. Call for an appointment to come take a look. Price: $18,500,000 cash Scott McNally Bar M Real Estate, LLC P.O. Box 428, Roswell, NM 88202 Office: 575-622-5867 • Cell: 575-420-1237 www.ranchesnm.com
Page 10
Livestock Market Digest
July 15, 2017
What’s Going on with Brazilian Beef? BY DR. WILLIAM JAMES MEATINGPLACE.COM
g•u•i•d•e angus
HEREFORD
Bradley 3 Ranch Ltd.
Registered Polled Herefords
www.bradley3ranch.com
Annual Bull Sale: February 10, 2018
Bulls & Heifers
at the Ranch NE of Estelline, TX Ranch-Raised ANGUS Bulls for Ranchers Since 1955
M.L. Bradley 806/888-1062 Fax: 806/888-1010 • Cell: 940/585-6471
FOR SALE AT THE FARM
Cañones Route P.O. Abiquiu, N.M. 87510 MANUEL SALAZAR P.O. Box 867 Española, N.M. 87532
575/638-5434
RED ANGUS
BEEFMASTER
A SOURCE FOR PROVEN SUPERIOR RED ANGUS GENETICS 14298 N. Atkins Rd., Lodi, CA 95240
209/727-3335
BRANGUS
(The views and opinions expressed in this blog are strictly those of the author.)
A
hunting guide box might have a variety of items, but each guide box had three things in common – sandwiches, thermoses of hot coffee, and shotgun shells. These were the essential contents, and we took great care when packing our boxes. No box was loaded onto the boat for the morning’s duck hunt until it had been approved. Last Thursday, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced the suspension of all imports of fresh beef from Brazil because of concerns about the safety of the products. As a reminder from an earlier blog, there are three main safeguards against importing unsafe meat. They are: 1) equivalence 2) audits 3) re-inspections Country equivalence is a determination by FSIS that a foreign inspection program has demonstrated it can ensure meat exports to the U.S. meet our standards of protection. Periodic audits provide spot checks in-country to ensure the foreign program is maintained. Import
re-inspections occur at official import houses to verify that the product comes from an equivalent country, from a certified establishment in that country, and the product itself is eligible. They’re called re-inspections because the product was already inspected in the country of origin. Since March, FSIS has increased actual product inspections to 100 percent of all meat shipments arriving in the U.S. from Brazil. The agency has refused entry to 11 percent of Brazilian fresh beef products. That’s high compared to the refusal of 1 percent of shipments from the rest of the world. FSIS says it has refused entry to over 100 lots (almost 2 million pounds) of Brazilian beef since March due to public health concerns, sanitary conditions, and animal health issues. In case you’re wondering, the latest import data from FSIS shows over 74 million pounds of product from Brazil presented for re-inspection in 2015. There was a time when FSIS had only two tools available to it when there were repeated problems with a country’s meat exports. FSIS could suspend imports from an individual establishment, or suspend imports from an entire country. When I
RIDING HERD
R.L. Robbs 520/384-3654 4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, Arizona 85643 Willcox, AZ
CLASSIFIEDS KADDATZ
Auctioneering and Farm Equipment Sales New and used tractors, equipment, and parts. Salvage yard, combines, tractors, hay equipment and all types of equipment parts. ORDER PARTS ONLINE.
Bulls, Cows, Pairs, Bred Heifers and Replacement Heifers for Sale www.RanchWorldAds.com
www.kaddatzequipment.com • 254/582-3000
To advertise call 505/243-9515
the time right then to read it. Luckily right before going to the Department of Motor Vehicles he looked at it and much to his horror the eye doctor had checked the box that said YouKnow-Who could not see to drive at night! My friend has perfect eyesight, does not wear glasses and, unlike me, can read the bottom line on the eye chart from 30 feet. I’ve worn glasses since I was 15 and the only way I got a driver’s license was to memorize the eye chart. My horse Gentleman lost his patience with me many a time when I’d make him skid down a mountainside on a foggy morn to kick a cow off the mountain only to discover it was
was managing the Office of International Affairs we added a third tool – suspension of a product category. This was the tool FSIS used for Brazil when it decided to suspend only fresh beef from Brazil. When fresh product is suspended, it’s usually due to a foreign animal disease concern or a product quality problem. In this case, it’s a mixture of both. According to a report by Meatingplace, Brazilian companies claim the suspension is due principally to the presence of foot-andmouth disease vaccine marks in some cuts of beef. The vaccine sometimes causes reactions that result in sterile abscesses in meat. The suspension of shipments will remain in place until the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture takes corrective action which FSIS finds acceptable. “Although international trade is an important part of what we do at USDA ... my first priority is to protect American consumers. That’s what we’ve done by halting the import of Brazilian fresh beef,” proclaimed Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue. This is as it should be. Before meat can enter the U.S., it must be approved. Like those old hunting guide boxes. continued from page one
a stump. Mr. You-Know-Who is an excellent driver, takes long road trips, drives a James Bond car and had just returned from a faraway adventure to Eureka, Nevada, for a big family reunion with his brothers. If you really want to get a taste of what an old fashioned cowboy and mining town in the west feels like I’d recommend Eureka highly. If you don’t know where it is it’s on the loneliest road in America about a 45 minute drive from Duckwater. After You-Know-Who gave his eye doctor a good piece of his mind the Doctor said it was all a mistake and quickly signed off on the form. With it in hand
You-Know-Who went to the DMV to wait the requisite hour in line. Finally, he walked up to the counter and handed a clerk all the paperwork. She looked over all the documents and YouKnow-Who’s driver’s license and said, “It seems all is in order, however, if you could read your license it plainly states that it doesn’t expire until next year!” So, the message I’d like to send to You-Know-Who’s brothers is if you want to see your brother in the future you’re gonna have to come to him because the DMV is questioning whether he can see to drive during the daylight, let alone at night. wwwLeePittsbooks.com
Hits Keep Coming for the Circus – and it Matters for Meat BY HANNAH THOMPSON, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, ANIMAL AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE
I
’ve written previously about how activist groups have worked against animals in entertainment, harming the reputation of the circus and its ability to operate. The animal entertainment industry took another hit last week when the New York City Council voted to ban the use of wild or exotic animals in circus performances. The pricey lawsuits and emotional rhetoric are very familiar to those of us in animal agricul-
ture and the meat industry. The New York Daily News posted an editorial expressing concerns with the ban, pointing out that zoos could be next on the chopping block. Unsurprisingly, the move was applauded by the usual suspects – PETA, HSUS, Direct Action Everywhere, etc. A Direct Action Everywhere rep called it “just the beginning,” saying the ban is the “beginning of the end” of “the use and abuse of all animals” (which includes using them for food – the author includes a reference to slaughterhouse
walls “crumbling to the ground”). Some may wish to keep quiet while activist groups target zoos and circuses – after all, every moment they focus on someone else is one they aren’t focusing on agriculture and the meat industry. That viewpoint is misguided and the sense of security will be short-lived. Any victory that activists can achieve in eliminating humans’ ability to use animals will provide them further ammunition in their mission to promote animal liberation. Burying our heads in the sand will not work for us.
I encourage you to find ways to be an ally to other animal use industries. Host your company picnic at the zoo and treat your employees to a backstage tour with information about animal care. Take your family to the circus (if you still can – many have been robbed of that opportunity) after taking a moment to learn about how the animals are treated. It’ll take one heck of a ringmaster to put a stop to activist groups’ three rings of misinformation, but I have faith in our industry.
July 15, 2017
Livestock Market Digest
Page 11
How Antibiotic Overuse in Human Medicine Impacts Beef Producers BY WEST ISHMAEL / BEEF FROM AGNEWSFEED.COM
“I
f we don’t address the problem of antibiotic resistance, we may lose quick and reliable treatment of infections that have been a manageable problem in the United States since the 1940s. Drug choices for the treatment of common infections will become increasingly limited, and in some cases, nonexistent.” That’s a statement from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1999. Dr. Kurt Stevenson shared it at last year’s Antibiotics Symposium hosted by the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA). He is an infectious disease physician in the division of infectious diseases at Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center. “I can say very clearly that we’re at that point,” Stevenson explained. “We have patients now who have drug-resistant pathogens for which there is either one drug — or no drug — available to treat them.” “We see this on a fairly regular basis in our medical center,” he said. “We have a number of patients who have very limited choices, and as a consequence, we have to use very expensive drugs and drugs that tend to have higher toxicity.” Ever since Alexander Fleming rediscovered penicillin in 1928, followed by wide-scale production in the 1940s, health care providers worldwide have continued to grow increasingly dependent on nature’s wonder drugs to combat bacterial infection. Doctors in the U.S. are no exception. Health care providers in the U.S. prescribed 266.1 million antibiotic prescriptions in 2014 — equivalent to 835 antibiotic prescriptions per 1,000 people, according to CDC. That’s equivalent to five prescriptions written for every six people each year. Today, the United States is the third-largest consumer of antibiotics in human medicine in the world, according to Dr. Laura Kahn, a physician and research scholar with Princeton University’s program on science and global security at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Only India and China consume more. “That’s total use,” Kahn emphasized. “The countries with the highest per capita use of
antibiotics, for whatever reason, are Australia and New Zealand.”
ONE HEALTH INITIATIVE Kahn is also co-founder of the One Health Initiative. “One Health is very simply the concept that human, animal and environmental health are linked,” Kahn told participants at last year’s annual convention of the Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA). “And because they are linked, complex subjects such as antimicrobial resistance must be examined in an interdisciplinary way.” Kahn put that concept to work in research highlighted in her book, “One Health and the Politics of Antimicrobial Resistance.” You’ll hear more about Kahn’s research in a future article in this series. Suffice it to say, her research dismantles the assumptions European regulators made about the presumed link between antibiotic use in livestock and antibiotic resistance in humans, an assumption that continues to drive antibiotic policy there. “There are a lot of similarities between the evolution of medicine and agriculture over the course of the 20th century,” Kahn explained at the TCFA session. “Both became increasingly specialized, technologically driven and dependent on antibiotics.” In the case of medical care, the price of care increased dramatically. In the case of agriculture, the price of food decreased, particularly in the United States. “Since World War II, we have been the beneficiaries of the decreasing cost of food, to where we spend less than 10% of our annual disposable income for food. One could argue that our entire consumer economy depends on having inexpensive food,” Kahn said.
HUMAN HEALTH All of that is why antibiotic stewardship — preserving the use of antibiotics for their intended purpose —is gaining urgency in both livestock and human medicine. “I tell our staff and physicians that antibiotics are unlike any other drug. They’re societal drugs,” Stevenson explained. “If I use an antibiotic in one patient today, it may influence the ability of that drug to effectively treat another patient tomorrow. That’s a point we have to continue to bring home to clinicians.”
Reality paints a less conservative picture of dispensing discretion. “Estimates are that 30% to 50% of antibiotics prescribed in hospitals are unnecessary or inappropriate; over 50% of antibiotic prescriptions in outpatient clinics are unnecessary,” said Dr. Nate Smith, sharing CDC estimates at the NIAA meeting. He is a physician as well as director and state health officer for the Arkansas Department of Health. That doesn’t mean unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions are made without thought or care. “When I talk to physician colleagues, I don’t find any who say, ‘About half of the prescriptions I write for antibiotics are unnecessary,’ ” Smith said. Instead, the ubiquitous nature of such prescriptions has to do with everything from regional culture and relative wealth, to patient expectations, to time. “Many times, our physicians are working under pressure,” Smith explained. “They need to make decisions quickly, and sometimes with levels of uncertainty.” For instance, a patient might come in with an upper respiratory tract infection, typically caused by viruses, which are unaffected by antibiotics. But a viral infection can lead to a secondary bacterial infection. Especially if it would be difficult for the patient to make another trip to the office, the physician might go ahead and prescribe an antibiotic. Unfortunately, this bettersafe-than-sorry approach — inappropriate and unnecessary use of antibiotics — can accelerate antibiotic resistance. Every resident in some states receives the equivalent of more than one prescription of antibiotics each year (see map). The fewest antibiotic prescriptions per 1,000 people occur in Alaska, at 501 (2014 CDC data) and the most are in West Virginia, at 1,285. According to CDC, at least 2 million people in the U.S. each year become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. At least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections.
CHOOSING WISELY “Antimicrobial stewardship includes not only limiting inappropriate use, but also optimizing antimicrobial selection,
FALL MARKETING EDITION
Coming Soon! Randy Sumers 505/243-9515 Cell: 505/850-8544 randy@aaalivestock.com
dosing, route and duration of therapy to maximize clinical cure or prevention of infection — while limiting the unintended consequences, such as the emergence of resistance, adverse drug events and cost,” Stevenson explained. These elements are central to the multifold antibiotic stewardship programs under way in human medicine at state and national levels. For instance, the White House released The National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-resistant Bacteria (CARB) two years ago, developed by an interagency task force of the same name. Its goals include: slow the emergence of resistant bacteria and prevent the spread of resistant infections; strengthen national One Health surveillance efforts to combat resistance; and accelerate basic and applied research and development for new antibiotics, other therapeutics and vaccines. Internationally, there are a number of programs. Last year, the United Nation’s General Assembly embraced the World Health Organization’s Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. That plan also supports the multi-sector One Health approach to addressing
antibiotic resistance. Keep in mind that the One Health initiative focuses on more than antibiotic resistance. According to its mission statement, One Health seeks to promote, improve, and defend the health and well-being of all species by enhancing cooperation and collaboration between physicians, veterinarians, other scientific health and environmental professionals. As mentioned previously in this exclusive BEEF magazine series, livestock producers in general, and cattle producers in particular, began addressing antibiotic stewardship years ago. Most recently, the veterinary feed directive implemented Jan. 1 is a governmental effort to regulate stewardship. “Antibiotics really are the foundation of modern medicine,” Kahn explained. “Without antibiotics, we’re dead in the water when it comes to elective surgeries, cancer chemotherapies and immunosuppressive therapies. “All of the treatments that we take for granted with modern medicine, we cannot do without antibiotics because the risk of infection is too high … We need to make sure we get this right, because we may not have a second chance.”
! w o N e b i r c s ub
S
iv
ormat
tion ...
ublica
tock p e lives
k c o t s e v i L Digest ost inf
t’s m thwes
u
The So
KET
MAR
S
3Yes.
Please subscribe me to the Livestock Market Digest for:
1 Year at $19.95
2 Years at $29.95
NAME
NAME
ADDRESS
ADDR
PHONE
PHON
E-MAI
MC
VISA
CARD NUMBER
CARD
EXPIRATION DATE
EXPIR
SIGNATURE
SIGNA
Payment Enclosed
SEND PAYMENT TO: Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
@
or subscribe online
Pay
SEND AAALIVESTOCK.COM
Lives P.O. Albu
Page 12
Livestock Market Digest
July 15, 2017
SBBA Field Day & IBBA Fall Conference An abuse of federal law that is harming many New Mexicans
A monument worthy of revision
W
e’ve received word it is highly likely Secretary Zinke will be coming to New Mexico to fulfill his obligations to review recent national monument designations, and that would include the almost 500,000-acre Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument (OMDPNM). That is the designation with whch I am the most familiar, and I believe Secretary Zinke should concur with the recommendation of Rep. Steve Pearce that the monument be diminished to only include the footprint of the Organ Mountains. That would be the proper and reasonable approach to take for the following reasons: • If one is looking for a classic case of federal overreach, this is it. The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorized the President to protect “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest” as monuments. How? By reserving parcels of land. How much land? Those parcels, “in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” Just the opposite occurred in Dona Ana County. The boundaries were drawn years ago by the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance. Over the last eight years five different bills have been introduced in Congress to create either a combination of Wilderness and National Conservation Area or Wilderness and National Monument. Since none of these bills advanced beyond the committee level, the hunt was on to find objects to justify the already established boundaries. Some of the objects listed in the President’s proclamation don’t even exist in the monument, as they reside on private or state lands. In oth-
er words, the process was bass akwards and clearly an abuse of the Antiquities Act. • The end result of this “process” is a 496,330-acre monstrosity that is in four separate parcels, separated by two Interstate Highways, two cross country railroads, the Rio Grande River, a major gas pipeline, a major fiber optics line, encompasses a major southern tier FAA radar site, and overlays four major energy transmission lines. Those are some of the technical reasons this designation should be diminished. But there are many more reasons, with some examples being: • The so-called “listening session” in Las Cruces by former Secretary Jewel was a complete sham. The well-funded enviros bussed in their supporters from Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Silver City and El Paso. The Dona Ana County Sherriff, Todd Garrison, who was opposed to the monument, was barred by U.S. Marshals from entering the hearing room. An orchestrated, stacked deck event had occurred. • Given the monument’s close proximity to the border with Mexico, the limitations placed on federal, state and local law enforcement concerned many folks, and explains why the designation was opposed by Sheriff Garrison, and why it was also opposed by the New Mexico Sheriffs Association, the Southwest Border Sheriffs and the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers. The southwest border with Mexico has been called a “gaping wound” by Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security, John F. Kelly, and designations that place limits on law enforcement will inhibit healing that wound and place public safety in jeopardy. • The proclamation creating
T
he Southeast Brangus Breeders Association (SBBA) will host a cattlemen’s gathering at the Seminole Indian Reservation in Brighton, Florida, on Friday, August 18. The event will be held in conjunction with the International Brangus Breeders Association’s (IBBA) Fall Conference Aug. 17-19. All IBBA members and cattle producers are encouraged to attend. The SBBA Cattlemen’s Gathering will focus on the Seminole culture, cow country, cracker horses and the cracker lifestyle. A little-known fact about the region is that twenty-five percent of ranches in the United States that report 2,500 head or more are within 200 miles of Lake Okeechobee, which is where the gathering will be held. A social hour will kick-off the event at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, Aug. 17, at the Brighton Cattle and Range Office at the Seminole Indian Reservation where attendees can network with other breeders and exchange ideas. The gathering on Friday, Aug. 18, will begin at 8 a.m. where attendees will board buses at the Hampton Inn in Okeechobee and tour the Seminole Indian Reservation. The buses will unload at the Seminole Veteran’s Center where a day’s worth of education will take place focusing on Brangus cattle and improving beef production. Presentations for the field day will include managing cattle for successful reproductive performance, DNA and Cattle ID options, the use of genomics to improve cli-
the OMDPNM has the most anti-livestock grazing language of any National Monument where grazing is still allowed. Ranchers face the prospect of not being able to conduct standard daily ranching operations; of not having new range improvements approved; and in some cases, not being able to maintain existing range improvements. • Since only 10 percent of Dona Ana County is privately owned, limitations on the current use or potential future use of federal lands has a detrimental impact on all of its citizenry There are many other issues, including watershed restoration, flood control, dam maintenance, rights of ways for utilities and so on, but those listed should give Secretary Zinke plenty of fodder to recommend diminishing the size of the monument.
The politicians speak Both New Mexico Senators are opposed to the review, and NM Rep’s Lujan-Grissom and Lujan have stated their opposition. At a recent Congressional
mate adaptability and carcass merit, and how production practices affect meat quality. All studies involve Brangus cattle produced by the Seminole Tribe. Rounding out the educational program will be a panel of prominent cattlemen discussing the identification of profitable herd sires using selection indexes. Lunch will be provided featuring traditional tribal food. The field day will conclude with dinner at the Veteran’s Center where everyone will board the buses and return to the Hampton Inn. IBBA committee meetings will take place at the Seminole Veteran’s Center in Brighton on Thursday, Aug. 17, beginning at 2 p.m. The IBBA Board of Directors will meet at 8 a.m.on Saturday, Aug. 19, followed by the SBBA meeting at 10 a.m. Please RSVP for lunch to Todd Harvey at 386-288-8059 or by email at harvey.todd12@ gmail.com. The host hotels are located in Okeechobee, Florida. Contact the Hampton Inn at 863824-0003 or the Holiday Inn Express 863357-3529. When making reservations please mention Southeast Brangus Field Day for room block. The cut-off date for reservations is Thursday, Aug. 10. For those wanting to have a little fun in the sun, there are several beach destinations within two hours of Okeechobee, Florida, so plan to come early or stay late. Airports serving the area are Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, Orlando, and Tampa
hearing, Senator Tom Udall asked Secretary Zinke flat out, “Will you commit to me today that you will respect the wishes of the vast majority of New Mexicans and maintain the existing boundaries of these two monuments?” Concerned that Zinke did not directly respond, Senator Udall issued a statement saying, “I will stand with thousands of New Mexicans, including sportsmen and small business owners, and fight to ensure their wishes are protected, and these monuments are not undermined in a political effort by the Trump administration to sell off our public lands to the highest bidder.” Rep. Steve Pearce, who represents the area where the monument resides, is very much in favor of the review. “The Obama Administration, and the Administrations before it, repeatedly abused the Antiquities Act by creating expansive national monuments,” said Pearce. “New Mexicans,” Pearce continued, “and folks all across the nation, deserve to have access to federal lands for recreational use, hunting, grazing, and the economic opportunity that comes with it.” At a recent Congressional hearing on the House side, Pearce told Zinke, “The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument is a very highly volatile issue in the district,” so much so that even, “when the Democrats owned the House and had a filibuster-proof Senate and Mr. Obama was in the White House, they still could not get this passed through law because it was so contentious.” Pearce handed the Secretary
a list of over 800 “businesses and individuals” who wanted to see the OMDPNM, “not revoked, but taken back down to the smallest footprint.” In other words, to only include the Organ Mountains proper. Both NM Senators and other opponents of the review are fond of touting the economic benefits the monument designation has purportedly brought, including increases in visitors, in tax revenue, and even in the creation of new businesses. These arguments shouldn’t carry much weight with anyone. The icon and main attraction of the monument is the Organ Mountains. Images of those mountains are what appear on advertisements, websites and other venues promoting the monument. Under the Pearce proposal, the national monument would still exist and the Organ Mountains would still be in the monument. Whatever economic benefits which may be occurring would still occur. Nothing would have changed on that front and it is therefore a faulty argument in opposing the review and revision of the monument’s boundaries. I look forward to Secretary Zinke’s visit to southern New Mexico. Until next time, be a nuisance to the devil and don’t forget to check that cinch. Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner. blogspot.com) and is the founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation
July 15, 2017
Livestock Market Digest
Page 13
Mexican Wolf Draft Revised Recovery Plan Released for Public Comment Series of public meetings will provide additional opportunities for public review ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released a draft revision to the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. The plan guides Mexican wolf recovery efforts by the bureau and its partners, with the ultimate goal of removing this wolf subspecies from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections and returning management to the appropriate states and tribes. The Service isnow seeking public input and peer review on the draft revised plan through a public comment period and series of public meetings. The comment period will remain open through August 29, 2017. The recovery strategy outlined in the plan is to establish two Mexican wolf populations distributed in core areas within the subspecies’ historical range in the United States and Mexico. This strategy addresses the threats to the species, including the extinction risk associated with small population size and the loss of genetic diversity. The draft plan provides estimates of the time and resources required to carry out this strategy and the associated measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal.
At the time of recovery, the Service expects Mexican wolf populations to be stable or increasing in abundance, well-distributed geographically within their historical range, and genetically diverse. In the United States, the recovery strategy will focus on the area south of I-40 in Arizona and New Mexico in the area designated as the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area. In Mexico, federal agencies are focusing on the Sierra Madre Occidental Mountains in Sonora, Durango, and Chihuahua. The current Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan dates back to 1982. In April 2016, the Service signed a Settlement Agreement with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Defenders of Wildlife to complete a final revised Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan by the end of November 2017. To ensure that we are able to address public comments and meet the agreed-upon completion date, we will not be extending the comment period beyond the designated time. To review and comment on the draft revised recovery plan and related docu-
ments, visit www.regulations.gov and enter the docket number FWS–R2– ES–2017–0036 in the search bar. Click the “Comment Now” button to submit your comments. Alternatively you may request documents by mail by writing to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113; or by calling: (505) 346–2525. Comments may be mailed or hand delivered to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES– 2017–0036, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. The Service will also hold four public meetings to provide an opportunity for citizens to learn about the revised Mexican wolf recovery plan and to provide written comments (oral comments will not be recorded). The dates and times of these information meetings are as follows: 1. July 18, 2017 (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.): Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University, Prochnow Auditorium, South Knowles Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001.
2. July 19, 2017 (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.): Pinetop: Hon-Dah Resort, Casino Banquet Hall, 777 AZ–260, Pinetop, AZ 85935. 3. July 20, 2017 (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.): Truth or Consequences: Ralph Edwards Auditorium, Civic Center, 400 West Fourth, Truth or Consequences, NM 87901. 4. July 22, 2017 (2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.): Albuquerque: Crowne Plaza Albuquerque, 1901 University Boulevard NE, Albuquerque, NM 87102. The Mexican wolf recovery program is a partnership between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, White Mountain Apache Tribe, USDA Forest Service, USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service – Wildlife Services, and several participating counties. The Interagency Field Team (IFT) is responsible for the day-to-day management of the Mexican wolf population and includes field personnel from several of the partner agencies. For more information on the Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Program, visit http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ mexicanwolf/ or www.azgfd.gov/wolf.
How Antibiotic Overuse in Human Medicine Impacts Beef Producers BY WEST ISHMAEL / BEEF FROM AGNEWSFEED.COM
“I
f we don’t address the problem of antibiotic resistance, we may lose quick and reliable treatment of infections that have been a manageable problem in the United States since the 1940s. Drug choices for the treatment of common infections will become increasingly limited, and in some cases, nonexistent.” That’s a statement from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1999. Dr. Kurt Stevenson shared it at last year’s Antibiotics Symposium hosted by the National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA). He is an infectious disease physician in the division of infectious diseases at Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center. “I can say very clearly that we’re at that point,” Stevenson explained. “We have patients now who have drug-resistant pathogens for which there is either one drug — or no drug — available to treat them.” “We see this on a fairly regular basis in our medical center,” he said. “We have a number of patients who have very limited choices, and as a consequence, we have to use very expensive drugs and drugs that tend to have higher toxicity.” Ever since Alexander Fleming rediscovered penicillin in 1928, followed by wide-scale
production in the 1940s, health care providers worldwide have continued to grow increasingly dependent on nature’s wonder drugs to combat bacterial infection. Doctors in the U.S. are no exception. Health care providers in the U.S. prescribed 266.1 million antibiotic prescriptions in 2014 — equivalent to 835 antibiotic prescriptions per 1,000 people, according to CDC. That’s equivalent to five prescriptions written for every six people each year. Today, the United States is the third-largest consumer of antibiotics in human medicine in the world, according to Dr. Laura Kahn, a physician and research scholar with Princeton University’s program on science and global security at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Only India and China consume more. “That’s total use,” Kahn emphasized. “The countries with the highest per capita use of antibiotics, for whatever reason, are Australia and New Zealand.”
ONE HEALTH INITIATIVE Kahn is also co-founder of the One Health Initiative. “One Health is very simply the concept that human, animal and environmental health are linked,” Kahn told participants at last year’s annual convention of the Texas Cattle Feeders
Association (TCFA). “And because they are linked, complex subjects such as antimicrobial resistance must be examined in an interdisciplinary way.” Kahn put that concept to work in research highlighted in her book, “One Health and the Politics of Antimicrobial Resistance.” You’ll hear more about Kahn’s research in a future article in this series. Suffice it to say, her research dismantles the assumptions European regulators made about the presumed link between antibiotic use in livestock and antibiotic resistance in humans, an assumption that continues to drive antibiotic policy there. “There are a lot of similarities between the evolution of medicine and agriculture over the course of the 20th century,” Kahn explained at the TCFA session. “Both became increasingly specialized, technologically driven and dependent on antibiotics.” In the case of medical care, the price of care increased dramatically. In the case of agriculture, the price of food decreased, particularly in the United States. “Since World War II, we have been the beneficiaries of the decreasing cost of food, to where we spend less than 10% of our annual disposable income for food. One could argue that our entire consumer economy depends on having inexpensive food,” Kahn said.
HUMAN HEALTH All of that is why antibiotic stewardship — preserving the use of antibiotics for their intended purpose —is gaining urgency in both livestock and human medicine. “I tell our staff and physicians that antibiotics are unlike any other drug. They’re societal drugs,” Stevenson explained. “If I use an antibiotic in one patient today, it may influence the ability of that drug to effectively treat another patient tomorrow. That’s a point we have to continue to bring home to clinicians.” Reality paints a less conservative picture of dispensing discretion. “Estimates are that 30% to 50% of antibiotics prescribed in hospitals are unnecessary or inappropriate; over 50% of antibiotic prescriptions in outpatient clinics are unnecessary,” said Dr. Nate Smith, sharing CDC estimates at the NIAA meeting. He is a physician as well as director and state health officer for the Arkansas Department of Health. That doesn’t mean unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions are made without thought or care. “When I talk to physician colleagues, I don’t find any who say, ‘About half of the prescriptions I write for antibiotics are unnecessary,’ ” Smith said. Instead, the ubiquitous nature of such prescriptions has to do
with everything from regional culture and relative wealth, to patient expectations, to time. “Many times, our physicians are working under pressure,” Smith explained. “They need to make decisions quickly, and sometimes with levels of uncertainty.” For instance, a patient might come in with an upper respiratory tract infection, typically caused by viruses, which are unaffected by antibiotics. But a viral infection can lead to a secondary bacterial infection. Especially if it would be difficult for the patient to make another trip to the office, the physician might go ahead and prescribe an antibiotic. Unfortunately, this bettersafe-than-sorry approach — inappropriate and unnecessary use of antibiotics — can accelerate antibiotic resistance. Every resident in some states receives the equivalent of more than one prescription of antibiotics each year (see map). The fewest antibiotic prescriptions per 1,000 people occur in Alaska, at 501 (2014 CDC data) and the most are in West Virginia, at 1,285. According to CDC, at least 2 million people in the U.S. each year become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. At least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these infections. continued on page fifteen
Page 14
Livestock Market Digest
The View FROM THE BACK SIDE
My Name Was Jesus Christ
BY BARRY DENTON
T
hat is the truth of the matter. I was the most confused teenager on the planet. On the one hand my mother made us go to Sunday school and church every Sunday. My mother said we had to learn about Jesus and God so we could grow up to be good solid citizens. We also learned that we might have a shot at getting into heaven if we followed the Ten Commandments. However, during the week we had to work with dear old dad. Needless to say, what we learned on Sunday really did not matter to him. I would never say that he was not God fearing. He just did not fear God by the same rules as anyone else. Oh, do not worry, this article will not
be preachy. It is just an account of how I was named after the most influential person to ever walk the earth. The best I can recall is that until the time prior to becoming a teenager I was affectionately known as “Fella” or “Pumpy”. I have no idea why the adults gave me those names, but they were well intended and probably because I was a cute kid. When those names were said, there was always a lilt in their voice, and I was happy they wanted me for something. Then came the day when I turned into a teenager and started to assume responsibilities at the same time. Of course, I had it easy up until then and it took me awhile to transition. As a result I simultaneously became a smart ass and a dumb ass at the
same time, neither of which was a good thing. For instance my immediate duties were if the adults were working on equipment I was supposed to hand them the correct tools for the job. If my father was working on his truck and I handed him the wrong size wrench, he would say “Jesus Christ, don’t you know which wrench to hand me by now?” Another one of my teenage duties was to run and get a cold beer any time one of his buddies drove in the yard. If I was too slow he would say “Jesus Christ, go get Ernie a beer!” If there happened to be a snow storm my job was to shovel out all the doors at the house, the barn, and also wide paths to each of them. He expected you to keep them void of any snow. If he came in the house and you were inside while it was snowing he would say “Jesus Christ, get out there and keep that snow cleaned up.” Of course, in those days the only answer that you ever gave your father was “Yes Sir!” I’m certain that I was not the only teenager named Jesus Christ. How about when you are working cattle? Who hasn’t heard “Jesus Christ, get out of the damn gate?” My mother told me when I was being summoned as Jesus Christ, just to say “Praise Him” under my breath. My father was the kind of guy that emphasized that he
July 15, 2017 brought you into this world, and he did not mind taking you out! The other part of this story is that no matter where you went you were treated the same. If you were helping the neighbor, helping your uncle, or anyone else, they had the same rules and called you out for not paying attention or messing up. I think the terminology probably fit the aggravation for those years until it dawns on you that you had better grow up. Then you start to realize that your life could get much better if you actually tried to become part of the fold. What you had resisted for so long gradually becomes normal to you. When people see that you are trying instead of resisting then you start earning some respect. The respect feels pretty good, but when you make a mistake it really haunts you, so the mistakes become less and less. One thing about it, I never did get a Jesus Christ complex or walk around in robes thinking I was him. I cannot say that I ever tried to walk on water or turn water into wine. I really do not have an inclination to be holier than thou. My mother never did send me to a shrink, why would they waste money on those nuts? Sometimes it astounds me how well I turned out. Funny that I’m programmed to work hard, provide for my family, be kind, respect your fellow man; help your neighbors when you
NEVER BEFORE fairs. She’s also a co-founder of the One Health Initiative. Sustainably producing such largesse is borne by a combination of things, of course: old and new, innovation built upon experience and attention to details in both genetics and management. Consider things as mundane as grazing and weaning. Kris Ringwall, a beef specialist at North Dakota State University, points
can, and not to kick sleeping dogs. I think I was lucky enough to get a good old fashioned upbringing with no political correctness involved. You bet, they might have been hard on you, but that is how you remember the lessons that you are taught. The adults were out to make sure that you learned how to become a good member of society. They didn’t mind killing you, to get it done. Have you tried to hire anyone lately to do some work around the ranch? It seems like you have to screen about twenty to find one that is half way decent and it still may not be good. The political left side of the earth now calls nearly every bad behavior a disease. It seems like every other person that applies for a job claims some sort of disease. Why would you tell anybody that you had a disease in the first place and why would you expect them to hire you? In my estimation POLITICAL CORRECTNESS is the disease destroying America. If you are a government official I encourage you to change the rules and hurt some “feelings.” That’s how people learn to do the right thing. Remember, this is coming to you from someone formerly known as “Jesus Christ.” Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of this publication. continued from page eight
out in his BeefTalk newsletter that weaning calves early can save 25 percent of available forage. That’s based on research at the Dickinson Research Extension Center, weaning calves in mid-August versus early November. This concept isn’t new; dry cows have fewer nutritional requirements than lactating ones. Early weaning is often considered amid dry conditions like those currently faced by some producers in the
Dakotas and parts of the Southeast. Producers are just as familiar with the need to tally the net economic trade-off of the management tool. The benefit side of the ledger in this case includes forage savings, increased cow body condition, a potential boost in reproduction and a more favorable marketing window for cull cows. The cost side includes things like lighter calves at weaning and potentially squandered feed resources.
The point is, effective beef cattle managers make these kinds of decisions every day about how to get the most from the least. Now consider something as new as genomic testing and tools. At the recent Beef Improvement Federations (BIF) annual meeting, Thomas Lawlor, director of research at Holstein Association USA, described the evolution of genotyping and genomic-enhanced selection in the Holstein breed. Rather than find the next must-have, curve-bending bull, Lawlor says the top Holstein breeders today are more interested in how increasingly dependable genetics can increase production and decrease cost. “The real driver behind the pursuit for faster genetic gain are the improved genetics they bring into their herd,” Lawlor says. “The real money is made from milking those elite genetics. This is the true success of the genomic era.” It’s more than genomics. The type of breeders mentioned by Lawlor harness the potential by using advanced reproductive tools like in vitro fertilization (IVF). “Seedstock breeders are putting in vitro fertilization facilities on their farm, negotiating their own contracts with AI companies, consulting with geneticists, studying consumer and economic trends, and trying to predict where our industry is headed,” Lawlor explains. You can find similar examples among beef seedstock and commercial producers. “Farmers are more convinced than ever of the importance of good genetics in their herds,” Lawlor says. “Many are investing heavily in it and are convinced that their herd will be more profitable due to their genomic breeding program.”
July 15, 2017
Livestock Market Digest
Page 15
US Funding Dubious Science & Unfounded Fear Eco-militants that defiled scientific integrity in government agencies defy corrections BY RON ARNOLD
D
onald Trump’s EPA is facing a tsunami of vitriol for trying to drain the DC swamp of rogue regulators that rule with made-to-order scientific lies and invented threats, such as its ruling that the carbon dioxide which makes life on Earth possible is a pollutant. When President Trump proposed a $1.6 billion cut from EPA’s expected $8.1 billion budget, employee screams of doomsday intimidated Congress into forking over the full gimme-gimme. In response to the specter of lost jobs and less political power, entrenched Obama holdovers have organized to sabotage Trump’s reforms in what is being called the Deep State. Fear is palpable throughout the EPA, where secret email accounts revealed serious abuses of power, where bureaucrats dictatorially took over virtually anything wet as “Waters of the United States,” including agricultural irrigation ditches and stock watering ponds (Trump revoked that rule), and where policies that destroyed the homes and lives of thousands have been routinely based on “liberal” interpretations of federal laws and scientific research that did not stand up to critical scrutiny. The fear evidently touched EPA “Scientific Integrity Official” Francesca Grifo, an Obama appointee whopreviously oversaw the “scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (“an oxymoron if there ever was one,” said Forbes magazine). She postponed this year’s meeting of EPA’s scientific integrity “stakeholders” when she found out that her faithful corps of environmental activist advisors was to be joined by independent scientists approved by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The Grifo flap and other Environmental Protection Agency problems masked a much bigger government science outrage: the $315 million scandal engulfing the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS). This scandal further underscores why Trump’s reforms are necessary. In March, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee probed into HHS’s National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the $315 million in taxpayer-funded grants awarded since 1985 to the Italian research groupRamazzini Institute. The organization is an “independent” science academy focused on cancer research into commercial products. Its output had become the subject of controversy for its fixation on “scaremongering about chemicals, artificial sweeteners and other products.” Ramazzini’s early claim that sweetener aspartame was carcinogenic was widely panned by the European Food Safety Authority, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Italian media. Its 2016 claim thatsucralose (Splenda) was linked to cancer brought similar reactions. Not surprisingly, government and scientific bodies around the world have long criticized it for using secretive, questionable science to reach politically motivated conclusions. In 2012, EPA scientists “identified discrepancies in the results of methanol studies” conducted by Ramazzini. Similar EPA complaints from 2010 prompted Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and David Vitter (R-LA.) to say Ramazzini’s work “is in dire need of review.” The question remains: Who opened America’s public coffers – mostly without competitive bidding – for Ramazzini and its New York-based affiliate Collegium Ramazzini, the advocacy cooperative of scientists and researchers in the grant-gobbling Ramazzini circle? Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute (E&E Legal) confirm that the money came from HHS’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIE-
HS) and theNational Toxicology Program. Since toxicologist-microbiologist Linda Birnbaum became director of both in 2009, the two agencies provided $92 million, one third of Collegium members’ support. She herself is a Collegium member. A knowledgeable source says she got the NIEHS-NTP appointment largely because she was willing to expand the agency’s mission to include the health effects of climate change, while the other candidate for her job was not. According to public records, Birnbaum’s NIEHS contracted with Ramazzini and its affiliates – through multiple third parties – muddying it up what services were rendered under these contracts and how they were prearranged. Another Ramazzini fellow, Dr. Christopher Portier, a senior collaborating scientist for the anti-pesticideEnvironmental Defense Fund, and a wellknown anti-glyphosate activist, worked for an HHS agency for 32 years. He initiated a report claiming the common weed killer glyphosate (used in Roundup herbicides) is carcinogenic. It was the only study among many that made this assertion, but activists used it to call for banning Roundup, which is often used in conjunction with genetically engineered crops to eliminate the need for weeding and tilling, thereby reducing erosion. The president of Collegium Ramazzini is former NIH researcher Dr. Phil Landrigan, now a professor at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. According to reports, Director Birnbaum coordinated with Dr. Landrigan to publish more than two dozen Ramazzini studies in the NIEHS-run journal, Environmental Health Perspectives. Landrigan also received substantial funding from Birnbaum’s NIEHS, E&E Legal reported. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee continues to probe the Ramazzini morass. Backed byOversight
ANTIBIOTIC OVERUSE
CHOOSING WISELY “Antimicrobial stewardship includes not only limiting inappropriate use, but also optimizing antimicrobial selection, dosing, route and duration of therapy to maximize clinical cure or prevention of infection — while limiting the unintended consequences, such as the emergence of resistance, adverse drug events and cost,” Stevenson explained. These elements are central to the multifold antibiotic stewardship programs under way in human medicine at state and national levels. For instance, the White House released The Nation-
Subcommittee Chairman Darin LaHood (R-Ill.), Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is following up ona joint letter to HHS Secretary Tom Price, requesting documents and correspondence between Ramazzini and theNational Institutes of Health (NIH). The letter noted that Birnbaum’s NIEHS “has refused to respond to [FOIA] requests seeking information related to contracts between your Department, including NIH and NEIHS, and Ramazzini.” A source familiar with the issue says a dialogue was established and is progressing. The controversies are likely to heat up in the face of news stories saying that Aaron Blair, the scientist who led IARC’s review of glyphosate risks, deliberately withheld findings from studies of 89,000 U.S. farm workers and family members, concluding that there was no link between cancer and exposure to the chemical. Under Blair’s direction, while he and his team for years apparently ignored evidence that contradicted that conclusion, IARC found that the weed killer was “probably carcinogenic.” Collegium Ramazzini strongly rebuts any assault on its integrity and infallibility. Its website says its mission “is to be a bridge between the world of scientific discovery and the social and political centers which must act on the discoveries of science to protect public health.” Is this self-congratulation, a power ploy – or a subtle warning to anyone who might question its funding arrangements? In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex and included this important final caveat: “In holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” Can the Trump Adminis-
continued from page thirteen
al Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-resistant Bacteria (CARB) two years ago, developed by an interagency task force of the same name. Its goals include: slow the emergence of resistant bacteria and prevent the spread of resistant infections; strengthen national One Health surveillance efforts to combat resistance; and accelerate basic and applied research and development for new antibiotics, other therapeutics and vaccines. Internationally, there are a number of programs. Last year, the United Nation’s General Assembly embraced the World Health Organization’s Global Action Plan on Antimicrobi-
al Resistance. That plan also supports the multi-sector One Health approach to addressing antibiotic resistance. Keep in mind that the One Health initiative focuses on more than antibiotic resistance. According to its mission statement, One Health seeks to promote, improve, and defend the health and well-being of all species by enhancing cooperation and collaboration between physicians, veterinarians, other scientific health and environmental professionals. As mentioned previously in this exclusive BEEF magazine series, livestock producers in general, and cattle producers in particular, began addressing
antibiotic stewardship years ago. Most recently, the veterinary feed directive implemented Jan. 1 is a governmental effort to regulate stewardship. “Antibiotics really are the foundation of modern medicine,” Kahn explained. “Without antibiotics, we’re dead in the water when it comes to elective surgeries, cancer chemotherapies and immunosuppressive therapies. “All of the treatments that we take for granted with modern medicine, we cannot do without antibiotics because the risk of infection is too high … We need to make sure we get this right, because we may not have a second chance.”
tration or Congress untangle today’s web of the scientific-technological elite and, more importantly, prevent our health and agricultural policies from being driven by dubious science, unfounded fears, deliberately withheld studies, and serious potential conflicts of interest? It would take more than plowing through mountains of paper. We would learn a lot more from public testimony taken under oath. Editor’s Note: Ron Arnold is a widely known researcher, columnist and the author of eleven books on environmental and public policy issues.
Page 16
Livestock Market Digest
July 15, 2017
Advocates Outraged Over Reassignment of Forest Service Ranger BY MICHAEL WRIGHT BOZEMANDAILYCHRONICLE.COM
C
onservation and public lands access advocates are outraged over the reassignment of a Forest Service district ranger who had tangled with landowners over public access in the Crazy Mountains. Alex Sienkiewicz was removed from his position as the Custer Gallatin National Forest’s Yellowstone District Ranger recently and reassigned to lead the team analyzing a potential mineral withdrawal in the Absaroka Mountains south of Livingston. He also faces an internal review.
The move came after years of trail disputes with landowners in the Crazy Mountains, which fell under his jurisdiction. One such dispute resulted in a hunter being cited for trespassing. The hunter settled the case. Marna Daley, a spokeswoman for the Forest Service, said Sienkiewicz is filling a void the forest had been unable to fill by taking over the mineral withdrawal team. She didn’t offer any more detail on the review or its origins, other than to confirm that landowner concerns had been raised with Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and that removing Sienkiewicz is meant to distance him from the issues involved in
the internal review. Sienkiewicz was known for fighting for his work on preserving traditional access points, and conservation and access advocates see his removal as a troubling precedent. Kathryn QannaYahu, an activist in Bozeman, said she feels the removal of Sienkiewicz was an orchestrated effort among landowners in the area who have influence with major agriculture groups and political leaders. “He was simply doing his job,” said QannaYahu. “This is what he gets as a result of a smear campaign.” The Yellowstone District covers forest land in both Park
and Sweet Grass counties. Sienkiewicz began as the ranger in the district in 2011. During his tenure, the Forest Service shuttered its Big Timber office, and access disputes in the Crazy Mountains garnered more and more attention. One such dispute was over Trail No. 115/136, which crosses private land on the east side of the Crazies. Letters posted to QannaYahu’s website show that Sienkiewicz and the lawyer for the landowner had argued back and forth in 2016 over whether the trail was actually public, with Sienkiewicz arguing that it had been public for a century. That was the same trail where
a hunter was cited for trespass. The hunter, Rob Gregoire of Bozeman, decided to settle the case instead of going to trial because he said it wouldn’t have solved the issue of whether the trail was public. Landowner concerns over Sienkiewicz’s work to preserve public access to the Crazy Mountains near Big Timber were brought up to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue as recently as late May. Perdue was in Montana for the Montana Ag Summit, and he met with several agriculture groups along with Montana’s Republican U.S. Senator Steve Daines. The Montana Stockgrowers Association was part of the meeting. Jay Bodner, the natural resources director for the Stockgrowers Association, said each group in the meeting had a variety of concerns, and that public access conflicts in the Crazies was one issue for his group. “We did have a number of our members kind of concerned with the access issue there in the Crazies,” Bodner said. Bodner said the issue his group has is that access to trails with prescriptive easements should be decided on a caseby-case basis, rather than just deeming them all public. Prescriptive easements are public access agreements that have historically been honored, but are not written down anywhere. He didn’t say whether anyone advocated specifically for Sienkiewicz to be removed from his post, and he said the removal won’t eliminate the issue of disputed accesses there. “The issue is still probably going to require some collaboration with the Forest Service,” Bodner said. Melissa Baumann, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees Forest Service Council, the agency’s union, said in an email that federal employees have been feeling “under the gun from the administration,” and that the political climate has certainly changed. She wasn’t specifically familiar with Sienkiewicz’s case, but she said the Forest Service has signaled “that they recognize that the political winds have changed, but this may be one of the first actions taken that shows how those winds may affect the people out in the field.” Nick Gevock, the conservation director for the Montana Wildlife Federation, said the removal of Sienkiewicz shows that those landowners were able to have an outsized influence on the federal government. “It’s a sad day when a select group of people can exert tremendous political influence to ruin someone’s career,” Gevock said. “This sends a chilling message to other district rangers who want to work to improve public access to public lands.”