Saying things that need to be said.
On Your Behalf
BY LEE PITTS
I’ve never been one to look upon my fellow ranchers as competitors. After all, we work at each other’s brandings; we send loads of hay and fencing materials to fellow ranchers we’ve never even met after they’ve suffered through a flood or a fire; and we loan each other equipment knowing we may never see it again. These are not things competitors do and yet, if you are enjoying this period of profitability it’s only because so many of your fellow ranchers have gone out of business.
“And the U.S. cattle herd has been on a downward trajectory for decades,” says Bullard. When The Music Ends During good times it’s easy to become complacent but one group is fighting harder than ever to ensure that when we hit hard times again, and we will, that the beef cattle industry doesn’t do what the swine business did. When their good times
Bill Bullard the CEO of R CALF provides the evidence, “Consider that, since 1980, the U.S. population has grown by roughly 115 million people. In the same time frame, our nation has lost more than 650,000 beef cow farms — over half of all its beef cow farms. The U.S. has also lost 78 percent of its feedlots and 54 percent of its federally inspected food plants.”
“Why is the U.S. cattle industry not in an expansion phase given the historically high prices producers are receiving for their cattle?” The fact is the U.S. beef cattle herd is the smallest it’s been in 64 years!
cent of the cattle being killed by the Big Four. R CALF knows that unless something is done you too might find yourself on the outside looking in because when all the glorious music ends, there may be no seat at the table for you.
So R CALF came up with a list of reforms needed in the cattle business including...
■ Enact tariffs and tariff rate quotas to level the playing field in the trade of cattle, beef, sheep and lamb.
Don’t interfere with something that ain’t botherin’ you much.
ended 90 percent of their fellow pork producers were gone and just like the chicken producers before them, they had become serfs on their own land.
Beef producers are already dangerously close to that kind of concentration with 85 per-
U.S.
■ Enact Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for beef.
■ Overturn the mandatory electronic identification requirement for cattle.
■ Follow through and finalize the rules needed to implement and enforce the Packers and Stockyards
Fish & Wildlife Service Proposes Update to Grizzly Bear Endangered Species Act Listing & Management
Public Invited to Comment on New Distinct Population Segment and Revised 4(d) Rule
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife FWS (FWS) announced in early January 2025 a new and comprehensive approach to long-term grizzly bear recovery in the lower 48 states and the concerns of those living with and near bears. The initial comment period was to close on March 17, 2025.
The public comment period for the proposed rule regarding grizzly bear listing and management in the lower 48 states has been extended. The new deadline for submitting comments is May 16, 2025. This extension allows for more input on the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing for grizzly bears.
The FWS is proposing a rule to clarify the geographic area where grizzly bears in the lower 48 states are subject to protection under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS also proposes revisions to the current protective regulations to provide additional management flexibility for authorized agencies and individuals experiencing conflicts with grizzly bears.
continued on page 3
Riding Herd
by LEE PITTS
Do You Work Out?
Act.
■ Overturn the Fresh Beef from Paraguay rule that exposes our industry to an unnecessary and avoidable risk of FMD.
■ Prohibit unpriced formula contracts and require packers to purchase at least half their cattle needs from the competitive cash market.
The Good News First January 31, 2025, ought to be a day celebrated by cowmen from coast to coast for on that day R CALF won an antitrust lawsuit that has taken five years, lots of lawyer fees and the courage of a lip-grabbing Australian Shepherd. R CALF CEO Bill Bullard said, “In April of 2019, R CALF, alongside NFU and four fed cattle producers filed a class-action antitrust lawsuit in against JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef. On the last day of January of this year R CALF and the other plaintiffs
continued on page 2
AI in Agriculture: A Threat to Jobs or a Tool for Empowerment?
BY MATIJA ZULJ CEO & FOUNDER | AGRIVI
As AI technology becomes part of our daily lives, transforming how we live, work, and play, concerns about its impact on our jobs are growing across all industries.
With AI continuing to scale up within agriculture, this concern is also gaining more attention in the agricultural community as well. Questions such as “What is the impact of artificial intelligence on jobs within the sector?” and “Will AI take jobs from people in agriculture?” are becoming increasingly common.
While these concerns are normal, especially given the rapid advancements in technology, it’s crucial to look beyond the threat narrative.
Rather than perceiving AI solely as a threat, it’s important to examine three perspectives that highlight the benefits and AI’s potential to empower agronomists and improve agricultural practices.
Confronting the Labor Shortage
One of the most pressing challenges in modern agriculture is the persistent labor shortage. Many farms struggle to find enough workers, especially during peak seasons when labor-intensive crops require additional help. This trend is unlikely to reverse anytime soon: a recent study from the International Fresh Produce Association suggests that a 10 percent drop in labor availability can lead to as much as a 4.2
continued on page 4
The local gym is now the new country club and people are being judged by which gym they belong to. This hit me when I was run-over as I was going to the hardware store by a spandex clad gentleman who ran right into me because he was talking on his phone and had his nose up in the air like he was high society or something.
“Oh, excuse me. I’m sorry old chap but I’m late for my Pilates class,” he exclaimed.
The gym happens to be right next door to the hardware store which makes for an interesting clash of two cultures. The guy was wearing a headband, Fitbit watch and was carrying a bottle filled with a slimy green liquid that I assumed he drank. The haughty gym-goer stooped so low as to speak to me, the lowly hardware aficionado. “I haven’t seen you around here. Do you work out?” he asked, scanning my body from head to toe while shaking his head in disgust.
“I sure do, seven days a week,” I replied.
“You certainly don’t belong to my gym or I’d have seen you around. What’s the name of your gym?”
“It’s called the ranch.”
“Hmph. Never heard of it. Is it nearby?”
“It’s about 15 miles from here.”
“You really should apply for membership to my gym, that is if you qualify, of course.”
“Of course,” I replied.
“As a member you can use any of our state-of-the-art machines. For instance, our treadmills allow you to run in place while talking on your phone and stream a movie. For a small additional charge you can sign up to participate in our Pilates, spinning and yoga classes.” said the uppity gym jock.
“You keep referring to it as ‘my gym’. Why are you hustling gym memberships? Do you own the place?”
“Oh no. It’s just that my gym is running a special promotion and for only $39 per month you can be a member and get an official t-shirt signifying your new-found status. And for every five new members I sign up I get a free month, a headband and a mango/beet smoothie. As a new member you would qualify for the same program, that is, after passing our rigid
Volume
agreed to a proposed settlement with JBS which includes an $83.5 million cash payment and certain non-monetary consideration, including the provision of certain documents, and certain assistance in relation to any subsequent trial against the remaining three Defendants, Tyson, Cargill, and National Beef.” Naturally, JBS, continues to deny any wrongdoing so why did they settle?
And R CALF isn’t done. “We’re pleased to have reached this settlement with JBS and we look forward to prosecuting our claims against the remaining Defendants, Tyson, Cargill and National Beef,” said Bill Bullard.
Don’t be surprised if the remaining members of the BIG FOUR also come to terms with R CALF. This case may never go to trial because our guess is JBS will squeal like a stuck pig on their fellow packers.
Sweating Like A Horse
We’d imagine that right about now the NCBA and the Cattleman’s Beef Board are sweating like a fat draft horse after a full day’s work. All the switchboard operators at NCBA should’ve been instructed NOT to take any phone call from Elon Musk. Personally, we can’t wait for DOGE to set their sights on the USDA, especially its government controlled beef checkoff. DOGE has already asked the public to direct message the agency about fraud and abuse relating to the USDA and we’d urge our readers to contribute their two cents worth.
Says Bullard, “We welcome the DOGE’s focus on the USDA. The checkoff collects about $70 million each year, much of that from producers who do not support the mandatory government program. While the beef checkoff program is supposed to fund education, promotion and research for beef, and not fund lobbying,
evidence of abuse has surfaced.”
“Not long ago, we filed a lawsuit alleging the beef checkoff program was violating the constitutional rights of independent cattle producers by compelling them to subsidize private speech that they disagreed with.
The magistrate judge in the case found that our allegations WERE LIKELY TRUE and that the beef checkoff program was operating inconsistent with the Constitution.
“In response, the USDA immediately entered contracts with the beef checkoff program’s state beef councils giving the USDA complete authority over every word and every message expressed under the mandatory beef checkoff program. The effect of these contracts was to convert what was private speech into government speech, and this ostensibly corrected the USDA’s decades-long constitutional violation.”
“We have a second lawsuit pending that alleges the USDA entered these contracts unlawfully, which deprived the public any opportunity to better protect the rights of individual cattle producers. But while our lawsuit is making its way through the court, the USDA continues to employ staff to oversee and manage every word and every message conveyed by the $70 million mandatory program.”
“This is wasteful,” says Bullard. “Why is the USDA managing the speech of a government-mandated program that forces every cattle producer to pay while allowing recipients of the mandatory funds to lobby against such important policy initiatives as mandatory country of origin labeling that would benefit cattle producers and consumers alike?”
“So, the beef checkoff program is at the top of our list for USDA programs that are wasteful and rife with abuse,” said Bullard.
Livestock Market Digest (1SSN 0024-5208) (USPS NO. 712320) is published monthly except semi-monthly in September in Albuquerque, N.M. 87104 by Livestock Market Digest, Inc. Periodicals Postage Paid at Albuquerque, N.M. POSTMASTER-Send change of address to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194
Biden’s Mandate
Another issue targeted by R CALF is the USDA’s new mandate requiring cattle producers to affix costly electronic identification (EID) eartags on adult cattle and bison shipped across state lines. Bullard says, “The Biden administration mandated that cattle producers affix an electronic identification eartag on their adult cattle as the only officially recognized form of animal identification, thereby eliminating a producer’s choice in determining what type of animal identification device best fits their individual business operation.
“The mandate will cost cattle producers tens of millions of dollars each year, and because the cost was so high, the USDA went to Congress and secured a $15 million dollar appropriation that USDA tried to use to purchase enough EID eartags to assuage the cost concerns that independent cattle producers had expressed. But the $15 million taxpayer appropriated funds wasn’t enough and producers are now being forced to pay for the most expensive form of animal identification on the market today.”
Asks Bullard, “Why is Congress appropriating money to the USDA to purchase expensive EID eartags, including from foreign EID eartag manufacturers, when the much less expensive and U.S.-made animal identification devices already in use throughout the U.S. have proven effective in meeting the disease traceback needs of animal health officials?”
That’s why in the U.S. District Court in South Dakota, R CALF helped file a complaint against USDA’s unlawful new rule mandating EID eartags.
Made In The USA
Prior to this high cattle market, the last period of profitability was when R CALF got Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for beef implemented. But then
For advertising, subscription and editorial inquiries write or call:
Livestock Market Digest
P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, N.M. 87194 Telephone: 505-243-9515 Fax: 505-349-3060 www.aaalivestock.com
EDITORIAL and ADVERTISING STAFF
CAREN COWAN Publisher
LEE PITTS Executive Editor
CHUCK STOCKS Publisher Emeritus RANDY SUMMERS Sales
FALL MARKETING EDITION AD SALES
RANDY SUMMERS, 505-850-8544 email: rjsauctioneer@aol.com
FIELD EDITOR
DELVIN HELDERMON, 580/622-5754 1094 Koller Rd, Sulpher, OK
ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF
KRISTY HINDS Graphic Designer
the World Trade Organization said we couldn’t do that and MCOOL for beef was axed. But R CALF never gave up. So on February 5, 2025, U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senator Cory Booker reintroduced the American Beef Labeling Act to reinstate mandatory country of origin labeling for beef.
Bullard explains the legislation: “The implementation of MCOOL for beef would be delayed for up to one year, allowing the U.S. Trade Representative and the USDA Secretary six months to develop the means of reinstating MCOOL for beef in a way that complies with the applicable rules of the WTO. The initial six-month period is then followed by a second six-month period during which the USTR and Secretary may implement MCOOL by the means they have developed.”
“Only with MCOOL for beef,” says Bullard, “can cattle producers compete in their own domestic market where packers and importers currently decide how much foreign beef they will import into the U.S. market to displace domestic beef production and reduce demand for cattle exclusively born and raised in the United States.”
Another victory for R CALF occurred when USDA issued its rule stating that only meat from animals born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the U.S. are eligible for the voluntary “Made in USA” and “Product of USA” labels. The rule goes into effect on January 1, 2026.
Broken And Needs Fixin’
Since its inception, R CALF has been laser focused on the lack of competition in the cattle market. “Formula contracts have severely reduced the volume of cattle sold in the competitive cash market leading to diminished price transparency and allowing beef packers to disproportionately benefit from a price discovery process they minimally contribute to,” says Bullard.
“That’s why R CALF called on USDA and Congress to take immediate action to restore competitive market forces in the cattle industry, advocating for requiring packers to purchase at least half of their weekly cattle supply through the cash market.”
For years R CALF and this newspaper have said alternative marketing arrangements and unpriced formula contracts are a big part of the problem. “The current system is broken and lacks robust competition. The solution is to reinstate competitive forces within the market by requiring more equitable participation in the price discovery process and by ensuring transparency in the market,” said R CALF’s CEO.
97 percent!
Our Empty Breadbasket
R CALF is the only national beef organization that fully supports Trump’s tariffs. In fact, R CALF thinks we need many more tariffs and have been saying so for decades. Here’s why: “The United States,” says Bullard, “is now dependent on other countries for its daily food needs. As the U.S. keeps setting records for its global food deficit, tariffs are one of the few options Washington can use to start rebuilding America’s domestic food production.”
“Americans might be stunned to learn that the U.S. is now a ‘net food importer.’ Alarmingly, America’s agricultural trade deficit hit a staggering $39 billion in 2024, the largest in U.S. history. America, once the world’s breadbasket, is now hugely dependent on overseas food producers.”
“Under ‘free trade,’ says Bullard, “overseas cattle producers enjoy a price advantage. They pay their workers lower wages, and their safety and environmental standards are weaker than those mandated for America’s domestic farmers. As a result, importers make large profits by bringing in cheap meat and produce, leading to lower-quality, potentially unsafe food for U.S. families.”
“In 2024 alone,” says Bullard, “U.S. beef imports were more than 37 percent higher than the previous five-year average. America urgently needs more cattle and sheep farmers and ranchers. We appreciate the new tariffs that President Trump has enacted and we’re hopeful this is just a start.”
“Since zero tariffs for cattle and beef went into effect between the U.S., Canada and Mexico in 1994, the U.S. has lost about 285,000 beef cattle farms and ranches, our national cattle herd has shrunk by about 6.5 million mother cows, and we’ve eliminated over 87,000 farmer feeders from our domestic supply chain’s marketing outlets,” says Bullard.
“Zero tariffs threaten our national security by dismantling our domestic food supply chain and by forcing Americans to become more and more dependent on foreign supply chains for such important staples as beef and lamb.”
“Since 1996, the herd size at the peak of each rebuilding phase of the cattle cycle remained millions of head fewer than each previous peak, meaning our herd size is on a longterm, downward trajectory.”
One Year: $35 Two Years: $45 Single copy: $10
Clip & mail to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194
All subscriptions non-refundable.
“As the volume of cattle is shifted out of the cash market and into formula contracts, the cash market becomes ultrathin and subject to manipulation, and with only four dominant packers purchasing cattle in the cash market, there simply isn’t enough competition to ensure that the price of cattle discovered in the cash market reflects the fair market value of cattle. In regions like the Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico, the volume in the cash market has shrunk to less than 3 percent of overall cattle sales!”
And those three percent are responsible for pricing the other
Bullard concludes, “Congress has until September 30, 2025, to pass a new farm bill and our four asks remain the same: restore MCOOL for beef, reform the beef checkoff program and forbid it from contracting with lobby groups, prohibit the USDA from implementing mandatory EID eartags on cattle, and include a prohibition on unpriced formula contracts and a requirement that packers purchase half of their cattle from the cash market.”
Ask yourself, what other organization has worked this hard for the American rancher? And R CALF did it with dues willingly paid by producers and rollover calf auctions, not from pilfering your beef checkoff dollars.
The FWS is publishing an independently peer-reviewed updated species status assessment (chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/ https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-01/ usfws-2024_v2.2_ssa_for_grizzly_bear_in_the_lower-48_ states.pdf) that compiles the best available scientific information, which helps to inform decision-making.
Grizzly bear standing on a slope
“This reclassification will facilitate recovery of grizzly bears and provide a stronger foundation for eventual delisting,” said Martha Williams, then U.S. Fish and Wildlife FWS Director. “And the proposed changes to our 4(d) rule will provide management agencies and landowners more tools and flexibility to deal with human/bear conflicts, an essential part of grizzly bear recovery.”
Distinct Population Segment
Grizzly bears were listed under the ESA in 1975 throughout the lower 48 states, including areas outside the historical range of grizzly bears. The FWS’s proposed rule would revise that listing to establish a single distinct population segment (DPS) encompassing areas in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming, where suitable habitat exists and where grizzly bears currently reside or are expect-
ed to establish as populations recover.
The grizzly bear DPS would retain threatened status under the ESA. The proposed action removes ESA protections outside the newly proposed DPS, where grizzly bears do not occur and are not expected to inhabit in the future.
The proposed action is a first step towards fulfilling a settlement agreement with the state of Idaho requiring an evaluation of the grizzly bear listing in the lower 48 states by January 2026. With the announcement, the FWS also responds to petitions from the states of Montana and Wyoming to establish and delist DPSs for the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, respectively, and finds these petitioned actions “not warranted”.
After a thorough review of the best scientific and commercial data available, the FWS found grizzly bear populations in those two ecosystems do not, on their own, represent valid DPSs.
Grizzly bear populations are now geographically closer to each other than ever, and the FWS has documented grizzly bear movement between some populations, indicating recovery zones are no longer discrete. This increased movement of grizzly bears illustrates the success of conservation and management efforts to date
while highlighting the importance of establishing and maintaining conservation measures and management practices that foster continued movement of bears.
Establishing a single DPS encompassing all six recovery zones will provide a comprehensive and scientifically based framework for recovery. Grizzly bear distribution has significantly expanded, largely due to the commitments of state, federal, and Tribal agencies. These partners have played a key role in the on-the-ground management of grizzly bears for over 40 years by dedicating significant resources toward monitoring and management; in addition, private landowners have made sacrifices to accommodate grizzly bears.
The FWS also recognizes that recovery of small and extirpated populations relies on contributions from highly resilient populations. Maintaining all recovery zones together in one DPS will increase the speed of recovery in remaining ecosystems and the overall viability of grizzly bears, increasing the likelihood of successfully delisting the entire DPS by addressing the species’ recovery needs as a whole.
4(d) Rule
The FWS’s proposed 4(d) rule will revise the existing rule to give management agencies and landowners greater flexibility and tools to take bears in the context of research and conflict management.
Grizzly bear expansion is challenging for local communities and working lands, and the FWS is committed to a collaborative approach and helping partner agencies, private landowners, and livestock producers by providing additional management tools. Management tools can be implemented along with important safeguards to promote connectivity and resiliency that are necessary for delisting.
The proposed 4(d) rule recognizes the need for added flexibility and responsiveness on private lands and areas where
grizzly bear populations are impacting private landowners and livestock producers while continuing efforts to promote conservation in areas crucial to the eventual delisting of grizzly bears
screening process.”
“I’m sure I could use the status I’d gain by joining your prestigious gym but mine is free,” I replied, “and I don’t have to drink the green yuck or buy the leg warmers or headband and honestly, can you picture me in a spandex leotard. And I don’t really have the time for yoga or Pilates and I threw-up on the carousel at the county fair so I think the spinning class is definitely a non-starter.”
“But are you really getting a proper workout at this Ranch place?” asked Mr. Spandex. “You certainly don’t look like it. From the looks of your body I suspect your abs and lats could use a lot of work. We have an excellent coaching team and I’m sure we have more modern up to date apparatus to work out on. What’s your favorite machine at The Ranch?”
“I’d have to say it’s a Bobcat, but it’s a rental.”
“Hmph. I’ve never heard of it. Do you have a climbing wall?”
“No, but I do have to climb a fence every once in a while while sorting.”
“Might I ask how much you can lift?”
“Well that depends on how much rain we get,” I replied. “In a real wet year I might have to lift and throw 400 pounds but if we have a bad year with no grass I might only have to lift and throw 300 pounds. I also work out by lifting railroad ties, heavy sacks of grain and cement, and by digging postholes.”
“That’s certainly an unorthodox work-out regimen, What’s the main staple of your exercise regimen?”
“I’d have to say fencing.”
“Oh, after watching that sport during the Olympics I’ve always wanted to try it. Please do tell me more,” said the suddenly excited gym snob.
“Well, it’s something you and your wife can do together but it’s dangerous, especially if your wife is mad at you. See all the cuts and lacerations on my arms and hands? That’s all from fencing with my wife.” ▫
ADVERTISING
REPRESENTATIVE
Office: 505/243-9515 Cell: 505/850-8544 rjsauctioneer@aol.com
percent reduction in fruit and vegetable output, while a 21 percent shortage could result in a 9 percent production drop and $5 billion in revenue losses annually solely in the U.S.
As the gap between labor demand and availability continues to widen, the need for innovative solutions becomes more important.
Automation and AI offer crucial support in filling this labor gap. By integrating AI-powered tools, farmers can automate tasks like planting and harvesting, allowing them to allocate limited workforce resources more effectively. In this way, AI doesn’t replace human labor but rather mitigates the gap of labor shortage to get the work done and ensures harvests will continue.
The Need for Agronomists in Sustainable Practices
The agriculture sector faces another significant challenge: a declining number of agronomists. Many agricultural universities worldwide are experiencing a drop in student applications, resulting in fewer qualified agronomists entering the field.
A 2015 USDA study projected that the U.S. agriculture and food-science sectors would need around 57,900 college graduates annually, yet ag programs were producing only about 35,400. This shortfall is worsened by an aging workforce, fewer young people entering the field, and increased urbanization.
However, as sustainable farming practices gain importance, the demand for knowledgeable professionals who can educate, and support farmers is growing.
AI presents a scalable solution to this issue. With AI Advisory platforms like AGRIVI AI Engage, farmers today can access tailored advice and guidance on sustainable practices,
crop management, and business operations. This technology not only provides valuable insights but also enables agronomists to extend their reach, assisting a larger number of farmers than ever before.
It’s essential to remember that agronomists will still play a vital role in this AI-driven landscape. They will train and monitor AI systems, ensuring that the advice provided is relevant and actionable. Additionally, agronomists will engage personally with farmers to address complex agronomy situations, nurturing deeper relationships that foster collaboration and trust.
Agriculture Supply Chains: You Can’t Improve What You Don’t Measure
Although the agrifood industry is starting to embrace different digital solutions, there is one big challenge: securing accurate data. This is particularly crucial for productivity improvements, traceability, sustainability, and compliance, especially when it comes to the large number of farms in supply chains. Whether the reason is skill, habit, or capacity at farms, if it doesn’t get resolved, global progress will be difficult and we will see even more people going out of agriculture, as you can’t improve what you don’t measure.
AI can significantly help in addressing this data collection challenge. By enabling remote and automated data gathering, AI systems can help farmers collect critical information without adding to their workload. However, it is important to know that complete automation is not yet feasible for all aspects of the farming process, and some processes still require manual input.
At AGRIVI, we have recognized this need, and we have created additional AI-driven solutions that completely simplify data collection. Our AI En-
gage platform supports simple data collection by incorporating it in conversation with farmers through channels they use every day such as WhatsApp, Viber, etc. and proactively approaching them to secure regular data collection.
AI Democratizing Access to Technology for Farms of All Sizes
As we move forward, it’s crucial to ensure that AI technology is accessible to all farmers, regardless of their size or location. Democratizing access to AI means making it available and beneficial, especially to smallholder farmers. However, it is essential to develop AI systems based on Responsible AI principles, prioritizing transparency, fairness, and ethical considerations in every step of the process.
In conclusion, since there is a lot of hype around AI it is understandable that some people may have a fear of AI replacing their job. However, it is necessary to consider another perspective. AI is not a replacement for agronomists; rather, it serves as a powerful tool that mitigates the shortage of labor and agronomists to ensure that the work gets done. Additionally, it enhances decision making capabilities and provides enough capacity to secure access to all farms globally.
By addressing labor shortages, supporting the education of new agronomists, and ensuring accurate data collection, AI can empower the agriculture sector to innovate and thrive in the face of challenges. The future of agriculture lies not in fear but in collaboration between humans and technology, paving the way for a more sustainable and productive industry. ▫
USPS Seeks to Raise Stamp Price to 78 Cents to Achieve Financial Stability
A proposed 5-cent increase would mark a 56 percent rise in stamp prices since 2019, as USPS continues its push for long-term financial stability.
BY CHASE SMITH / THE EPOCH TIMES
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) said in early April that it is seeking to raise the price of first-class forever stamps from 73 cents to 78 cents this summer, the latest in a series of increases aimed at achieving financial stability.
If approved by the Postal Regulatory Commission, the price hike would take effect on July 13 and represent a roughly 7.4 percent increase across mailing services. Similar increases would apply to metered letters, domestic and international postcards, and other mail products.
The proposed rate adjustment follows a similar increase in 2024 when the price of a stamp rose from 68 cents to 73 cents. Forever stamps, introduced in 2007, are firstclass postage stamps that can be used to mail a standard letter at any time, regardless of
future price increases.
If the new proposal is approved, the price of a forever stamp will have increased by 56 percent since 2019, when it cost 50 cents.
USPS said in a statement that the changes are needed to support its 10-year plan, which is intended to modernize infrastructure, improve service, and close long-standing budget shortfalls. Officials said that USPS prices remain among the lowest internationally and noted the agency receives no taxpayer funding for operating costs.
“As changes in the mailing and shipping marketplace continue, these price adjustments are needed to achieve the financial stability sought by the organization’s Delivering for America 10year plan,” the agency said. “USPS prices remain among the most affordable in the world.”
The proposed changes would also lower the cost of postal insurance by 12 percent and include separate price filings for marketing mail and package services, depending on pending regulatory decisions.
USPS has faced mounting financial strain as first-class mail volume continues to decline in the digital era, and as retailers such as Amazon have begun delivering many of their own packages. That pressure has intensified in recent years, prompting a series of rate increases and operational reforms.
Patronize Our Adver tisers
Cultured Meat Claims “Overly Ambitious, Not Supported By Evidence” Review Finds
BY JAMES NASON, BEEFCENTRAL.COM
More than 170 companies are now in the race to produce commercially viable, publicly-palatable cultured meat products, attracting more than $4.7 Billion in investments since 2019.
The cultured meat (CM) industry owes much of its growth to claims it is environmentally beneficial, alleviates animal welfare concerns and is equally as nutritious and acceptable as conventional meat.
However, a recently published study has examined existing research on cultured meat and has found that many of the industry’s claimed sustainability and nutritional benefits “are overly ambitious and not supported by evidence”.
The scientific review, titled Reassessing the sustainability promise of cultured meat: a critical review with new data perspectives, was published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition on 21 February.
“Highly energy intensive; gaps in knowledge”
Its findings include that environmental assessments have revealed that CM is highly energy intensive and its environmental footprint can only be improved if renewable energy sources are used.
It adds there are many unknowns and gaps in the knowledge on the nutritional quality of cultured meats that require further investigation.
Further, it noted that the scalability and technical challenges facing cultured meat are “significant”.
The case for CM
The study points out that development of “novel food products” such as cultured meats have garnered substantial attention and investment in recent years as an avenue to mitigate food-related environmental impacts.
CM, also referred to as ‘lab-grown meat’ or ‘cell-based meat’, is produced by taking a small sample of animal cells and growing them in media that supplies essential nutrients for cell proliferation.
Cultivated cells are kept in isolation in a controlled environment, such as a bioreactor, to grow into a cell mass that is then harvested and processed into meat products.
First cultured meat on track to be approved for Australia
Since the production of the first cell-based burger at a cost of US$325,000 in 2013, there has been significant commercial investment in the technology.
The world’s first commercial sale of cell-cultured meat occurred in December 2020 at Singapore restaurant 1880, where cultured chicken manufactured by a Singaporean CMO for United States firm Eat Just was sold.
Australians will soon also be able to eat laboratory-grown meat, with Food Standards Australia and New Zealand expected to approve the first cell-cultured meat produced in Australia – a lab grown culture from quail cells manufactured
by Sydney-based Vow Group –by July.
Hurdles to become a viable option for consumption at scale
However, the research review notes there are a range of nutritional, environmental, technical, economic and consumer challenges that cultured meat must overcome if to become a viable option for consumption at scale.
Cell lines for a wide variety of animal species have been created and grown in specialized media at laboratory scale, but moving to production scale has been challenging, it says.
Major technical challenges
The paper explains that the original concept of growing muscle cells in single cell suspensions and then inducing them to differentiate to form muscle fibres has shifted to the production of a cell paste, which is blended with plant-based material to form hybrid products like burgers, sausages and dumplings.
The major technical challenge with CM is to scale up manufacturing from bench scale to thousands of litres, at a cost that will allow the products to compete with conventional meat products.
Cultured Meat production at scale will require long continuous sterile culture periods, as any contaminating bacteria or fungi would quickly overgrow the mammalian or avian cells, which have a doubling time of around 24h.
In various parts of the cell production cycle, bovine serum is used to promote cell viability and growth. However, many cultured meat companies aim to remove bovine serum as it is clearly desirable from a marketing perspective to claim that no animals were slaughtered as part of the manufacturing process.
Bovine serum is expensive, but serum free alternatives available on the market have shown suboptimal performance and may not be compatible with all cell lines.
‘Far from competitive with conventional meat for foreseeable future’
The study says the cost of the culture media, which is currently viewed as one of the major costs for production of cultured meat, will need to be less than US$1/L to manage costs.
“It is as yet unclear when a viable, cost-effective alternative to bovine serum will be available; nor is the extent to which pharmaceutical (and more expensive) practices will need to be adopted to maintain product quality. These challenges come with significant associated costs, which leave the production of CM far from competitive with conventional meat production for the foreseeable future.”
The downturn in the market for alternative meat products has also raised questions about the size of the market for cultured meat.
Additionally, recent life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have demonstrated that CM will be an energy intensive industry.
Regulatory challenges and labeling
The lengthy and costly regu-
latory processes are a concern for the new food sector, and labeling of cultured meat has been controversial, with Italy, France and the States of Florida, Arizona and Alabama in the US moving to ban the products due to concerns around the use of the term “meat”.
With the majority of CM products being hybrid products, meaning that cultured cells are blended with plant-based material in the final product, there will also be a question around what percentage of cultured cells will determine use of the term “meat” on the label.
While these challenges are more surmountable than the technical and scalability challenges, they are expected to cause delays or even prevent the commercial availability of cultured meat in many parts of the world.
Environmental impact of cultured meat production
Seven peer-reviewed Life Cycle Assessment studies have been completed on cultured meat to date.
The review notes that most studies did not consider the environmental impact associated with building facilities or the downstream processes such as packaging, thus the results of these studies should be seen as indicative of ‘process-only impacts’.
Based on these studies, the most notable environmental impacts of cultured meat are the energy requirements and the greenhouse gas emissions (largely a result of energy demand), with water use also of concern in some studies.
It said a “clear upwards trend” was notable in the footprint estimates over time.
Estimated greenhouse gas emissions and energy use per kilogram of culture meats rose notably in “more recent publications”, for which increased understanding of and availability of data on CM production was available.
Studies also note that the footprints of conventionally produced meat can vary substantially between production systems, and care must be taken when comparing estimates, both between cultured meat and conventionally produced meat, and between CM estimates themselves, as these estimates can vary “based on the underlying data used and the assumptions made”.
For the environmental impacts beyond energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water use, generally publications found that CM has a lower footprint than conventionally produced meat.
It also emphasizes that since there are no large-scale cultured meat facilities, all the environmental assessments available to date are based on projections and assumptions.
Nutritional challenges facing the cultured meat industry
A key tenet in the cultured meat industry is the potential for their products to deliver a nutrient profile comparable to that of conventional meat.
The study notes that there are no publicly available nutritional profile for cultured meats, but what was evident from its review was that the nutritional composition of cultured meats will not inherently be identical to the conventional products without fortification.
For example, vitamin B12,
which is known to be predominantly found in meat and dairy, will not be present in the cultured products, unless added to the culture medium or to the final cultured meat product. This also raised questions about the degree to which the absorbed B12 in fortified cultured meat products would be bioavailable to consumers.
Another important aspect in assessing nutritional value of cultured meat is protein quality. Although cultured meat is assumed to mimic animal-derived protein, the protein quality of the products has not yet been thoroughly studied, the review said.
Consumer acceptability
If the technical hurdles of scaling up cultured meat production are surmounted, the market success of cultured meat will still rely on consumer willingness to integrate these products into their diets.
It found that there is a need for future studies involving actual cultured meat products to explore factors influencing consumer preferences and how these preferences change over time, as well as how these preferences convert to purchasing decisions.
‘Critical time’ for cultured meat sector
The study said the next few years will be ‘a critical time’ for the cultured meat sector with more licensed products entering the market, while the funding available to these companies has recently contracted.
Understanding of the cultured meat industry’s environmental impact would remain limited until the industry has
scaled up.
Cultured meat to focus on competing with higher value meats
The study authors said the economic sustainability of the cultured meat industry has not yet been proven, regardless of whether reaching price parity was the aim of cultured meat producers.
“The cost of production of chicken meat is also the cheapest of all the traditional meats and therefore will be the hardest to compete with on price, again suggesting a move to higher value meats will be in the best interests of CM companies.
“The need for a food system that is more sustainable across environmental, economic, and human dimensions is clear.
“It is still too early to determine the role that cultured meat should play in this system, but the current challenges imply that several great changes – technological, regulatory, environmentally, nutritionally, and in the mind of consumers – will be necessary before cultured meat can achieve global integration.” ▫
Catastrophic wildfires are
destroying
our forests, homes, and communities.
We can’t afford more delays—Congress must act now.
BY NICK SMITH / HEALTHY FORESTS, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES
The bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act (H.R. 471) is a solution we need. This critical legislation, sponsored by Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA), will streamline forest management, reduce fuel loads, and help prevent devastating wildfires before they ignite.
Wildfires are burning hotter, faster, and more destructive than ever. In just 2024 alone, over 7 million acres have been scorched, with billions of dollars in damage and thousands of families displaced. We must act to restore forest health and protect our communities.
The House of Representatives passed the Fix Our Forests Act in January with bipartisan support, but the Senate has yet to act. We need your voice to urge the Senate to pass this bill without delay and send it to the President’s desk! Please take two minutes to send a message in the form below. healthyforests.org/action-center
Why the Fix Our Forests Act Matters
■ Restores Forest Health: The bill allows for more effective, science-based forest thinning and fuels reduction to reduce wildfire risk.
Packer Ownership, Taxes Focus of LMA’s D.C. Fly-In
An outdated prohibition almost cost Heidi Nicholas her marriage. On paper, anyway.
■ Increases Collaboration: Encourages cooperation between federal, state, tribal, and local land managers to create a unified response to wildfire risks.
■ Expands Management Areas: Increases the size of existing Categorical Exclusions (CEs) for forest treatments from 3,000 or 4,500 acres to 10,000 acres, allowing more proactive management.
■ Stops Frivolous Litigation: Fixes the “Cottonwood” decision to prevent unnecessary lawsuits from obstructing vital forest restoration projects.
■ Cuts Red Tape: It simplifies environmental reviews and removes bureaucratic delays that slow down critical wildfire prevention projects.
■ Saves Water: Forest thinning helps conserve billions of gallons of water annually, protecting aquifers and ensuring water flows for communities, farms, and wildlife. Without urgent action, our forests will remain vulnerable to extreme wildfires. We cannot wait for another disaster. The Fix Our Forests Act is a common-sense, bipartisan solution that will prevent destruction, protect our natural resources, and support our rural communities. Please send a message to your U.S. Senators and urge them to support the Fix Our Forests Act (H.R. 471). Ask them to push for an immediate vote to pass this legislation and protect our forests and communities. ▫
When the chance arose to buy Empire Livestock — a business with six livestock auction markets across New York — she seized it. Nicholas understood the markets’ vital role in the region and saw no one else stepping up to keep them running.
But there was one major obstacle: her husband owned Nicholas Meat, a packing company in Pennsylvania. A Packers and Stockyards Act requirement, which predates modern livestock auctions, prohibits livestock market owners from owning packing companies.
Even though Nicholas planned to purchase the auction markets with personal, non-marital funds — and had the documents to prove that — she faced pushback from USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Services’ Packers and Stockyards Division.
At one point, she even told the authorities the couple would divorce if that’s what it took. That’s how strongly she felt.
Eventually, she was able to complete the sale.
But what about established auction market owners? Nicholas pointed out in many areas, there aren’t enough packers and processors to encourage competition or meet demand. Allowing markets to be part of the solution, such as opening a local locker or investing in a pooled funds regional packer, would support both markets and processors — while benefiting the producers who rely on these services.
A solution was recently reintroduced in the 119th Congress. The Amplifying Processing of Livestock in the United States, or the
A-PLUS Act, and Expanding Local Meat Processing Act (HR 1648 and SB 782), would allow livestock market owners to invest in small and regional packers. Supporting the bills was just one reason Livestock Marketing Association, or LMA, members gathered in Washington, D.C., March 9-11. Throughout their annual fly-in, the group also advocated for key Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions to be extended before expiring. They also expressed thanks for Congress passing Livestock Dealer Statutory Trust in 2020, which improves recovery when livestock dealers default.
For first-time participant Teto Medina Wallace, who is manager and lead auctioneer for Santa Teresa Livestock Auction in New Mexico, it was an unforgettable experience — and one he cannot recommend enough to fellow LMA members.
“I came here with high expectations, but this has completely blown me away,” Medina Wallace said. “The quality of everything we’ve done and what I’ve learned… Just being in the halls of the heart and arteries of our nation has been something that has moved me tremendously.”
Nicholas agreed. “I’m 66 years old and it’s the first time I’ve ever been to D.C.,” she said. “So, to be able to tour the Capitol and be in the agricultural committee room of the House of Representatives. It was so intriguing.”
Additionally, the two participants enjoyed the connections they made, both with policymakers and their fellow LMA members. Both were able to extend personal invitations to elected officials
to visit their auction markets firsthand. They also had the rare opportunity to talk shop with other livestock marketers from 20 different states across the U.S. Wallace Medina said he was impressed by the group’s ability to come together and work toward common goals, even though their operations may have differences.
LMA President Mike VanMaanen, who owns Eastern Missouri Commission Co., agreed.
“I’m just so proud of the number of members who took time away from their busy schedules and families to come advocate for our industry on Capitol Hill,” he said. “We’re so much stronger together. The relationships built and maintained on the trip will make sure our industry’s interests are considered in federal policy decisions.”
SOME OF OUR OFFERINGS
• Custom Home on 36+ acre estate in Dragoon Mountain Ranch
• 36+ acre homesites in St David, AZ
• 80 Acre Farm land with 16” Irrigation Well in Willcox, AZ
• Custom Home on 4+ acres in Cochise, AZ
• 40 acre off grid land in Portal, AZ
Arizonahomesandlandsales.com Rick Frank, Designated Broker • 520-403-3903
THE SAND CAMP RANCH
The election is over and there is optimism in the ranch real estate and cattle markets. It is time to invest in a quality cattle ranch. The Sand Camp Ranch fits the bill with an excellent grass cover and above average very functional improvements. It has been blessed with abundant moisture and is in excellent condition. Located in southern Chaves County east of the productive Pecos River Valley. The ranch is comprised of 2,380 +/- deeded acres, 6,074 NM State Lease Acres, 23,653 Federal BLM Lease Acres and 480 acres Uncontrolled, 32,107 +/- total acres (50.17 Sections). Grazing Capacity set by a Section 3 BLM grazing permit at a realistic 405 Animal Units Yearlong. The ranch is watered by five primary wells and an extensive interconnected pipeline system. This ranch is ready to go, no deferred maintenance. Price: $3,672,000 This is one of the better ranches in the area. It is nicely improved and well-watered. You won’t find anything comparable for the price. Call or email for a brochure and an appointment to come take a look.
SCOTT MCNALLY, QUALIFYING BROKER • BAR M REAL ESTATE, LLC
P.O. Box 428, Roswell, NM 88202 • Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237 Website: www.ranchesnm.com
Farms, Homes, Country Estates, Commercial National Advertising – Local Expertise
all of Southern, Arizona
Texas Bill Would Create Comprehensive Digital Registry for Cattle Brands
BY MICHAEL MARKS / AGRICULTURE & ANIMALS, GOVERNMENT & POLITICS, TEXAS STANDARD ORIGINAL
There are thousands of unique livestock brands in Texas, but no centralized database to keep track of them all. Texas lawmakers could soon change that, however.
A brand is a symbol to distinguish your cattle from everyone else’s. This was especially critical before barbed wire fencing became common, but it’s still important. Brands help law enforcement restore lost or stolen cattle.
In Texas, ranchers have to re-register their brands once every 10 years. This requires a trip to the county courthouse to file the paperwork, in some counties. These records are kept in the county’s “brand book,” which law enforcement can reference if they need to identify the owner of stray cattle.
But that’s not a perfect system, according to Peyton Schumann, senior director of government relations for the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association.
“What happens right now is if there is estray or stolen livestock, the sheriff looks
at that brand. If he can’t get to the county clerk’s office to look up that brand, the county essentially has to take ownership [of the animal]. They have to feed, water, and it’s an expense to the county,” Schumann said.
The association created a searchable database of the state’s brands to help their own police officers, who investigate cattle theft and other agriculture-related crimes. But it isn’t comprehensive. So to streamline the registration process and help law enforcement, state Rep. Ryan Guillen has filed House Bill 147 to let ranchers register their brands online.
County clerks would then send that information to the Texas Animal Health Commission, which would maintain a digital database.
“This ensures that registered brands are centrally stored in a searchable online database, making them easily accessible to ranchers, law enforcement and county clerks while reducing administrative burdens,” Guillen said at a recent hearing of the state House Committee on Agriculture & Livestock, which he chairs.
Joe Aguilar, a special ranger for the TSCRA, said that the
database would be “crucial” for him and his colleagues.
“We don’t have the funding to create a comprehensive database. That kind of complete and comprehensive database to serve all of Texas needs to be owned and operated by the state and the Texas Animal Health Commission,” Aguilar said. The Texas Animal Health Commission manages other databases related to livestock.
Ranchers would have the option to file a paper brand registration form in person if they prefer.
Jennifer Fogg, the clerk for Rockwall County and co-chair of the legislative committee for the County and District Clerks’ Association of Texas, believes the bill will streamline the process for ranchers, clerks and law enforcement.
Fogg already offers online brand registration for ranchers, but that requires special software that not every county could afford. If it becomes mandatory to comply with the bill’s requirements, she’s concerned about the financial burden that could place on smaller counties. The bill would be beneficial overall though, in her opinion.
“I do feel that [Texas Animal Health Commission] being a one-stop shop, if you will, I feel like that’s gonna be better for law enforcement and for ranchers and for owners of the brands,” she said.▫
Protein Consumption Surging as Experimentation Rises: Cargill Report
BY CHRIS SCOTT / MEATINGPLACE.COM
Consumers are eating more protein than they were six years ago, according to a new report from Cargill Inc.
The company’s 2025 Protein Profile study found that 61 percent of Americans increased their protein intake last year, compared with 48 percent who followed the same trend in 2019. Animal proteins like beef, chicken and eggs were the preferred protein sources for most consumers because of taste, nutrition and versatility, the report from Cargill’s North American Food Business Marketing and Insights team noted. The survey found that more than 75 percent of consumers typically include animal protein in evening meals, with 74 percent reporting that eating meat is an important part of their diets.
The Cargill report found that social media is driving consumer experimentation in food, ranging from “secret menus” at foodservice chains to high-protein diets focused on expanding animal products. Brands, retailers and foodservice operators may need to consider adapting new approaches to meet changing demands, as inflation is reshaping how the value of protein is defined, the report said.
The report recognizes a generational shift in protein consumption, noting that Gen Z is leading the charge of embracing multicultural protein meals and responding positively to the social media influences that are boosting high-protein lifestyles. ▫
Beef, Pork
&
Poultry Prices Rose In February
BY CHRIS MOORE / MEATINGPLACE.COM
The livestock production index rose 2.5 percent in February from the previous month and 37 percent from a year earlier, with higher prices for beef, pork and eggs more than offsetting declines in broiler and dairy prices, according to USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service.
The meat animal index increased 2.6 percent from January and 17 percent from February 2024.
Beef cattle prices averaged $203 per cwt, up $4 from January and $25 from last year. Hog prices jumped $4.90 from the previous month to $66 per cwt, $7.80 higher than a year ago.
Poultry and egg prices climbed 5.7 percent from January and surged 77 percent year over year.
Market eggs averaged $7.47 per dozen, up 92 cents for the month and $5.10 from a year ago. Broiler prices fell 4.7 cents from January to 72.7 cents per pound, remaining unchanged from a year ago. Turkey prices rose 3.5 cents from the prior month but were down 3.7 cents from February 2024. ▫
APHIS Further Postpones Effective Date for Horse Protection Act Final Rule
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is further postponing the effective date of the Horse Protection Act final rule to February 1, 2026. APHIS is also taking public comment on the delay.
The docket is currently on public inspection and is available for comment at the following address: regulations.gov/ docket/APHIS-2022-0004. The comment period will close on May 20, 2025.
On January 24, 2025, APHIS announced it was postponing the effective date of the rule for 60 days from February 1, 2025, to April 2, 2025, with the exception of the section authorizing the training of horse inspectors, which previously went into effect on June 7, 2024.
APHIS will further postpone the effective date for the rule, other than the training section, to February 1, 2026. Additionally, APHIS is requesting public comments on whether the Agency should further extend the length of this postponement and is also soliciting additional information to help inform a decision on the appropriate length of the postponement.
On March 14, 2025, APHIS shared an information update to stakeholders for the upcoming horse show season in light of a recent court decision impacting the new rule. ▫