LMD Sept 2014

Livestock “The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it.”

– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 • www. aaalivestock . com

MARKET

Digest C Volume 56 • No. 9

by Lee Pitts

NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING

T

Words that soak into your ears are whispered, not yelled. as to why all the headlines seemed to have been written by the same editor. They read more like press releases more than they did any serious scientific study. Were they all headlined the same because Merck-funded professors were busy sending out favorable press releases, or are editors all of a sudden plagiarizing headlines?

You Get What You Pay For The all-clear signal on Zilmax® came courtesy of the Uni-

versity of Nebraska at Lincoln and USDA’s Ag Research Service after conducting a 26-day test on 20 head of heifers.

According to Ty Schmidt, assistant professor of animal science at UNL, this was one of “the most extensive tests ever done on Zilmax®.”

Twenty head, you must be kidding. (Actually, only ten head were given Zilmax®.) If Schmidt is correct I think it’s a fair question to ask, “Did the FDA give their seal of approval for the feed

additive after tests of less than 20 head?”

The 20 head number compares to three different studies on beta agonists conducted by researchers at Kansas State University and Texas Tech that came to far different conclusions.

Their first test was done on 79,171 cattle owned by four companies in at least seven feedlots, their second set of observable negative data came from 722,704 animals and the third test looked at 149,636 animals in a single feedlot. All together that’s 951,511 head of cattle.

Compared to 20 head!

And yet there it was in the headlines . . . “The cattle feed additive Zilmax® has no noticeable detrimental effect on cattle health or well-being.”

If you read the actual reports and conclusions of the 20 head trial you might reach a different conclusion than the headline continued on page two

Could Abandoned Homesteads Help Keep the Sage Grouse Off the Endangered Species List?

BY BRIAN SEASHOLES, REASON FOUNDATION

hile the most memorable word from the movie The Graduate is famously “plastics”, a key word for keeping the sage grouse off the endangered species list may be “homesteads.” According to an article in the current issue of Progressive Rancher, by a professor and three extension personnel at the University of Nevada, longabandoned homesteads in Nevada may well be the solution to the state’s efforts to conserve the sage grouse more effectively in order to keep it off the endangered species list.

Much of the effort to conserve the sage grouse, both in Nevada and elsewhere, is focused on managing livestock that graze in the grouse’s sage brush habitat. Yet, as the article in Progressive Rancher points out:

W

by LEE PITTS

Ten Things To Love About Cows

Piled Higher and Deeper he last time we visited about Zilmax® two of the nation’s biggest meat packers had ceased buying Zilmax®-fed cattle and Merck, the maker, had pulled the feed additive off the market in the U.S. and Canada. This was after crippled and overheated Zilmax®fed animals kept showing up that couldn’t, or wouldn’t, walk to the kill floor. It was as if some cattle were suddenly on to the secret of what happens to them once inside the slaughterhouse.

So they sat on their haunches and refused to budge.

The last we heard, Merck was trying to put a team of meat scientists together to do a study to prove that Zilmax® was harmless. But Merck’s big study hit a roadblock when the question arose, “Who would buy the Zilmax® fed test cattle when harvested?” Certainly not Tyson or Cargill who had earlier voiced their displeasure with the disposition of Zilmax® cattle and the quality of their meat.

Imagine my surprise when all of a sudden I read similar headlines in several weekly livestock newspapers: “Zilmax® Has No Apparent Detrimental Effect on Cattle Health.” Or, “Study Shows No Zilmax® Impacts.” I was shocked because I had staked my writing reputation on two stories I wrote criticizing beta agonists. I was also curious

Riding Herd

“[A]ppropriate livestock grazing management alone does not seem to be appreciably improving the plight of sage-grouse. Better management of sagebrush ecosystems is always paramount for any number of reasons, including sage-grouse, but the ranching industry should become proactive and look at specific vegetation management actions that could directly improve the sage-grouse habitat in shortest supply: mid- and late-summer brood rearing areas. Instead of lamenting what is out of the ranching industry’s control, let’s ask a very important question.

If, according to wildlife biologists, the big general bottleneck for increasing sage-grouse numbers at population levels in Nevada is a shortage of lateseason brood habitat, and if numbers were once much higher than they are today, just what has changed in the intervening period? What on the

landscape has changed that may account for the bottleneck and the numerical decline? The answer may be found in one word, homesteads.”

According to the article, from the late 1800s to the mid1900s there were hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of small homesteads scattered across large portions of Nevada. These homesteads almost invariably were located on a spring or stream that the owners used to irrigate meadows in order to feed a few livestock and grow hay. The homesteaders also vigorously shot and trapped predators, such as coyotes, ravens and badgers.

The result, according to the article, was a higher sage grouse population than exists today and a distinct geography to the grouse’s high quality water-dependent habitat: lots of it in small pockets scattered continued on page four

onsumers don’t make the connection between cows and all the great things they provide. Here’s my top ten list of the things I love most about cows. #1 Hamburgers: Ever since burgers were first introduced at the St. Louis World’s Fair in 1904 Americans have had a hamburger habit. Sixty percent of the beef consumed in this country is in the form of ground beef, and rightfully so. Put a burger between two buns, add some lettuce, tomato, a slice of cheese and you have the perfect meal! Ground beef is also a major ingredient of my all-time favorite form of sustenance: Mexican food. No fish tacos for me, if it’s not beef you can throw it back in the ocean as far as I’m concerned #2 Milk: Any cow that doesn’t give milk is a big Milk Dud. If there’s a better form of beverage than chocolate milk it has never passed my lips. Sure, some folks contend milk is for babies but then they turn right around and put mounds of butter on their baked potato. Gee, I wonder where that came from?

PETA people, thinking they’re boycotting cows, eat only oleomargarine but they’re in for a big surprise when they find out that oleo stock also comes from the udder of a cow. Personally, I trust cows more than I do chemists and I was glad to finally read about recent research that said butter is better for you than margarine. I could have told you that. #3 B S: One of the most regenerative powers on earth is manure. What’s more sustainable than a steer that converts grass into a delicious food at the same time it is fertilizing the earth to produce more grass, instead of brush that feed wildfires that kill animals. Cattle truly are “white man’s buffalo” and that’s no B S. #4 Ice Cream: Two words . . . I think that’s all I need to say. #5 Cowboys: Without cows there’d be no cowboys.

That means no J. Frank Dobie books, Larry continued on page four

www.LeePittsbooks.com

Livestock Market Digest

Page 2

September 15, 2014

Piled Higher writer. Here are a couple highlights: n Results from the study demonstrated some differences in physiological and endocrine markers of stress and muscle accretion in heifers that were supplemented with Zilmax® compared to heifers not fed Zilmax®. n Results from this study demonstrated that heifers supplemented with Zilmax® had a decreased production of the stress hormone cortisol, and decreased body temperature during the simulated stress event. Histopathology of the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, and adrenal glands revealed some differences between the heifers supplemented with Zilmax® and the heifers not receiving Zilmax®. The livers and right adrenal gland of the Zilmax® heifers were slightly smaller than heifers that were not fed Zilmax®, but there was no difference in lungs, kidneys, or heart.

I thought there were no detrimental impacts on cattle? Stress levels and differences in vital organs sound like they could be significant to this reporter.

Ty Schmidt says “these differences are minor” and there was “no indication that supplementation of Zilmax® is detrimental to the health or well-being of cattle.”

How does one square the differences in physiology mentioned above with the universal headline that everything was fine with Zilmax®? It’s almost as if Merck was paying for the research. Well, actually they were, at least part of the cost.

According to the Lincoln Star Journal Merck paid about $85,000 of the $350,000 — $400,000 cost of the study.

Schmidt, says Merck’s money was used “to cover analysis not originally planned but that became part of the conclusions.”

Whatever that means.

For advertising, subscription and editorial inquiries write or call: Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

MARKET

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

EDITORIAL and ADVERTISING STAFF: CAREN COWAN . . . . . . . Publisher LEE PITTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive Editor CHUCK STOCKS . . . . . . . .Publisher Emeritus RANDY SUMMERS . . . . .Sales Rep FALL MARKETING EDITION AD SALES: Ron Archer . . . . . . . . . . . 505/865-6011 archerron@aol.com

Subscribe Today

FIELD EDITOR: DELVIN HELDERMON 580/622-5754, 1094 Kolier Rd. Sulphur, OK 73086

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY

Telephone: 505/243-9515 Fax: 505/998-6236 www.aaalivestock.com

STATE

ZIP

My check is enclosed for: o One Year: $19.95 o Two Years $29.95 Clip & mail to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF: MARGEURITE VENSEL . Office Manager.

CAROL PENDLETON . . Special Assistance CHRISTINE CARTER . . . . Graphic Artist

Don’t Believe Your Eyes There were a couple other problems with the 20 head test that the headline writers failed to highlight. For one, it was NOT conducted during hot weather when most of the problems with Zilmax® reared their ugly head.

“From this trial, our preliminary suggestion is that there is no animal well-being issue,” said Schmidt. “If you change the environment, you might see a different response, but from what we have here, nothing jumped out as being an animal well-being issue.”

A few other college professors respectfully disagreed. Guy Loneragan, a food safety professor at Texas Tech, Daniel. Thomson, DVM, PhD, Kansas State University and H. Morgan Scott, DVM, PhD, Kansas State University, came to the conclusion after looking at the previously mentioned 951,511 head of cattle that the death loss from cattle fed beta agonists was 75 percent to 90 percent higher than cattle that were not fed beta agonists.

continued from page one

Even this data was tainted because Loneragan sits on an advisory board for Elanco, which provided seed funding for the study. Elanco makes Optaflexx® the competing beta agonist.

Many feeders, when Zilmax® was pulled off the market, merely switched to Optaflexx®. The Texas Tech, Kansas State study reached the conclusion that Optaflexx® did not kill as many cattle as Zilmax®.

According to a story by Reuters, “The number of U.S. cattle deaths that may be linked to the Merck & Co Inc feed additive Zilmax® are much higher than the figures reported by the drug company to the federal government. The findings by researchers from Texas Tech University and Kansas State University show that more than 3,800 cattle in 10 feedlots that were fed Zilmax® died in 2011 and 2012, with between 40 percent and 50 percent of the deaths likely attributable to Zilmax®.”

In response, Merck said in a statement that it was confident in the “safety and performance” of Zilmax®, and criticized the methods used in the study and said the the findings were “based on observational information and we disagree with them.”

Merck did have a point. The nearly million head were merely “tested” by observation, whereas the 20 head were tested using more traditional parameters.

The Zilmax® Dance Isn’t there some animal science professor somewhere who doesn’t have a dog in this hunt?

One professor whose integrity is beyond reproach is Colorado State’s Temple Grandin who wrote in April of this year that beta agonists are an animal welfare issue. She wrote, “In the summer of 2006, a severe cattle welfare problem was first observed at three slaughter plants. Large numbers of fed feedlot cattle were lame and a few animals had severe heat stress symptoms. I have worked with cattle for over 30 years and this is the first time I have seen severe heat stress in crossbreds which were part Brahman (Bos Indicus) genetics.

“Ten to 25 percent of the animals were mildly to moderately lame. About 5 percent to 10 percent were panting and one or two animals from each truck load were lying down and panting hard. Their tongues were hanging out. One animal was sitting like a dog and acted stiff and arthritic when the driver made him get up. I have observed feedlot fed beef cattle during hot weather in Arizona, Australia, and other places where it is very hot. This was the first time I saw this odd combination of lameness and heat stress.

“To figure out what is causing the problem, one has to ask: What changes have been made in the feeding industry that continued on page three

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

September 15, 2014

Piled Higher would have happened during the last two years?” Grandin said these changes were feeding beta agonists, growing and fattening cattle more quickly to reach market weight by 20 months for export, and feeding wet grain products from ethanol plants.

Grandin ruled out the wet grain products “because this feed was not available during the summer of 2006 in the area where the feedlots were located.”

Grandin came to the conclusion that beat agonists were the guilty party after her own observational studies and “after hearing from processing plants about the ‘Zilmax® dance’ — cattle lifting up one foot and then another as if the floor is red-hot and a ‘statue steer’ which walked off the truck and when it was time to be moved to the slaughter line he stood and refused to move. He acted like he was too stiff or sore to move. These observations,” wrote Grandin, “indicate that there are severe welfare problems in some animals fed beta-agonists. Poor feed mixing may be part of the problem. From an animal welfare standpoint, lameness, open mouth breathing, and a stiff gate are not acceptable.”

Follow The Money There is another professor whose integrity is sterling and we have found above reproach.

He’s Robert Taylor, from the school of ag at Auburn University.

Taylor wrote a paper called “Hijacking Universities” that every incoming college student or parent ought to read before they sign on the dotted line for the $100,000 to $250,000 loan that a four year degree can cost.

Says Taylor, “For those of you who paid big tuition bills for your children thinking the university was all about education.

Wrong expectation!”

Taylor says that “Land-grant colleges have gone from serving the public interest to serving private agendas of career advancement and fundraising.” And he would know. “The public university I work for,” he wrote, “has fed me very well for over 40 years. I have had a rewarding career, comfortable salary and benefits, job security and a good retirement system. But I also have a growing unease about the changes I have seen in higher education. Are land-grant universities and other public universities helping American families, as they were intended? Increasingly, the answer is no.”

“Public universities have gone from outward looking to inward looking. It’s no longer about you, the public — it is about me — academic faculty. In a sense, the public interest focus has been subtly hijacked by academics,” wrote Taylor. “The only outward look is by administrators who have their hand out begging for your tax dollars, or corporate money and donations from wealthy folks.”

For some time now corpora-

continued from page two

tions have been using universities as job training centers and de facto research departments. I think it’s safe to say we can now say they are performing public relations campaigns as well. That could explain the outbreak of headlines such as, “Zilmax® has no apparent detrimental effect on cattle.”

At the same time that inflation-adjusted tuition at four-year institutions has increased 235 percent since 1980, federal and state moneys that used to flow to colleges and universities has been cut drastically. So where and how do colleges get the money they lost? More and more from corporations and a game Taylor calls “grantmanship”.

Consider The Source “People the public universities were intended to help typically don’t have the money to play this game. Corporations do, leading to deeply troubling corporate influence on research,” says Taylor. “Rather than live within their means, administrators in many public universities began enticing faculty to obtain outside funding. Most landgrant faculty with a “research” appointment have base salary paid wholly or in part out of socalled “hard” funds, namely taxpayer funds — your money. Corporate grants often redirect research to focus on problems defined by the corporate funder, which is increasingly not aligned with the public interest.”

Taylor believes that, “Practice does not match theory. Many land-grant administrators, when holding their hands out for public support, loudly trumpet the research, training and service mission. Yet, the reward structure in land-grant institutions is heavily skewed to research, and very narrowly defined research at that.

“Faculty who obtain grants often buy out part of their teaching responsibilities. This can be good if the faculty member is a continued on page four

Page 3

Livestock Market Digest

Page 4

Piled Higher bad teacher, but often less experienced graduate students or PhD's who have not been able to find permanent jobs carry the teaching load.

The American Association of University Professors reports that 76 percent of college and instructional appointments are now outsourced to lower paying full-time members off the tenure tract, part-time faculty members, and grad students.”

It seems professors are now way too busy doing corporate dirty work to teach.

Concludes Taylor, “Narrow research agendas, an empha-

Riding Herd McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove, Michner’s Centennial, Clint Eastwood westerns, Man from Snowy River, the state of California, Tim Cox or Charlie Russell paintings, the Texas lifestyle, cow dogs, Roy Rogers and Dale Evans, Gunsmoke, and on and on. Personally I don’t want to live in a world without cowboys, or their culture. #6 Insulin: There are 5,000,000 diabetics in this country who need insulin injections merely to survive and it takes the pancreas from 26 cattle to produce enough to keep a diabetic alive for one year.

Know any diabetics? Then thank a cow. #7 Barbecue: Some of the best times of my life were spent huddled around a barbecue pit with some guys burning our buns, with the smoke from an oak fire getting in every pore of my body for, as we all know . . . smoke follows beauty. Barbecue is an American birthright and unless it’s beef . .. it’s not a barbecue. #8 Cheese: Cheese has been nibbled on since Roman times and there’s not a food in the world that doesn’t taste better

continued from page three

sis on grantsmanship, coupled with the expense of providing students with a country-club environment for their socalled education, have taken their toll. In doing so, they have undermined the middle class — and our democracy.”

So next time you read the headlines consider the source and try to determine which team the PhD’s are playing for. And remember the words of my Grandpa who said PhD stood for “piled higher and deeper”.

I’ll leave it to your imagination as to what he was referring to.

continued from page one

with cheese on it. Besides, without cheese we’d have been overrun by mice long ago without bait for our mousetraps. #9 Leather: As a leatherworker I’m very aware of all the products made from leather, such as belts, bags, boots, shoes, wallets, etc. Without leather, pants would be falling down, cowboys would have to ride bareback and people would be barefoot. Oh sure, there are petroleum substitutes but tell the greenies that it takes 6.9 pounds of crude oil to make one pound of polyester fiber and 12 pounds of crude oil to make one pound of nylon. So, do you want your clothes made from chemicals or cattle? #10 Football: We’re in my favorite season of the year, not Autumn silly, football season.

Although they are often called “pigskins” most footballs are made from the hides of cattle.

So next Sunday watch your favorite football team, fire up the barbecue pit, throw on some steaks followed by three helpings of homemade ice cream and celebrate that wonderful creature that made it all possible . . . the common cow.

September 15, 2014

Abandoned Homesteads widely across the landscape.

As it turned out, families could not eke out a living from these small landholdings, and as a consequence during the earlyto-mid-1900s these homesteads were either abandoned or bought-up and combined in to bigger ranches. Without people to maintain the land, the meadows often became overgrown and were no longer suitable, or were of much lower quality, sage grouse habitat.

The intriguing point raised by the article in Progressive Rancher is that if many of these meadows were restored they could provide an enormous amount of the crucial late-season sage grouse habitat that is currently in short supply and perhaps the most important limiting factor for the bird’s population. If these meadows are to be restored, ranchers are the crucial link, as the article explains: “It is our contention that efforts to increase sage-grouse populations in Nevada will be marginal unless the ranching industry comes to the rescue.

Ranchers own much of the land that provides a significant part of the answer. They control many of the homestead sites that were once productive meadows and they own the water needed to improve those meadows. Animal agriculture to a large degree created the conditions that allowed sage-grouse to darken the skies, and animal agriculture holds at least one important key to solving the riddle today. Furthermore, the redevelopment of historic homestead meadows can provide additional feed for livestock, and research has clearly shown that sage-grouse prefer moderately grazed meadows over both ungrazed and heavily grazed meadows.”

Note the attribution of higher historical sage grouse populations to the meadows managed by homesteaders. The article also has more general insight on how the Endangered Species Act’s punitive nature is counterproductive to conservation, including creating uncertainty, one source of which is the behavior of federal regulators. According to the article: “If we are going to manage sagebrush ecosystems as though the greater sage-grouse is listed as threatened or endangered, in order to keep it from being listed, then what’s the difference?

When people ask this question in public meetings, it has been our experience that they receive blank facial expressions from those tasked with the determination.”

Nevada, like all eleven states in the sage grouse’s range, has a very robust conservation program. Nevada published its first sage grouse conservation plan in

2004, which was updated in 2012 by separate plans for the greater sage grouse, the bi-state sage grouse population that inhabits the Nevada-California border, as well as a detailed action plan for implementing sage grouse conservation measures (all these documents are available online from the Public Lands Council’s Sage Grouse Conservation Library).

While the article in Progressive Rancher is critical of federal officials in charge of determining whether the sage grouse will be listed under the Endangered Species Act, the article also recognizes that ranchers need to take a more proactive role to prevent the sage grouse from being listed. “The critical question is what can public land ranchers and the Nevada livestock industry do for sage-grouse that would also improve their odds of maintaining viable businesses, and perhaps even increase the production and efficiency of their operations?”, the article asks. It adds: “Is it time that Nevada ranchers, as a professional community, realize they have an important role to play in removing the greater sage-grouse from either consideration or actual listing as a threatened or endangered species? We believe the ranching industry may control much of its own destiny. A concerted movement by the industry, accompanied by an appropriate public relations effort, would go a long way toward delisting efforts.”

There are several larger implications of this thought-provoking article. First, much of the focus, especially by the federal government, is on sage brush habitat, which is largely on federal lands.

But so much focus on sage brush may be misplaced because of the importance and high potential for dramatically improving the historical meadows that played such a key role sustaining the sage grouse in Nevada and likely elsewhere.

Second, sage grouse conservation, at least in regions like those in Nevada where there are historical meadows, could potentially be much more effective if these meadows were restored.

The meadows that remain today on working ranches are still crucially important to sage grouse, but the prospect of substantially more of this habitat is a tantalizing prospect.

Third, ranchers are the linchpin to successful sage grouse conservation because they own almost all the crucially important water-dependent meadow habitat. Furthermore, ranchers, by dint of living on the range, are best positioned to implement actual “boots-on-the-ground” conservation measures over the vast majority of the sage grouse’s

continued from page one

habitat—as opposed to the armchair “paper” conservation (e.g., listing petitions and lawsuits) at which advocates of listing the sage grouse under Endangered Species Act excel. Conservation is often difficult work that occurs far from the urban areas in which many proponents of the Endangered Species Act live and work.

Driving ranchers off the land, by making it difficult if not impossible for them to earn a living due to increasingly onerous regulations combined with reductions in grazing lands and the number of cattle allowed on these lands as a result of laws like the Endangered Species Act, is not in the best interests of the sage grouse. The grouse needs people to implement conservation measures for it. For evidence, look no further than the article in Progressive Rancher about the importance of ranchers maintaining meadows. Without people living on and working the range, the sage grouse has diminished prospects.

Furthermore, a key part of conservation, in addition to protecting and improving habitat, is monitoring data on species. No matter what business you’re in, whether it’s oil and gas or wildlife conservation, good data on which to base decisions is essential. Conversely, bad data generally leads to poor decisions.

Unfortunately, because the Endangered Species Act punishes conservation, landowners with endangered species on their property or even habitat suitable for endangered species have enormous incentives to keep quiet and hope they go undetected by regulatory authorities and groups that support the Act. Such is the fear of being clobbered by the Endangered Species Act. As a result, data on endangered species is generally of very poor quality, which contributes to flawed decisions about what to protect and why, as well as how to conserve species effectively, both before and after they are listed under the Act. Fourth, if the sage grouse is listed, or even proposed to be listed, under the Act, much of the outstanding work done by states like Nevada, and especially by its ranchers, will be undone as ranchers withdraw from state and federal conservation initiatives for the grouse and take shelter from the coming Endangered Species Act storm. Let’s hope for the sake of the sage grouse and this country’s increasingly embattled western ranchers that this does not happen.

See more at: http://reason.org/blog/show/couldabandoned-homesteads-helpkee#sthash.dFX ZG8 Vo.LgKwj9nH.dpuf

To place your ad here, call Caren Cowan at 505/243-9515,ext. 21, or email caren@aaalivestock.com

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

September 15, 2014

By Frank DuBois My column this month covers reform of the ESA; the EPA and privacy; and Michelle O, the military and school lunch.

I

s the Endangered Species Act (ESA) ripe for some reasonable reform?

The ESA was passed four decades ago and hasn’t been renewed by Congress since 1988. Under its authority over 1,500 species and subspecies have been listed. Unfortunately there has only been a two percent recovery rate, which doesn’t say much for the effectiveness of the Act. Furthermore, any objective observer will admit the ESA has become a litigation-driven monstrosity. The Department of Justice reports that more than 500 ESA-related lawsuits were filed or opened against federal agencies since 2009, and more than $21 million has been awarded in taxpayer funded attorneys’ fees to environmental lawyers through the Judgment Fund and the Equal Access to Justice Act. For federal fiscal years 20092012, concerning cases in Region 2 of the Fish & Wildlife Service (which includes New Mexico), environmental groups received $2.5 million in attorneys’ fees. The championship for raiding the federal treasury during this time period, however, goes to Region 8 (Nevada &

California) where environmental groups received $7.2 million.

Which environmental groups are filing all these lawsuits? You can probably guess, but here is a list of the top five and the number of cases filed during the time period under consideration: 1) Center for Biological Diversity – 117 2) WildEarth Guardians – 55 3) Sierra Club – 30 4) Defenders of Wildlife – 29 5) Western Watersheds Project – 21 Adding urgency to all this is the so-called 2011 “mega-settlement” negotiated behind closed doors by the Department of Interior and the Center for Biological Diversity / WildEarth Guardians, which may result in an additional 799 species being listed as threatened or endangered. In the year following the settlement the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service listed 107 more species. Most recently has been the listing of the meadow jumping mouse which is wreaking havoc on livestock grazing across Forest Service lands in New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado.

Then there is the transparency issue. The ESA requires listings to be based on the “best available scientific and commercial data” but in many instances the public is denied access to this data. Doc Hastings, Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, has stated,

“It is troubling that hundreds of sweeping listing decisions by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service cite unpublished studies, professional opinions, and other sources that are inaccessible to the public yet this data would be used to regulate the very people who don’t have access to this information. This secrecy goes against the grain of good science and transparency.”

Not only is the ESA ripe for reform, its actually rotting on the vine, and in response the U.S. House of Representatives has just passed H.R. 4315, the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act. This is no huge reform of the ESA, but is an attempt to make the Act’s implementation more reasonable for humans and more effective for wildlife and plants.

According to a release by the House Natural Resources Committee, H.R. 4315 would specifically: n Require data used by federal agencies for ESA listing decisions to be made publicly available and accessible through the Internet, while respecting state data privacy laws and private property. n Require the federal government to disclose to affected states data used prior to an ESA listing decision and it would require the “best available scientific and commercial data” used by the federal government to incorporate data provided by states, tribes, and local county governments. n Require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to track, report to Congress, and make available online the federal taxpayer funds used to respond to ESA lawsuits, the number of employees dedicated to ESA litigation, and attorneys’ fees awarded in the

course of ESA litigation and settlement agreements. n Prioritize species protection and protect taxpayer dollars by placing reasonable caps on attorneys’ fees to make the ESA consistent with existing federal law.

For example, the federal government limits the prevailing attorneys’ fees to $125 per hour in most circumstances, including federal suits involving veterans, Social Security, and disability.

But under the ESA, attorneys are being awarded huge sums, in many cases, at a rate as much as $600 per hour.

When an environmental lawyer is awarded four times as much for defending jumping mice and long-eared bats as other attorneys are awarded for defending our veterans and the handicapped, I’d say its way past time for “reform”. The House of Representatives agreed and passed these simple reforms on July 29.

Some apparently didn’t agree, as New Mexico rep’s Ben Ray Lujan and Michelle Lujan Grisham voted against the bill.

EPA The EPA stands for an Ever Present Attack on liberty.

Recall how hard it is to get the data on endangered species. Well that’s certainly not the case if you are an environmental group and request data on farmers and ranchers. Many folks were surprised last year when the Environmental Protection Agency, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, publicly released to three environmental groups a huge database of personal information about thousands of livestock producers and their families in 29 states. What kind of information was released?

The database included the names

Page 5 of the producers and other family members, home addresses, GPS coordinates, telephone numbers and emails. How would you like HSUS, PETA, ADF or some other agriterrorist group to have that kind of info on your property and family?

Thankfully, the American Farm Bureau Federation and others have filed suit to stop the EPA from future releases of this type. We’ll keep a close watch on that.

Michelle, the military, and war Politico reports that Mission: Readiness, a group of nearly 500 former military leaders, is planning to “storm the Hill”and “bring out the big guns for the kids” when Congress comes back to town in an attempt to save Michelle Obama’s increasingly unpopular changes to the National School Lunch Program.

The military brass says the obesity epidemic is seen as a “threat to national security.”

Now we have a War on Obesity? Attention Mr. Generals: Do not deploy. This will go the same way as the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs. Besides, one educational group points out that based on a 180-day school year, a school lunch only amounts to 15 percent of a child’s meals. Better to aim your “big guns” at adequately funding P.E. programs and forget about this silly, sissified, anti-meat program. Besides, do we really want a bunch of tofu toughies running the military?

Till 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 (http://www.nmsu.edu/~duboisrodeo/).

Livestock Market Digest

Page 6

September 15, 2014

Rebuild Your Cowherd with Time Tested and Improved Beefmaster Females BY: BEEFMASTER BREEDERS UNITED COMMUNICATIONS

t is clear that the US beef cow population is as low as ever. The prolonged drought across the nation, high feed costs and other competition for the land use has certainly changed the dynamics of the beef industry as we once knew it to be. The traditional ten year beef market cycle may be chal-

I

lenged moving forward. These interesting dynamics lead me to believe that there is a tremendous opportunity awaiting us in the beef cattle industry. More specifically, Beefmaster cattle should be part of the upcoming herd rebuilding that is bound to occur sooner than later.

USDA data suggests that cattle (ranch) owners are an aging group with over one third of them being 65 years of age or

HEREFORD

g•u•i•d•e

Registered Polled Herefords Cañones Route P.O. Bulls & Abiquiu, N.M. 87510 Heifers MANUEL SALAZAR FOR SALE AT THE FARM

P.O. Box 867 Española, N.M. 87532

Phone: 575/638-5434

angus

RED ANGUS

Phillips

Bell Key Angus

RED ANGUS

Dennis Boehlke 208/467-2747 Cell. 208/989-1612

A few Choice Bulls Available at Private Treaty.

NAMPA, IDAHO

Spring & Yearlings For Sale CeCil FelKiNS • 209/274-4338 email: CwCowboY@att.Net 5500 bueNa ViSta Rd. ioNe, Ca 95640

Bradley 3 Ranch Ltd. www.bradley3ranch.com

Our Next Bull Sale: February 14, 2015 at the Ranch NE of Estelline, TX Ranch-Raised ANGUS Bulls for Ranchers Since 1955

A SOURCE FOR PROVEN SUPERIOR RED ANGUS GENETICS

M.L. Bradley 806/888-1062 Fax: 806/888-1010 • Cell: 940/585-6471

14298 N. Atkins Rd., Lodi, CA 95240

BRANGUS

SANTA GERTRUDIS

209/727-3335

Dan Wendt

520/384-3654

S

4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, Arizona 85643 Willcox, AZ

Santa Gertrudis Cattle Polled and Horned

S

S

R.L. Robbs

HERD ESTABLISHED 1953

S

Call: 979/245-5100 • Fax 979/244-4383 5473 FM 457, Bay City, Texas 77414 dwendt@1skyconnect.net

older. Additionally, more than fifty percent of them are age 55 or older which is even more reason to use Beefmaster cattle in the rebuilding phase. Beefmaster cattle have been selected for docility for more than sixty years and you can rest assured that they will make working cattle more pleasurable because of their superior temperament.

Data clearly shows that selecting for calm, docile cattle simultaneously improves feedlot gain, health and ultimate carcass performance.

Beefmaster cattle optimize traits necessary to rebuild the cow herd because they excel in fertility, calving ease and longevity. Commercial cattlemen understand the economic advantages that improvements in these traits offer a beef operation. These include, but are not limited to, higher conception rates, more weaned calf per cow and reduced replacement heifer development costs. You will appreciate the high quality females that Beefmaster bulls produce as they will excel in the hot, humid environments of the South to the wet, cool climates up north and everywhere in between.

Efficiency is also a strong attribute of the Beefmaster breed. In a recent all-breeds performance test in Texas, yearling Beefmaster bulls were the highest average daily gain (ADG) on test as well as the lowest residual feed intake (RFI) on test. Beefmaster cattle not only have high daily gains, they also consume less feed per pound of gain. Use of Beefmaster influenced cattle allows you to be a low-cost producer with reduced input levels in the cow/calf enterprise. These cost cutting measures have been built into the Beefmaster influenced female and will be necessary for cow/calf operators to survive in the developing beef industry.

Docility, fertility, efficiency, and longevity are just a few of the traits that Beefmaster cattle

offer as you will also appreciate the early growth of these calves.

Your weaned calves will have heavy weights at the market place and will have added value in the feedlot segment of the beef industry. For example, feed out data from Mississippi shows that Beefmaster sired calves made $201 more per head than Angus sired calves. All of the calves were born on the same ranch, in the same season, weaned and backgrounded together and all fed in the same Kansas feedlot. The Beefmaster calves harvested with an average yield grade of 2.7, high select quality grade and 1361 pound live weight whereas the Angus calves averaged a yield grade 2.5, high choice and weighed 1112 pounds. The Angus calves may have had a higher quality grade but the combination of increased weight and efficiency of gain improved the bottom line for the Beefmaster sired calves.

Beefmaster History The Beefmaster breed gained popularity in the 1970s, however the Beefmaster breed dates back to the 1930s when Tom Lasater, the breed’s founder, developed Beefmasters from a systematic crossing of Hereford, Shorthorn and Brahman cattle. His purpose was to develop cattle that were more productive than existing breeds; cattle that would produce and make money during economically hard times in the harsh environment of South Texas.

The new breed was developed on what has become known as the Six Essentials – Weight, Conformation, Milk Production, Fertility, Hardiness and Disposition. These essentials became the economic strength of Beefmasters and have made them favorites with those who depend on cattle for a living. Beefmasters are the only beef breed specifically developed to excel in these important economic traits.

While brownish-red is the

P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, NM 87194 505/243-9515 • Fax 505/998-6236 caren@aaalivestock.com www.aaalivestock.com

Have that “hard to buy for” friend or relative?

Why not gift them with a subscription to the Livestock Market Digest? They will get a reminder of you every month AND stay up with the news and views of the livestock and ranching business!

~Gift Certificate ~ To:_________________________________

Digest

Classifieds

KADDATZ

From:_______________________________

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.

www.kaddatzequipment.com • 254/582-3000

You have received a ____ year subscription to the Livestock Market Digest.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES: 1-year $19.95, 2-year $29.95

most common color, the breed has no color standards. Beefmasters were recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a pure breed in 1954.

Since the early 1970s, when the breed began rapid expansion from its South Texas birthplace, Beefmasters have survived several wrecks in the cattle market without adversely affecting their growth and demand. From 1974 to 1998, membership in Beefmaster Breeders United (BBU) grew from 300 to nearly 7,000.

BBU, which was founded in 1961, is one of the top five largest beef breed registry in the United States in membership and top ten in registrations.

Responding to change and tough challenges are part of the Beefmaster heritage. Today, like yesterday, Beefmasters and the cattlemen and cattlewomen who raise them are ready to handle the ever changing beef cattle industry. With this ever changing industry, cattle producers have several aspects that need to be focused on and Beefmasters can make these tasks a little easier. Beef cattle producers can focus on rebuilding their herds with strong and fertile Beefmaster females and focus on genetic performance improvements with Beefmaster bulls. While heifer selection plays an important role in herd improvement, Dr. Kent Anderson, Zoetis associate director of animal genetics, says that bull selection is a primary driver of genetic improvement in a herd.

The Beefmaster bull is making a name for himself in the cattle industry because he is “The Best of Both Worlds”. Commercial cattlemen and women have witnessed that a Beefmaster bull will produce extremely fertile, functional and docile females to rebuild America’s cowherds, as well as produce profitable and efficient feeder calves that deliver results in the current market place.

If you are looking for solid colored (red, black or dun), muscular, fertile, and easy calving cattle don’t hesitate to call 210/732-3132 or go to our website at www.beefmasters.org for additional information. BBU works for its members by offering adult and junior memberships. The association encourages Beefmaster enthusiasts to learn more about BBU programs, which include whole herd reporting, genetic evaluation, marketing efforts, The Beefmaster Cowman, field days, seminars and satellite organizations.

Stay connected to the Beefmaster breed and BBU through Facebook, follow us on Instagram, view our videos on YouTube, follow us on Twitter and Pinterest, as well as receive our news updates through joining our mailing list.

September 15, 2014

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

Page 7

Beefmaster Breeders United Welcomes Woolfolk to Staff eefmaster Breeders United (BBU) is proud to announce that Matthew Woolfolk of Jackson, Tenn., will be serving the Field as Representative/Commercial Marketing Director for the Beefmaster membership.

Woolfolk will provide assistance to Beefmaster breeders and commercial beef producers throughout the United States.

Woolfolk will provide consultation and farm visit services to members, while also increasing the Beefmaster breed’s exposure in the commercial marketplace. His responsibilities will include providing classification services, managing commercial marketing programs and supporting BBU educational programs that create visibility and demand for Beefmaster cattle.

Woolfolk grew up raising cattle with his family and they currently operate Woolfolk Farms, a Hereford and commercial female cow-calf operation in Western Tennessee.

Woolfolk has an extensive agricultural background and held various leadership positions while a member of the National Junior Hereford Association.

Woolfolk brings to BBU a vase knowledge of commercial cattle operations and animal genetics from his previous positions with Marshall Cattle Company of Burlington, Colo., and his education at Mississippi State University and Texas A&M University.

As a Tennessee native, Woolfolk attended Mississippi State where he studied Animal and Dairy Science and received a Bachelor of Science degree.

While at Mississippi State Woolfolk worked on various cattle research projects and held several leadership roles in agricultural organizations. He continued his education at Texas A&M University where he earned a Master of Science degree in Animal Breeding and Genetics. His graduate work included teaching numerous courses on animal science and animal breeding, as well as graduating with honors. Prior to becoming a BBU staff member, Woolfolk served as the Marketing Specialist for Woolfolk Farms where he implemented seedstock and commercial marketing programs for their beef cattle operation.

“We are excited to have Matt on board,” said BBU Executive Vice President Bill Pendergrass. “Matt’s background in genetics, beef cattle production and marketing seedstock will be beneficial to the breed and its members.”

Woolfolk will begin his duties next week at the Beefmaster International Group

B

event in Fort Worth, Texas from Aug. 18-21 and he will be attending the Southeastern Beefmaster Breeders Association Convention in Tunica, Miss., the weekend of Aug. 2223. Please help us in welcoming Matt to the Beefmaster family. Due to his required work travel, Matt Woolfolk will be residing in College Station, Texas and will work remotely as a BBU employee. He can be reached directly via email atmwoolfolk@beefmasters.org or via cell phone at 210/464-0923.

Ian Tyson Internationally acclaimed singer/songwriter, Ian Tyson starts his SW tour in Sonoita, AZ on Oct. 10 at Pioneer Hall at the Santa Cruz Co. Fairgrounds. Sonoita is a special place to Ian as he spent some winters there to escape Alberta’s cold and to write songs.

He’ll continue to Albuquerque, NM for another intimate show on Oct. 12 at the South Broadway Cultural Center.

Ian is celebrating 6 decades of music beginning with the folk duo Ian and Sylvia.

Enjoy the western/folk stories and songs that tell the real truth about horses and men, love sustained and relationships broken, heroes and heroines, the land, weather and the prairie sky.

For more info and tickets: Photo by Kurt Markus

www.gopattywagon.com or call 800-838-3006

Livestock Market Digest

Page 8

Plants’ Rights!

EWARE CONNOISSEURS! A new discovery may change the way America eats! Love your broccoli? Savor your home-grown tomatoes? Would give your eyeteeth for a blueberry pie?

This discovery could create sweeping protests and black markets like marijuana has never seen! PLANTS FEEL PAIN! That’s right, PLANTS FEEL

B

PAIN! Science has discovered, that a relative of the cabbage plant was proven to be sensitive and react to an insect chewing on it by increasing its “chemical defenses.” Silly, you say? How silly do you think the Humane Treatment and Endangered Species congregation takes this new opportunity?

Selected species of fungi, coral

and insects have already been declared endangered. There is no reality connected to the extent of damage and sacrifice that must be made by the humans to SAVE THE FUNGUS! Now, there will be zealots who will solicit millions of dollars to SAVE THE FUNGUS! They will adopt the mantra of PLANTS FEEL PAIN! LETTUCE KILLERS! SAVE OUR TURNIPS! FREE CHILE! HAVE YOU HUGGED YOUR KUMQUAT TODAY? SPONSOR YOUR OWN PINEAPPLE OR BUNCH OF GRAPES FOR ONLY $25 A MONTH! JOIN THE VEGETABLE PROTECTION LEAGUE! These ANTI-PLANT CONSUMPTION groups will rise in self-righteous indignation! They will use the tried and true methods used today by ANTI-MEAT EATERS of yesterday. There will be billboards with pictures of a bunch of limp carrots with their

September 15, 2014 top knot sagging, another showing a potato with tears coming from its eyes, an artichoke with a broken heart.

They will seek out the most flagrant violators of the Plant’s Rights; vegetarians and their extremist branch, the VEGANS! Media will pick up the banner covering rallies demanding equal rights for plants. Whole Foods, Sprouts, Trader Joe’s will be sued by the Plant Savers of the United States (PSUS) for everything their lawyers can think of. Small growers who sell their fresh produce at local Farmer’s Markets will become pariahs; ridiculed, demeaned, cursed and hung in effigy in their own pumpkin patch . . . and on and on.

Well. Nobody with any sense would even consider something like the Vegetable Protection League or that the PSUS could happen. What would advocates suggest people eat? The human body can be sustained by mouth

or intravenously by taking a slurry of chemicals containing hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, sulfur and phosphorus. That would be their answer. Which is irrelevant because all they need is a cause. They don’t need to prove anything. Even if they could convince only 2.4 percent of the population that eating vegetables is ethically bad and unhealthy, it would be a victory for their cause and make them feel good about themselves. They would be their own little industry and we all gotta make a living.

Today only 2.4 percent of Americans consider themselves vegetarians, who for practical reasons do not include eggs and dairy products. And they feel good about themselves.

I asked in jest if anyone with even half a brain would actually consider plant’s rights and the Vegetable Protection League . . . and then I remembered Congress.

Montana Water Problems Part 5 – Unconstitutional “Takings”

BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS

ontana State Senator Verdell Jackson (Republican, Kalispell) is the offreservation representative for the area north of Flathead Lake. “Having been on the Natural Resources Committee I’ve done a lot of research in state water law. That background has helped me in my effort to have a Compact that is fair and equitable to everyone involved,” he says.

When the Compact was presented, Jackson took the time to read and study it. “I found there were a lot of problems with it, and some ulterior motives hidden in it—and not just the attempt to secure more water for the Tribes.

There is the motive to control all the water in western Montana,” he says.

The efforts are continuing, to try to push it through.

“Right now the Compact Commission is on tour trying to ‘sell’ the very same Compact that was killed in the House in its last session in April 2013.

So they now have a dead bill and are still trying to convince people we should pass it.

There’s some question as to whether this is legal, at this point. I carried a bill to extend it for two years (hopeful that additional negotiations would result in changes that would be fair to everyone). My bill did pass the House and Senate but was vetoed by the Governor.”

The Governor wants to go ahead and pass the current Compact as is, and may call a special session to do it.

M

“They are trying to pass it the way it is—without any changes at all. This is the Tribes’ position, because they got everything they wanted, the way it is currently written.

We don’t know whether there will be a special session of the legislature to try to pass it, or if it will come up again in the next session, which will start in 2015,” says Jackson.

“We meet every other year, in Montana. The way it works, the people who win the election in November have their first session in January and don’t have much time to prepare for that first session. On the other end, some of us have already had our last session but are still legislators for more than a year—and are basically termed out unless there are special sessions called— because our terms are not over until the legislators meet in 2015,” he explains.

“A worrisome thing about the off-reservation rights claimed by the Compact is that any of the three parties can make a call for the water.

This is scary, to realize that the federal government could come in here and stop us from using water. This, in and of itself, violates the U.S. Constitution. The federal government controls the navigable rivers, but all of the other streams (that don’t fit that definition) are controlled by the States.”

The various states have had a long history of being the entity

these water rights were given to the land owners in the early 1900s, and I said these should be left alone. There is no reason to take these rights away from the property owners.

Taking them would be contrary to state law because the water rights are attached to land,” says Jackson.

“In 1981 the Flathead Joint Board of Control (FJBC, the group who manage the water project) decided that they should get a water right for the project since they were managing the water,” he explains.

“With water rights, you get a water right for a certain purpose. This is why the federal government got their water rights to build the irrigation project and the irrigators got theirs for the purpose of irrigating their land. Then the FJBC on the Reservation got a water right to manage the water. Thus we have three water rights for this water. I believe that the last one was unnecessary but I also believe that it did not eliminate the individual water rights of the irrigators,” he says.

“First of all, these water rights that belong to all the individual irrigators are mentioned in the Compact, and they are transferred to the Tribes. So the Compact takes the individual water rights from the individual property owners and gives them to the tribes. Then the Tribes—

“There is the motive to control all the water in western Montana.” that administers the water rights for the people who use the water.

“In the early 1900s when the Kerr dam was built and the Flathead Irrigation Project was created, according to federal law they had to get water rights through the state of Montana. It is interesting to go back and read the details the federal government went through to make sure they would not violate Montana law,” says Jackson.

The feds got their water rights and built the project.

“When you are doing anything with water you must have a water right. After the Reservation was opened to homesteading the federal government helped the homesteaders get private property and private water rights but they were filed through the state and are state-based water rights. The Indians got their property free and their water rights free.

The other people who homesteaded paid for theirs,” he says.

“I got into the present controversy on these water rights because I wrote a letter to the editors of all the regional daily newspaper. I mentioned that

through the FJBC, since they control the water rights—said in the Compact that they are going to give an allocation of 1.4 acre-feet of water per acre to each irrigator. Most of the water rights are 10-acre feet and most of the time the farmers don’t use that much, but that’s the way Montana does it. This amount would take care of the farmer’s irrigation needs regardless of what type of crop he had (melons, for instance take more water than pasture and pasture takes more water than hay),” explains Jackson.

“But this one-size-fits-all of 1.4 acre-feet will not be enough for some crops. It’s not a good idea. I started out just looking at the off-reservation water rights and then I discovered all of these problems on the reservation and the fact that it is unconstitutional to take these water rights from the individual irrigators.”

These have always been tied to the land. The heart of our Constitutional Republic is private property.

“Most people would never consent to giving away their private property to the government. This would be giving away our means of making a living. But the Tribe is doing that to individual Indians.

They say, ‘If you’ll turn your property over to the Tribe you do not have to pay property taxes to the state of Montana.

Quite a few of the Indians have done that. Most of the non-Indian people in our country do not trust governcontinued on page ten

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

September 15, 2014

Page 9

THE LIVESTOCK MARKET DIGEST To place your Real Estate Guide listings, contact RANDY SUMMERS at 505/243-9515 or RON ARCHER at 505/865-6011

Bar M Real Estate

Real Estate

SCOTT MCNALLY www.ranchesnm.com 575/622-5867 575/420-1237 Ranch Sales & Appraisals

## " %%%

'

&# !

!

$"

$"

$"

"# #

!

#' &

"

!

!

!# !12%0- %5 %6)#. !-#( %07 1#%-)# !-$ 1.,% '!,% %++ 5!2%0%$ 5)2( 5)-$ ,)++1 -%5%0 &)"%0 12.0!'% !-$ $0)-*%0 23"1 .3/+% .& 1,!++ 1/0)-'1 %0),%2%0 &%-#)-' !-$ ! #0.11 &%-#% )#% "$0, "2( (.,% 5)2( &)0%/+!#% !-$ 1#0%%-%$ )- /.0#( 4%07 /0)4!2% "32 -%!0 /!4%,%-2 #0%!'% )1 !//0.6),!2% !-$ )2 )1 #. +)12%$ !++ (!0+%1 !7

Scott Kr1y3st0a1l MFr.oNnet lSsotrne,eBNte, MnDiGmQ.umSailctiotf,ytitTnX–g 7BB9rroo0kk2ee7rr Land co. www8.0sc0o-9tt3la3n-d9c6o9m8pdaanyy/.ceovme.

Ranch & Farm Real Estate

Fallon-Cortese Land

NEW MEXICO % "

# %

$$$

! !

w w w . t e xa s c r p . c o m

C 346:; :,*;065: 46:;3@ +,,+,+ >,33 04796=,+ > /64,: )(95: :,=,9(3 :,;: 6- 7,5: > :*(3,: >(;,9,+ )@ :63(9 ,3,*;90* 76> ,9,+ :<): >05+4033: (5 ,?;,5:0=, 707,305, :@:;,4 :7905.: :7905. -,+ +9(>: *(5@65: ,(9;/,5 +(4: 90=,9 -965;(., 7=4; (33 >,(;/,9 96(+: C (:; +., - #(5;( "6:( C >@ -965;(., 65 )6;/ />@ -965;(., 65 >@ :0+,: 6- />@ -965;(., 65 )6;/ :0+,: 6- >@ (* +,,+,+ (* :;(;, 3,(:, >,33 04796=,+ ,?*,33,5; >(;,9 :@:;,4 796=0+,+ )@ ( 3(9., :7905. (; ;/, /,(+8<(9;,9: >,33: ,8<077,+ > :<): >05+4033: 796=0+05. >(;,9 -69 (5 ,?;,5:0=, 707,305, *6> *(3- @,(9 305. *6<5;9@ " @,(9305. 69 *6> *(3- *6<5;9@ (4(A05.

04796=,4,5;: (* +,,+,+ (* :;(;, 3,(:, -965;(., 65 ;/, >,:; >@ 65 ;/, 569;/ #7905.,9 C 05<;,: -964 "<0+6:6 4<3;0 7<976:, 7967,9;@ > (* 3()69(;69@ 6--0*, *6=,9,+ 7,5: /64, +,(3 -69 <:, -69 /69:, 69 *(;;3, )9,,+05. ,4)9@6 ;9(5:-,9 -(*030;@ =,; *3050* 69 4(5@ 6;/,9 <:,: 05 ( ),(<;0-<3 (9,( 6" C (* =,9@ 50*, /69:, )6(9+05. ;9(0505. -(*030;0,: > 30./;,+ (9,5( 5,(; )<52 /6<:, 8 C (* 6- .66+ 9(5*/ *6<5;9@ > /64, " 9 C , (*( <(+(3<7, 6 (* ,?*,33,5;04796=,4,5;: -,5*,: >(;,9,+ *6> *(3- @,(9 305. *6<5;9@ 05 ,?*,33,5; *65+0;065 65 7=4; C (* >,33 04796=,+ > /64,: )(95: 7,5: >,33 >(;,9,+ 7=4; (33 >,(;/,9 96(+: -964 ;/, 05;,9:;(;, 8 04(9965 6 (* 5(;0=, .9(:: 569;/>,:; 6- (3/(9; $,?(: 3(9., +9(> ;/96<./ :6<;/ 7(9; 6- 7967,9;@ (--69+: .66+ /<5;05. >05;,9 796;,*;065 -69 30=,:;6*2 >03+30-, >(;,9,+ )@ ( 4033 ( :<) :;,,3 7,5: 099 76;,5;0(3 65 569;/ 769;065 !" " % " 7(:;<9,:9<505:0A,-9 (* ,(*/<7;6 (* > 3(2, 70*2 ;/, :0A, 6- 9(5*/ ;/(; @6< >(5; > ( ;6;(3 6(* 6;3,@ 6 $' 9(5*/3(5+ > ( 3(9., 7,940;;,+ +(4 796=0+05. ( /<., ),(<;0 -<3 3(2, > >(;,9 )(*2,+ <7 05 ( 5<4),9 6- :4(33,9 *(5@65: -69 )6(;05. -0:/05.

6;/,9 9,*9,(;065 ;6.,;/,9 > .66+ /<5;05. 65 ;/, 9(5*/ 5 7=4; (:; #367, 6- ;/, #(*9(4,5;6 6<5;(05: ;96<; -0:/05. 4<3, +,,9 (9)(9@ :/,,7 ;<92,@ ),(<;0-<3 5,> *<:;64 )<03; /64, > ,?*,7;065(3 3(5+:*(705. .<,:; /6<:, 6--0*, 5,>3@ 9,46+,3,+ 50*, ,4736@,, /6<:05. )(95: :;,,3 7,5: >6=,5 )(9),+ >09, -,5*,: (* +,,+,+ :;(;, 3,(:,: 65 7=4; 8 !

C (* 70=6;: +0;*/ >(;,9 90./;: ,32 /<5;05. 65 7=4; 8 C >,33 36*(;,+ 65 >@: B :,*;065: ,?*,33,5; 707,305, :@:;,4 > 4<50*07(3 >(;,9 67,5 963305. 9,7<;(;065 @,(9305. *6<5;9@ *6> *(3=,: (3:6 9<5 05 ;/, (9,( +6<)3, >0+, 46+<3(9 /64, 3(9., 4,;(3 )(95: 7,5: ( :*(3, 8 " C 65 7=4; 9,7 <;(;065 (9,( -69 >05;,9 >/,(; 796+ .9(A05. (* 5(;0=, .9(:: -(943(5+ -<33@ -,5*,+ >(;,9,+ -69 .9(A05.

8 " ,?*,33,5; *(;;3, -(9405. 67769;<50;@ -69 >05;,9 >/,(; .9(A05. :7905. :<44,9 4036 796+<*;065 ;6 ), /(9=,:;,+ 69 .9(A,+6<; (* 05*3 (* *9673(5+ )(3(5*,5(;0=,.9(::-69,?*,3 3,5; (9,( 65 >/0*/ ;6 79,*65 *(3=,: -69 >05;,9 .9(A05.

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

Missouri Land Sales 675 Ac. Excellent Cattle Ranch, Grass Runway, Land Your Own Plane: Major Price Reduction. 3-br, 2-ba home down 1 mile private lane. New 40x42 shop, 40x60 livestock barn, over 450 ac. in grass.

(Owner runs over 150 cow/calves, 2 springs, 20 ponds, 2 lakes, consisting of 3.5 and 2 ac. Both stocked with fish. Excellent fencing. A must farm to see. MSL #1112191

See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com

PAUL McGILLIARD Cell: 417/839-5096 1-800/743-0336 MURNEY ASSOC., REALTORS SPRINGFIELD, MO 65804

113 acres SOLD / 214 acres REMAINING: “Snooze Ya Loose.” Cattle/horse ranch. Over 150 acres in grass. 3/4 mile State Hwy. frontage. Live water, 60x80 multi-function barn. 2-br, 1-ba rock home. Priced to sell at $1,620 per acre. MLS #1204641 GREAT INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY CLOSE TO SPRINGFIELD. El Rancho Truck Plaza. MLS #1402704; Midwest Truck Stop MLS #1402703; Greenfield Trading Post MLS # 1402700. Owner retiring. Go to murney.com, enter MLS #, CHECK THEM OUT!!!

!# 07 !0,+!-$ %!12 .& .'%01 %5 %6)#. 5)2( !# /!71 !4' .& 7%!0 3-2)+ !1 ! 1,!++ !# '0!11 1/.2 !2 5)-$,)++ 5)2( 5%++ !-$ %+%#20)#)27 2. 13",%0')"+% /3,/ ,.+ !# &!0, +!-$ 0%!$7 &.0 !#2).- 6#%++%-2 1.)+ !++ !#* %00)#* INTEREST RATES A S L OW A S 3% Pay m en t s Sch ed u l ed o n 25 Year s

.,% /)#230%1 .- 5%"1)2%

!++ 31 5)2( 7.30 -%%$1

37%01 !'%-21 !+1.

J o e Stu b b l ef i el d & A s s o c i at es 13830 Wes ter n St ., A m ar i l l o , TX 806/622-3482 • c el l 806/674-2062 joes3@suddenlink.net Mi c h ael Per ez A s s o c i at es Nar a Vi s a, NM • 575/403-7970

5 ,3 0 ,'+5/ !

222 '%"$-1".0%./2%/0 #,* 4 "3 4 %)) (+&, '%"$-1".0%./2%/0 #,*

! , "'3'"# ! /'0 #5 0 #5!#**#,1 . 012/# . 3#" /- " $/-,1 %# &2%# * )# + ,0'-, &-+# 2,1 -2,16 #5 0 11*# &2,1',% #/ !/# , "'3'"# -/1& + #5 0 #/ !/# 2,1',% ," ! 11*# /-,10 46 &2,1',% ! 11*# + , -2,16 #5 0 #/ !/#

2$

2,1 -2,16 -++#/!# #4 -+# /,0 /#" '/-, !-,01/2!1'-, 11*# 0&-4 %#/ #**#/

46

# %-3'**#

7 7 5 (-#./'#01/# ,#1 7 (-#./'#01/# # /1&*',) !-+

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

Page 10

Livestock Market Digest

September 15, 2014

Montana Water Problems ment enough to ever do that!” gives you the right to use the give the whole irrigation projThe government is supposed to water, and once you use it, the ect 179,000 acre feet and the represent the people, and be our water goes back to the state of rest is theirs. This is a reverse servant, and not the other way Montana. That’s why the triple quantification!” says Laskody. around. The Tribal constitution water rights on the Reservation “One of the stipulations— is much different; the tribe is not do kind of fit together because for them to give water to the a constitutional republic. Tribal they are for specific uses and irrigation project—is that we ownership of the property they don’t necessarily contra- have to give up our claim to negates private property rights. dict.” For instance, water from a water. It goes against the state In essence this is a communist river can be used by an irrigator constitution and the federal and then goes into the ground- constitution. We’ve already system.

“Equal protection under the water supply or back into the riv- had a district court judge law is guaranteed in our Consti- er. review this and he said it was “But the Compact Commis- an unconstitutional taking. The tutional Republic by the State of Montana and U.S. ConWestern Montana stitutions. This means Water Users filed a that all the laws apply complaint and we had equally to all citizens. The government is supposed to to go to a hearing Montana manages river before the judge. represent the people, and flows and administers When he reviewed all be our servant, and not the water rights for the benthe documents he efits of its citizens and is other way around. said that this repreaccountable to the rule sents an unconstituof law developed by the tional uncompensated legislature. Montana cannot sion’s position is that the individ- taking. He would not approve turn over its constitutional and ual irrigators don’t have their the contract to be submitted to statutory responsibilities to a water rights anymore and that a vote,” says Laskody. sovereign nation with its own these are Project water rights. In “The issue of whether the constitution and different laws a court of law, the individual irri- judge should even review the that have no accountability to gators who got their water rights Water Use Agreement was the Montana legislature appealed to the State or its citizens. It violates Supreme Court since the equal protection it was claimed that This is scary, to realize clauses of the U.S. and this was not a finanthat the federal government Montana Constitucial contract with the tions,” explains Jackson. government.

The could come in here and stop Private property State Supreme Court us from using water. rights are rigorously prosaid it was not a tected by the Montana financial contract and U.S Constitutions, with the federal govyet the proposed Compact in the early 1900s would be in ernment for money. Yet there would transfer private water good shape. You can’t just take were all sorts of compensation rights of the irrigators to the fed- someone’s water right or proper- terms within it—that we were eral government in trust for the ty. Water rights are the same as supposed to get a certain CSKT. “The Compact should private property rights,” says amount of money to repair the protect individual water rights, Jackson. The property is not irrigation system that the not take them away. It is a viola- worth very much without the Bureau of Indian Affairs has tion of Article II of the Montana water. run into the ground over the Jerry Laskody, one of the irri- years. So we lost that part of Constitution and of the U.S. Constitution to take state-based gators affected by the water dis- the case, but State Supreme water rights from citizens on the pute, says that the over-arching Court specifically stated that reservation (Indian and non- issue for these ranchers/farmers they were not ruling on the Indian alike) and transconstitutional issues of fer them to the CSKT the taking of private or the federal governproperty rights,” he says Most of the water rights are ment,” he says.

“I don’t see how 10-acre feet and most of the The target, with the the state could toleroff-reservation water ate this. I know the time the farmers don’t use rights claimed by the attorney general is that much, but that’s the Compact, is to shut off watching this issue way Montana does it. irrigators. “They don’t very closely, but I give a specific figure in don’t see how the the Compact; you have tribes can do a taking to try to add it up, and when you is giving up their water rights to like this and not have a hue do, you discover that the Tribes the tribe. “We have never denied and cry from the state. Monare claiming more water than that the tribe has a federally tana is a property rights state there is actually is. It’s several reserved water right claim. We but the people in power right times more than the amount of live on fee land and we have a now don’t seem to worry water that exists. If anyone claim to water just like they have about the constitution getting wanted to get a new water right, a claim to water for their in their way,” Laskody says. they would have to buy it from reserved right. This whole The frightening thing is that the Tribe. And if the Tribe didn’t process we are now going this movement seems to be a want to sell or lease them the through was supposed to get the national trend, and not just in water, they’d be out of luck,” tribe to quantify what their fed- Montana. “The people who eral reserved right was, but wrote our Constitution and says Jackson.

Under traditional water law, they’ve never done that. Instead, the Declaration of Independthe state of Montana owns the they are saying that all of the ence were very wise, and they water. “A water right simply water is theirs and that they will understood people. When they put the checks and balances into our government it was to For advertising, subscription and e protect against these sorts of ditorial inquiries write or call: things; they didn’t want one branch of the government to override all the others. SomeLivestock Market Digest how, over the past 2 ½ cenP.O. Box 7458, turies we seem to have forgotAlbuquerque, N.M. 87194 ten about the basics of our Telephone: 505/243-9515 country’s Constitution,” he explains.

continued from page eight

The Need for Thorough Analysis of the Compact e need a good analysis of the Compact,” says Jackson. “It needs to be checked to see if it violates the Constitution so there needs to be a legal analysis of it. There also should be an economic analysis so people would know what type of impact it’s going to have. We need that, as legislators, when we vote,” he says.

Yet the Montana legislature at present does not have enough help to properly and responsibly review this huge Compact and the 130 page House Bill. “State government has provided no legal, environmental, regulatory or economic assessments to reveal the impacts of this compact on private property values, individual state-based water rights, future growth, and economic development.

No legislator in good conscience could consider passing a document of this magniwithout this tude information,” says Jackson.

What impacts will this have on the economy—with property value reductions and the multiplier effects if some people leave? There would also be impacts on the environment, including dewatering of shallow ground water aquifers, and water systems dependent upon return irrigation flows.

There would be a dry-up of wetlands, since they exist because of irrigation water.

There are three major parts to the Compact. “The people who are trying to pass it are trying to divide the communities. I’ve been asked by some people saying, ‘If they get rid of the section regarding offreservation water rights, are you going to support it?’ and I have to say no, because on the reservation the Tribes are doing things that are unconstitutional and are not being fair to the irrigators. I see problems with all three parts of the Compact. There’s the Constitutional problem and the fact that it is not fair and equitable. Having studied the flow of the Flathead and the Clark Fork River I know there is enough water for everybody to have all the water they want. There is no reason to take anything away from anybody,” says Jackson.

“The Flathead Irrigation Project actually needs more water and I think they should get more, but this hasn’t been their objective. They are not trying to go after water to add more to the irrigation project,” he says.

“People also need to have water for future expansion, and I think the deep aquifer wells would provide plenty of

“W

water for domestic purposes.

But the Compact Commission needs to project what the increase in population would be. Is there more land that we could irrigate if we had more water? If there is, then the water should be made available,” he says.

The purpose of a federal reserved water rights compact is to determine the amount of water needed to meet the purpose of the reservation, but this has not yet been done. “When the amount of water needed to fulfill the purpose of the reservation is quantified (justified) there is enough water in the Flathead Basin to meet those needs without taking water from people who grow our food,” says Jackson.

“The federal government has water in Hungry Horse dam (and other federal dams in Montana) which can be leased for future development and can also be used to fulfill tribal needs. A cost allocation study set the cost of Hungry Horse water at $10 an acre foot. The tribe wants to take that water and lease it back to Montanans for $40 per acre foot. Research models show that 85 percent of the time the release of 90,000 acre feet of water from Hungry Horse dam would not affect other uses. The original request for 100,000 acre feet was based on the water needed for future development for the next 50 years for the entire Clark Fork Basin. Dividing the 90,000 acre feet (requested by the executive branch of the State of Montana, in the CSKT Compact) equally between the State and CSKT would go a long way in developing a fair and equitable Compact as required by law,” he says.

“More than 14 million acre feet per year runs down the river and goes into Idaho. The human impact is so small that the USGS measuring gauges can’t even measure it. All that water is going down the river and I think we should be allowed to use more of it.

After we use it there’s return flow. The DNRC says it’s over-appropriated, but when I ask them how much there is, their response is that they don’t know! They say that if we add up all the appropriations it is more than flow of the river. My answer is: of course it is, because it’s the same water, being reused as it flows down. Yet in all of their calculations they don’t consider return flow. They don’t have any idea what it is! They pay more attention to legal availability than the actual water,” says Jackson.

September 15, 2014

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

Workers suffer when militarized police and Big Green get together

BY RON ARNOLD, WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM

hile all eyes turn to the gunfire and Molotov cocktails of War Zone Ferguson, Mo., many minds turn to questions of mindless faith in the political establishment.

What’s happening to us?

One such mind belongs to basketball champion turned actor and best-selling author, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, whose Monday commentary on Ferguson for Time Magazine bore the chilling headline, “The Coming Race War Won’t Be About Race.”

It will be about class warfare, he predicted, the powerful and wealthy elite against the 50 million Americans who are poor – black, Latino and white. “Fifty million voters is a powerful block if they ever organized in an effort to pursue their common economic goals,” Abdul-Jabbar wrote.

This great icon’s class warfare insight reaches farther than he knows, into the multimillions of marginalized, demonized and despised workers of the resource class — loggers, coal miners, cattle ranchers, commercial fishermen, oil rig roustabouts, tunnel blasters, heavy equipment operators, and on and on, every one of us who gets dirty hands making the stuff of elite splendor and majesty — and, yes, I once shoveled foundation trenches and shouldered kegs of ten-penny brights (nails) for a living.

All these hardworking people are mocked, devalued and destroyed by Big Green’s privileged few, as told in the recent Senate report, “How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA.” It’s a class warfare warning.

Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke (heiress of the Sperry & Hutchinson fortune) doesn’t help the poor with their economic goals using her $427,595 annual compensation or the group’s $241.8 million assets, but ruins every resource worker possible.

The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation’s chief investment officer, Denise Strack, doesn’t help the poor with their economic goals using her $1.6 million annual compensation or the foundation’s $5.6 billion assets from the Intel fortune, but helps ruin every resource worker possible.

Big Green conducts class war with its power over the federal government.

If that sounds impossible, let me tell you a story.

W

On July 27, 1991, 30 U.S. Forest Service agents on horseback, some armed with semiautomatic weapons and wearing bulletproof vests, raided rancher Wayne Hage’s cattle in Meadow Canyon in the Toiyabe National Forest, high in the mountains of central Nevada. The cows were drinking from disputed water and were to be impounded that day, destroying Hage’s livelihood — and dooming some of the meat supply that gave minimumwage urban burger flippers something to flip.

The agents hoped to infuriate Hage into violence and kill him. However, he showed up with a camera, immortalized them on film, sued them, and after years in a federal court, won a ruling that he owned the water. The Forest Service had no right to impound his cattle.

A court document showed that David Young, special agent in charge of the raid, had personally brought with him several Remington Model 870 pumpaction 12 gauge shotguns, Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifles, Sig Sauer P220 .45 caliber semi-automatic pistols and a Smith & Wesson Model 36 .38 caliber revolver.

On April 2, 1990, Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service James C. Overbay sent a letter to his subordinate regional foresters, urging support of environmentalists in return for their help supporting larger Forest Service fish and wildlife budgets, removal of ranchers, and expansion of USFS authority and power. It said: “Conservation groups representing the organized wildlife and fish interests across the country have given considerable effort, time, and money to help the Forest Service promote these important programs. We need the support of these groups to avoid possible reductions in fish and wildlife budgets. They would like to see the results of these efforts. We owe this to them.”

A little over a year later, the Forest Service paid off rich environmentalists by ruining Wayne Hage. The service’s culture of resource stewardship was drifting far from its conservation roots to political obsequiousness and ostentatious zeal.

Overbay had already devastated other ranchers with less publicity, but it was the Hage raid that reinforced Cliven Bundy’s misguided beliefs about federal authority and led to President Obama’s Bureau of Land Management storming the Bundy ranch from attack helicopters duded up in military-grade body armor, flashing

short-barreled assault rifles, and crashing around in armored vehicles — enough combat equipment to remove the tinfoil hat stigma from the black helicopter crowd’s collective head.

As John Steinbeck famously wrote in The Grapes of Wrath: “Repression works only to strengthen and knit the oppressed.” A rabble in arms materialized from all over the West to protect the Bundy ranch — ready to die. It was blatant armed insurrection, but federal prudence prevailed and the BLM stood down — prosecutors are dealing with it now.

The militarization of federal agencies has a long history but should have a short future. Big Green’s federal power grip needs to be smashed and its storm troopers disarmed.

In June, Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, introduced the Regulatory Agency Demilitarization Act, to stem the trend of federal regulatory agencies developing SWAT-like teams.

Maybe it’s unrealistic, but perhaps Kareem Abdul-Jabbar could recommend a diplomatic mission from the poor to the reviled workers of the resource class, put aside any past hurts and hates for a while, and organize in an effort to pursue their common economic goals.

RON ARNOLD, a Washington Examiner columnist, is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

Page 11

Land Markets Survey Shows Individuals & Families Continue to Invest in Land hile overall median land prices steadily rose 4 percent, individuals and families continued to invest in land and account for 58 percent of buyers in land sales transactions, according to a 2014 Land Market Survey, conducted jointly by the REALTORS® Land Institute and National Association of REALTORS®. In addition, the survey also revealed that 17 percent of land purchasers are corporations/partnerships, 17 percent are investors, and 10 percent are expansion farmers.

The 2014 Land Market Survey is the first of many biannual reports aimed to develop accurate information on current trends in the land markets and on the general state of land sales. The results are representative of over 625 land professional respondents from across the United States.

According to the survey, 43 percent of the purchases where individuals/families were buyers were purposed for farm and ranch (24 percent agriculture and 17 percent ranch) and 31 percent for recreation. Of those surveyed, expansion farmers purchased 98 percent of land for farm and ranch (85 percent agriculture and 13 percent ranch). Investors purchased a diversified portfolio of land (21 percent agriculture, 20 percent timber, 17 percent development, 14 percent commercial). Of the 17 percent of land purchased by corporations, development land accounted for 30 percent, commercial land accounted for

W

26 percent, and 17 percent accounted for timber.

Terri Jensen, ALC Advanced, 2014 Institute National President-Elect of REALTORS® Land Institute, states that the findings “follow my experience in that 70 to 85 percent of land buyers are expansion farmers/individuals/ families; the balance are investors and/or 1031 exchange buyers.”

The results appropriately correlate to the findings that responding land professionals across the United States primarily focus their practices in agriculture (69 percent) and recreation (59 percent). The market and growth for land is steady. The survey recorded that over the past twelve months, ending in July 2014, the median land price change is growth of 4 percent.

According to Jensen, “Land prices are noting stable versus rapidly rising prices with decreases noted in some areas.

Most decreases were less than 10 percent of responses and reflected 0 to 10 percent decreases and increases. The 0 to 5 percent increase in 50 plus percent of responses note the change to stability versus rapid changes up or down.”

The 2014 Land Market Survey was based on data collected in July 2014. The survey was emailed to 1,000 REALTORS® Land Institute members and approximately 9,500 non-members and generated 629 usable responses. The full survey is available for free online.

The Best of the Bunch & !) % *&&# &, ( *& * , (. # )* )*&(. /) % - )* &&" % $ ! !) '+( !**) % * *( !*!&% & !(* & ) % & /) &+%*(. /) # * )* -!## %* ( * !% % !%)'!( )*!% *& # ))!

(--0% !,4 &-2/ -& %%60 "--*0 !,$ .!4 !,$ 1(!1 -,+4 ),#+2$%0 /)-/)14 -01!'% 5 1 !++ !$$0 2. 1- ! .-1%,1)!+ 0!3),' -& -3%/

Livestock Market Digest

Page 12

September 15, 2014

In The Cattle Markets MATTHEW A. DIERSEN, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY

Feed Supply and Demand n recent weeks people in different livestock sectors have been wondering about the relative price impacts of corn and other feeds. Other people have asked about the longer-run price outlook for feed and for cattle. Having expectations for corn and hay in this setting is necessary as they ultimately feed into the prices for different classes of cattle. For crops using a balance sheet allows for both supply and demand adjustments.

Starting with the current marketing year and balance sheet for corn, the large supply has dominated the news. Livestock herds cannot be expanded nor can ethanol or other industrial uses (expect exports) increase as fast as corn will be added this year. All of this is factored into the current WASDE price projection of $3.55$4.25 per bushel for corn.

However, if one is looking at retaining heifers or valuing future calf crops, then the 2015/16 marketing year is of interest. One way to determine a 2015/16 corn price is to extend the balance sheet for-

I

ward. Levels from the USDA baseline are kept constant except for the different beginning stocks. Doing so implies further growth in the ending stocks level for 2015/16, which in turn gives a lower price. The baseline price was $3.30 per bushel on corn for 2015/16.

Modeling the corn price against the ending stocks to use ratio gives an even lower projected price ($3.21 per bushel) than the USDA baseline would suggest. Looking at the futures market one sees different story – carry or higher prices out to December of 2017.

The situation for hay is a little more immediate. The August Crop Production report suggests a sharply higher hay production level than expected based on trend yields. The price impacts have been mixed since then. Alfalfa prices are being supported in droughtaffected areas and are declining in other areas (e.g., South Dakota). At the national level hay supplies have effectively been rationed in recent years.

Disappearance or use based on the number of livestock has been quite low by historical standards. Now, during the hay production year, the supply of hay has effectively increased while livestock numbers have continued to decline. The net result is that use can increase

and the price can also fall. An expanded cattle inventory would need additional hay acres in future years if normal yields and prices are to follow.

Lower corn and hay prices both factor into higher feeder cattle and calf prices for both 2014 and 2015. Fundamental forecasts for cattle prices typically have fed cattle in the $155 per cwt area for 2015. In contrast, futures prices for much of 2015 have been $10 per cwt less. Feeder cattle follow a similar pattern. The bottom line is that with corn futures trading above the fundamental price level for next year, cattle futures prices remain below the fundamental price levels. Cattle feeders cannot lock in corn cheap enough to bid higher for feeders or calves. If this logic holds, the implication for prices in 2015 would be a set of surprises of lower corn and higher feeder cattle that is difficult to exploit. It would also imply higher calf prices in 2015 than the futures market will allow to be exploited also.

The Markets Cattle were lower across classes last week. Fed cattle were lower although the choice-select spread improved.

Higher feed prices also had an impact on feeder and calf prices. Various NASS reports

recently confirmed some trade expectations. The Cattle on Feed report showed record low placements and marketings for July. Nebraska stood out a little in terms of having more cattle on feed. There was no obvious pattern in the weights placed.

Cattle supplies across classes are tight in both the U.S. and Canada. Neither country has any statistics indicating expansion is occurring in the cattle sector. Thus, this fall would be

the first time for potential expansion, where heifers are held back at large enough numbers to further impact feeder supplies. The slaughter statistics showed a shift in July to where the weights of steers and heifers were increased for the month and to a level likely to bring up the year-to-date average weight. Put another way, weights are finally exceeding year-ago weights at a substantial level.

Lean beef: Building on a success story FROM THE HIGH PLAINS JOURNAL

esponding to its market, the beef industry began making important changes in both perceived and actual nutritional properties of its products nearly 40 years ago.

Those changes and the resulting impact they have had in marketing beef are more significant than most producers realize.

The industry’s first wake-up call came in 1977 when the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs released the “Dietary Goals for the American People.” Among other things, that document recommended Americans decrease consumption of meat in favor of poultry and fish.

“All of a sudden, red meat became demonized,” according to Jeff Savell, Ph.D., university distinguished professor at Texas A&M University, who has been involved in beef industry research since the late 1970s.

“We found people’s attitudes were sometimes based on ancient data.”

Savell and colleagues, in fact, found the biggest impediment to establishing dietary recommendations at the time was faulty product information.

For

R

instance, Savell says that up until 1986, data for the beef porterhouse steak showed the cut had more than 42 percent fat—and this information was based on just a few heifers from the 1950s.

“It was a horrible lag in data,” Savell says. “We had outdated information for decades. Furthermore, we needed to define the concept of lean beef.” Compounding that was the fact the industry was actually marketing beef with too much fat— “dinosaur cuts, as we look at it today,” he says.

With the power of Congress against it, and with consumers increasingly viewing beef as unhealthy, the industry knew it had a fight on its hands. Starting in earnest in the mid-1980s and with a battle cry of “War on Fat,” the industry effort intended to find a way of incorporating beef into a new American consciousness focused on fat.

It’s important to note the war was not waged against Congress or consumers.

“At the time, just about every man over 50 years old visiting his doctor was being told to quit eating red meat,” says Eric Hentges, Ph.D., who was director of nutrition research at the National Livestock and Meat

Board from 1986 to 1995. “We took more of a ‘fit, don’t fight’ approach to attacking the issue.”

The results of this war were impressive by any standard.

Since the late 1970s, the industry has demonstrated a 44 percent reduction in available fat (from 13 percent to 7 percent) and a 29 percent reduction in saturated fat contributed by beef per capita (from 13 percent to 9 percent). Furthermore, more than 65 percent of whole muscle beef cuts sold at retail today meet government standards for lean, and 17 of the top 25 most popular cuts sold at retail (including sirloin steak and tenderloin) are lean.

Since the 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans were issued, external fat on retail beef cuts has decreased by 81 percent. Retail data show sales of 90 percent or greater lean ground beef increased by 25 percent between 2008 and 2013.

All hands on deck The “gate-to-plate” effort to increase leanness involved every segment of the beef chain—cattle ranchers and farmers who raised leaner animals, packers and processors who closely trimmed beef cuts, supermarkets and restaurants that offered a

growing number of lean beef cuts to consumers, and researchers who made sure accurate data were used in calculating what was actually in the products. Also playing a critical role was a Beef Checkoff Program that helped fund much of the research and many of the efforts to get information into the right hands.

“It was the perfect storm,” said Savell. “The need for good information came at the same time as the availability of funding. And without the checkoff, it would not have been done.”

Hentges agrees, saying, “Without the checkoff, we wouldn’t have had the resources to go forward.”

“Every pivotal point in this journey has had a checkoff element,” says Shalene McNeill, Ph.D., R.D., executive director of human nutrition research at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a beef checkoff contractor. “For instance, checkoff work led to collaboration that updated the entire gold-standard nutrient database for beef.”

The Nutrient Database Improvement initiative, in fact, was a unique public-private partnership between cattle producers through their beef checkoff and the government, which estab-

lished the database. The USDA’s National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, or SR, has been in place for 115 years and is the official source for food composition information.

Through this initiative the checkoff has been able to update the nutrient data for one of America’s favorite foods in the official database used by nutrition professionals, media, marketers, government agencies and others. It’s part of an assurance to consumers that the information they’re getting to make dietary choices is accurate and complies with public health recommendations.

Industry meetings about database changes involved USDA staff, which was an enormous benefit, according to Hentges, who is now executive director of the International Live Science Institute, North America. “As soon as the data came in, it became their data,” he says. “We had the luxury of using data to get ourselves out of a hole.”

With information in hand, the beef industry made a huge push through its checkoff program in the 1980s and 1990s to reach out to health professionals. For instance, a program with state continued on page thirteen

September 15, 2014

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

Lean Beef beef councils and the American Dietetic Association (now the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) starting in the late 1980s and continuing today provides seminars to local and state Academy groups on nutrient density and the new lean data.

“The data was accurate and believable, and the program very well received,” says Hentges. “I think we laid a pretty solid foundation.”

From a production and processing standpoint, the key milestone was a major checkofffunded National Consumer Retail Beef Study in 1986 that demonstrated consumers would buy more beef, and pay more for it, if they were offered a leaner product. “That was probably my ‘aha’ moment,” says Savell.

At that time, retail beef trim was about .5 inches of external fat. The information from the study created a “domino effect” in the retail industry to reduce external fat on retail cuts, Savell said, with one retailer trying to outdo the other when it came to closer trim.

The move by retailers to reduce fat trim led to increased efforts by packers to reduce the amount of fat going into the back of the store, according to Clay Burtrum, a cow-calf producer from Stillwater, Oklahoma, and chairman of the checkoff’s Nutrition and Health Committee. Burtrum worked in a retail meat department for about eight years early in his career, and says in 1992 fat would be trimmed extensively before cuts were placed into trays. Today, he says, that step isn’t usually necessary.

It also was being supplemented by developments at the production level. Burtrum says on his farm, “We select for different traits, matching attributes of a bull with the dam, figuring out which pasture those animals will run on, and evaluating other options. It really is a pasture-toplate process.”

The results were demonstrated by a checkoff-funded National Beef Market Basket Survey in 2005, which found that overall fat thickness for the cuts in individual store packages had been reduced to an average of .09 inches, 81 percent less than it had been just 25 years earlier.

“When you go to the meat case today, it’s a sea of red,” says Savell. “There is just no visible fat. Over time, we have seen a redefinition of lean.”

Taking a different tack on lean beef Are there still opportunities when thinking about lean beef?

Yes, agree industry experts, but not necessarily in the direction it has taken over the past 40 years.

“We’re now to the point we just can’t get any leaner,” according to Savell. “Even if the only grade eaten by consumers was Select, it wouldn’t change fat intake (by Americans) appreciably.”

The checkoff’s McNeill

continued from page twelve

agrees. “Because today’s beef is so closely trimmed, there’s not much more progress we can make toward leaner product,” she says. “But the availability of lean beef cuts is extremely important in helping consumers feel better about beef.”

The industry’s message on lean could hardly be more positive. Today more than 38 cuts, when cooked and visible fat trimmed, have been shown to fit the USDA definition of lean, which is less than 10 grams of total fat, less than or equal to 4.5 grams of saturated fat and less than 95 milligrams of cholesterol per 3 1/2 ounces. This compares to seven cuts just 20 years ago.

McNeill says, however, the industry’s best messages may sometimes get lost in the discussion on lean. “While the focus on lean is important, it’s only part of our great beef nutrition story,” she says. “All beef provides 10 essential nutrients, including high-quality protein, important to good health.”

Still, she says having the tremendous lean message is very important—even if it isn’t the particular message the industry decides to utilize in every instance. “Historically, it’s been an important focus,” McNeill says, “because unfortunately, when consumers and health professionals think of nutrition and beef, they often think of fat first.

“Today we’re suggesting to our state beef council partners they don’t need to talk as much about the numbers, because lean cuts have become so prevalent,” she says. “We need to stress that many popular cuts of beef are lean and all beef has 10 essential nutrients.”

While fat is still a leading barrier for consumers choosing beef, “the lean story is giving us many chances to tell a good nutrition story,” says McNeill.

“We have a great opportunity to show that beef is surprisingly more lean and nutritious than [consumers] think.”

McNeill points to the Beef in an Optimal Lean Diet—or BOLD—Study as a means of doing that. The BOLD Study demonstrated that a hearthealthy diet containing 5 ounces a day of lean beef was just as heart-healthy as the government’s “optimal” diet based on chicken as a protein. It also showed that the heart-healthy diet including beef can lower total and LDL-cholesterol levels by 10 percent.

“We found that researchers were surprised not just by the results, but by the terrific nutrition profiles of the beef cuts,” McNeill says, noting that even beef cuts that don’t fit the government’s definition of lean can fit into properly balanced diets.

“The unintended consequences of such emphasis on lean cuts of beef might have contributed to a ‘good cut/bad cut’ perception,” says McNeill. “Beef has become leaner overall, and any beef cut can be part of a healthy and balanced diet.

“People are really open to a balance of fat today,” she says.

Savell says it’s a matter of providing the right type of fat.

“Consumers want taste fat, not waste fat,” he says. “We can’t avoid the need for a certain amount of fat for eating acceptability.”

Of most importance, according to Savell, is the industry must ensure data being used on packaging, in dietary recommendations and in other venues stays up-to-date with the product.

“We need to make sure that every product carries current information,” he says. “There’s more of a problem with out-ofdate information than there is with the product itself.”

Brave new approaches It’s great the industry has developed a positive message about its lean products, but it isn’t necessarily one it will use predominantly in the future.

“The nutrition landscape is getting more complicated,” says McNeill. “Now instead of ‘eat less fat,’ there’s more guidance to ‘eat a plant-based diet.’ So we have to start understanding how beef benefits the changing philosophies in diet and health.

“It also raises the question, what is the future optimal diet?

We need to stress the point that beef is simply better than ever— a great tasting, nutritionally valuable food for a satisfying eating experience,” she says.

McNeill says it isn’t necessary for beef to push aside other proteins to do that. “Forty percent of many Americans’ diet is junk food,” she says. “It’s not about replacing other proteins.”

Staying engaged in the nutrition arena is still critical for the industry, says Clay Burtrum, who serves on the 20-member Beef Promotion Operating Committee representing the Federation of State Beef Councils. The Committee determines what programs to fund with national beef checkoff dollars, and at what amounts.

It’s still very much an important issue because of today’s health awareness,” he says.

“Consumers are increasingly aware of their diets.”

For that reason, Burtrum says he believes the Beef Checkoff Program needs to be involved. “We have to be forward-thinking about what is going to happen next,” he says.

“We know there will continue to be Dietary Guidelines from the government, and we need to make sure that we publicize the most current, most accurate data. At the same time, we need to educate consumers about the nutritional benefits our products offer. Not just the lean, but the entire package.

“With a shrinking budget, we need to focus on those areas that are most important,” Burtrum says. “Nutrition is important. We’re fortunate to have this kind of research and foundation to use in telling our story.”

Page 13

Desalinizing Water in Texas plan to desalinize brackish water could provide an answer to Texas’ water problems, according to William McKenzie, editorial director at the George W. Bush Institute.

Texas’ population continues to grow, but the state has suffered recurring droughts. Desalination poses a potential answer to a water resource problem, though it can be expensive. Desalination takes brackish water and seawater and cleans it, removing the salt and turning it into water that can be used for irrigation and for drinking water. Desalination is not an entirely new idea in Texas: In the Western part of Texas, the Kay Bailey Hutchinson Desalination Plant supplies El Paso and Fort Bliss with fresh water.

Craig Pederson, formerly of the Texas Water Development Board, is working to create a private sector solution to the problem, desalinizing brackish water and selling the minerals that are

A

extracted on the commodities market.

According to McKenzie, desalination could be especially significant in Texas because of its relationship with fracking, as fracking produces wastewater. If that water can be recycled, it can be reused and can keep water supplies steady.

NCPA Senior Research Fellow Lloyd Bentsen recently wrote about this topic on the NCPA’s Energy and Environment Blog.

Source: William McKenzie, “Hope on the water front,” Dallas Morning News, August 25, 2014.

Livestock Market Digest

Page 14

September 15, 2014

Central Nevada Ranchers Fighting BLM Over Grazing Rights

BY THOMAS MITCHELL, FROM THE WESTERN BLOG

n May the Bureau of Land Management relented and announced it had come to a year-long deal with ranchers on the Argenta allotment on Mount Lewis in the Battle Mountain District to allow grazing. The BLM reneged.

At the end of July the BLM told ranchers using Mount Lewis that “drought triggers” had been met and cattle must be removed in seven days.

“We must remove the cattle from our summer grazing country on the mountain, where there is ample feed and adequate water, to the flat, where there is very little of either,” rancher Pete Tomera told the Elko Daily Free Press.

Bob Schweigert of Intermountain Range Consultants in Winnemucca says ranchers had to sign new grazing agreements with the BLM in May and the BLM is violating terms of those agreements.

The BLM agreed to review key monitoring locations in coordination with permittees in early June, but the scheduled joint monitoring was canceled.

Instead days later a rancher came

I

across BLM employees conducting monitoring without any ranchers present. Another monitoring outing was scheduled on short notice while permittees were away from the area, and testing again was done without ranchers present.

“They lied to us again,” rancher Eddyann Filippini told the Elko newspaper. “(Battle Mountain BLM manager Doug) Furtado can’t be trusted and we don’t trust the data they collect from the range monitoring sites when they don’t allow us to accompany them.”

John Carpenter, chairman of the Committee for Sustainable Grazing, said temporary electric fences should be erected around the “postage stamp” riparian areas as provided by the BLM’s own Drought Management Environmental Analysis.

“These small riparian areas, as administered by the BLM, are preventing the livestock users from using their private land and water rights,” Carpenter said, but added that the BLM appears to be unwilling to follow those recommendations.

The ranchers say delays in getting cattle out on the range and what fencing they were required to do by BLM

has cost them half a million dollars.

Reportedly some ranchers chose to defy the latest order to remove their cattle, contending the BLM breached the agreements made with ranchers.

A demonstration similar to one in May, dubbed the “Cowboy Express,” is scheduled in September — in which riders are to carry a petition to Washington, D.C., seeking the local BLM manager’s firing.

Of course, this prompted a writer with the Huffington Post to huff and puff about how scofflaw ranchers in May had bullied the poor BLM bureaucrats with peaceful horseback protest rides and petitions.

He compared this with the standoff at the Bundy ranch in Bunkerville and made no mention of the fact the ranchers documented that grass on the allotment in May was nearly two-foot tall in places.

“Like Cliven Bundy and his supporters, these ranchers think they are above the law. They refuse to be held accountable for the condition of public lands after degradation by their livestock,” the Huffington writer pontificates. “When the ‘Cowboy Express’ arrives in DC, those who sit in offices in Washington

should know that it is not the arrival of heroic stewards of the western land.

Instead, it is the descent upon the Capitol of an extremist group of rogue ranchers who refuse to acknowledge the authority of the federal government, while simultaneously demanding that the government continue its handouts in perpetuity.”

Handouts? Who does he think really maintains the land and the vegetation and the water access so his beloved sage grouse and wild horses can even exist?

As for federal authority, that is debatable under the U.S. Constitution.

The controversy is now in front of an administrative law judge in the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of Hearings and Appeals. On federal land the BLM basically writes the law, polices the law and adjudicates the law.

No separation of powers there.

Thomas Mitchell is a former newspaper editor who now writes conservative/libertarian columns for weekly papers in central Nevada and blogs at http://4thst8.wordpress.com/ Twitter: @thomasmnvhttp://watchdogwire.com/nevada/2014/08/25/centralnevada-ranchers-fighting-blm-over-grazing-rights/

The (latest) answer to the “Pause”

BY DR DAVID WHITEHOUSE, THEGWPF.ORG

n popular science journalism the latest is always the best.

With all the explanations for the “pause” in global surface temperatures since 1997 – there are now over 30 of them – it is always the most recently published one that is the “answer.”

This time it’s the Atlantic Ocean that’s to blame. A paper published in Science says that a 30-year periodicity warms and cools the world by sequestering heat below the ocean’s surface and then releasing it.

The paper concerned is not an impressive one. It starts off assuming the answer it seeks and finds it! Since the emphasis is on the Atlantic take a look at their

I

data for surface temperature and ocean heat content (OHC.) As you can see OHC is declining, as the surface temperature remains static. Incidentally, a few error bars on the graphs would have been illuminating and would have altered a false impression given by the graphs data’s precision.

The OHC data comes from the Argo array that has been in place for about a decade. When talking to people about Argo I have heard many comments about how it is obviously showing a global increase in OHC over that period but this is something that is not entirely born out by the data, and will be the subject of a future post.

Before the Atlantic it was the Pacific storing heat beneath the

waves and taking it away from the atmosphere. Some scientists were quite confident that it was at the root of most of the “pause” and some still are despite the recent attention on the Atlantic Ocean. Even the authors of the recent Science paper say they are “not downplaying the role of the Pacific.” So there you have it. It is the Atlantic that is the cause of the “pause,” and it is the Pacific that is the cause of the “pause” as well. I’m glad that’s clear.

For those who are impressed with some of the media’s reports that the “pause” has its best explanation to date there are two papers, published in Nature Climate Change at the same time that say it is, most definitely, due to the Pacific.

The language of science journalism is interesting here. Note that the “pause” has been “seized” upon by “climate change sceptics and puzzled scientists,” and that the “pause” happened after “decades of rapid warming.” (Recent warming started around 1980. The 80s hardly saw “rapid warming” and the warming had stopped by the later half of the 90s.)

You don’t have to look very deeply at the science to realize that, despite the headlines, no one has come up with an answer to the “pause.” Some place their faith that there is a major driver – the Atlantic or the Pacific for instance – that can explain most of it. Others admit that there will not be any one cause for the “pause” and that it is likely to be

the result of a patchwork of influences. If so then they have to explain why such a patchwork has for 17 years kept the global surface temperature statistically flat in the face of rising greenhouse gas concentrations – surely one of the most remarkable balancing acts in the history of science.

For many the proof of what is causing the “pause” will not be forthcoming until it goes away and what is expected to be accelerated global warming resumes.

But since whatever the culprit is would have been a very significant contributor to the pre “pause” warming in the 80s and 90s, one wonders how swift will be that acceleration?

Feedback: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org

Inaugural Brangus Fall Conference Set for October he International Brangus Breeders Association (IBBA) has finalized plans for the inaugural Brangus Fall Conference set for October 2 through 4, 2014, in San Antonio, Texas. Participants can expect informative sessions and fun social events while networking with the Board of Directors and committee members. Headlining the event is keynote speaker Forrest Roberts, Chief Executive Officer for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

“We are excited to have Forrest Roberts address members and provide his insight to the beef industry,” said Tommy Perkins, Ph.D., IBBA Executive Vice President. “We look forward to hosting our members here at the IBBA

T

headquarters and hearing their input. Their participation is vital to our progress.”

Member participation is welcomed for imperative planning meetings. Discussion of pressing topics will lead to advancements integral in the upcoming year and for years to come. As representatives of the IBBA membership and the Brangus community, your input and thoughts will be important to the dialogue.

The fall Board of Directors and committee meetings will be hosted at the Drury Inn and Suites near La Cantera Parkway (15806 IH-10 West) located across Loop 1604 from San Antonio’s largest shopping area and amusement park.

“America’s Favorite Livestock Newspaper”

September 15, 2014

Page 15

Beef cattle producers have options with replacement heifers BLAIR FANNIN, TEXAS AGRILIFE, SOUTHWEST FARM PRESS

eef cattle producers may find themselves on the, well, horns of a dilemma regarding replacement heifers. They can raise them or sell them. They may want to

B

“take the money and run,” says Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service economist Stan Bevers, Vernon.

“We looked at what the market is right now for replacement heifers,” he said. “We were targeting heavy bred heifers, and they were anywhere from $1,650

to $2,300 a head. The second number was what it was costing the rancher to raise them themselves.

“One operation we tracked (included) heifers weaned in 2010 and 2011, (and) what those heifers were and what their accumulated expenses were over the

two years to the point where they were heavy bred. Their expenses totaled $1,100 to $1,400 a head. That ranch was pretty efficient and did a good job of reducing their expenses.”

Bevers said since this ranch was located in Oklahoma, one would need to add $300 to $400

a head to that for Texas ranchers and regional market prices to develop replacement heifers.

“That comes out to $1,400 to $1,800 to develop replacement heifers in Texas,” Bevers said.

Read more about ranchers’ replacement heifer options here. http://today.agrilife.org/

Merck Recognizes 4-H Members for Advocacy Work n support of its commitment to 4-H, education and the development of the next generation of industry leaders, Merck Animal Health has proudly sponsored the inaugural Young Advocates for Agriculture Award. Through this award, high school students are recognized for their grass roots advocacy efforts in support of the agricultural industry. Sarah Schuster of Dane County, Wisc., the recipient of this year’s award, was honored for her work in educating youth leaders and other 4-H members about the significance and value of science and technology in agriculture.

“Merck Animal Health is committed to developing and empowering the next generation of leaders within our industry,” says Jim Miles, Merck Animal Health. “There is a real and growing need for people within agriculture to help bridge the

I

information gap – to help tell our respective stories about why agriculture is a crucial part of our world. We are pleased to be able to help support those students who already are advocating on behalf of the industry and hope this award, as well as other programs and recognitions, inspire others to get involved.”

The advocacy award is an extension of the 4-H National Youth Agri Science Summit, which was held earlier this year.

Sponsored by Merck Animal Health, the summit provided numerous opportunities for 4-H high school students to learn about the latest innovations in agricultural science and technology, as well as increase their awareness of careers in these rapidly expanding fields. After attending the summit, Schuster felt she was armed with a wealth of knowledge, and was inspired to share it with youth leaders in

her community.

“Engaging and educating our youth around the future of the agriculture industry is vitally important,” says Christina Alford, executive vice president of external relations, National 4-H Council. “Through our partnership with Merck Animal Health, 4-H’ers develop the skills that will help them in future agricultural careers and allow them the opportunity to showcase their abilities to experts in the field.”

The finalists and grand prize winner each received a scholarship to attend the 2015 National Youth Agri-Science Summit, plus $500 to put toward their respective advocacy projects. In addition, the grand prize winner received a $2,000 award that can be directed toward a project or a related youth agriculture education program in the winner’s community.

Watershed Rehabilitation Funding to Repair Dams in 26 States griculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recently announced that communities across the nation will benefit from a $262 million investment to rehabilitate dams that provide critical infrastructure and protect public health and safety. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Chief Jason Weller and Representative Frank Lucas, chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, were in Oklahoma to recognize the importance of this announcement to agriculture and communities nationwide.

“This investment will protect people and property from floods, help keep our water clean, and ensure that critical structures continue to provide benefits for future generations,” Weller said. “Families, businesses and our agriculture economy depend on responsible management of dams and watersheds, and we are continuing to provide that support to these communities.”

The 2014 Farm Bill, signed into law by President Obama earlier this year, increased the typical annual investment in watershed rehabilitation by almost 21 fold, recognizing the critical role of these structures in flood management, water supply, and agricultural productivity. Earlier this week the President discussed the importance of infrastructure to job creation and commerce, noting that “Funding infrastructure projects helps our families, it fuels our economy, and it better positions America for the future.”

From the 1940s through the 1970s, local

A

communities using NRCS assistance constructed more than 11,800 dams in 47 states. These watershed management projects provide an estimated $2.2 billion in annual benefits in reduced flooding and erosion damages, and improved recreation, water supplies and wildlife habitat for an estimated 47 million Americans.

Weller said that funding provided through today’s announcement will provide rehabilitation assistance for 150 dams in 26 states. Funds will be used for planning, design or construction. Also, 500 dam sites will be assessed for safety through NRCS’ Watershed Rehabilitation Program. For a complete list of the projects, visit www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/programs/landscape/wr/?cid =stelprdb1257659. The projects were identified based on recent rehabilitation investments and the potential risks to life and property if a dam failure occurred. Overall, an estimated 250 thousand people will benefit as a result of improved flood protection made possible by these rehabilitated dams.

“These funds will go a long way towards improving the safety and continued benefits provided by these watershed structures,” Weller said. “We will work closely with the local project sponsors to ensure that these dams continue to protect and provide water for communities and agriculture.”

For more information, visit the Watershed Rehabilitation webpage or local USDA service center.

anks to ALL the folks who advertised in the 2014 Fall Marketing Edition!

You know the value of our readers.

Congratulations to the 2014 Digest 25! ese men, women, ranches, groups, and horses from two countries make up the fabric of agriculture, rural sports and food production.

E.C. Larkin / Texas by Lee Pitts Craig Vejaska / Washington Clayton & Johnny / California Frank Fox / California Working Ranch Cowboys Association / Texas Hueftle Cattle Company / Nebraksa Carlos Griffin / Texas Southwest Brangus Breeders Association / Arizona - New Mexico Ward Cattle Company / California Tom Moorhouse / Texas Johnny Trotter / Texas Juan Alejandro (Chapo) Varela / Sonora, Mexico Bilo Wallace / Chihuahua, Mexico Akauski Cattle / USA The Cowbelles / Arizona Beggar's Diamond V Ranch / Montana Mike Casabonne / New Mexico Elkington Polled Herefords / Idaho Cowfolks Care / USA Olson Double O Ranch / Montana Boe Lopez / New Mexico Congressman Scott Tipton / Colorado Bill Sauble / New Mexico Doverspike Ranch / Oregon Holistic Management / USA

Page 16

Livestock Market Digest

September 15, 2014