LMD August 2023

Here We Go Again

LEE PITTS

Wasn’t it just last week that the beef industry got its tail all in a twist because plant-based meat was going to put us all out of business? Actually, it was more like ten years ago. In 2014, I wrote my first story about fake meat called “Bogus Burger” which was all about what is now called the altMeat movement, as in alternative meat. If I were to write a similar story today about plant-based beef I’d call it “The Flop of the Fakes” because after all the big build up, plant-based meat fizzled out like a leftover can of soda pop the morning after the night before.

Also in 2014, I wrote about a totally different kind of alternative beef in which beef wasn’t replaced by plants but was instead made in a lab. I called that story “The Theoretical Burger” because it was more of a wish than a real product and if it was actually made back then it would have been a white soggy blob that you could have called the “Other, Other White Meat.” Catchy, don’t you think? Although I’m sure that pork producers wouldn’t have been too amused.

We didn’t know a lot about lab-meat back then other than it was raised from stem cells, fed horse fetuses, and grown on Velcro. We didn’t know how many horse fetuses were needed to produce a pound of gain or the lab-meat’s average daily gain. Heck, we didn’t even know what

it tasted like. We did know that back then this theoretical burger would have cost $365,000 to produce and you would have had to wait in line a long time to get one. Like maybe a year, which was how long it took to make one.

Oh, by the way, did you want to super-size that?

Now, less than a decade later, two fake-fake meat companies have been given the green light to start selling chicken that was made in a lab. There’s even a restaurant in Israel called “The

that was cooked and served in the same building it was made in! And from all reports it looks and tastes just like real chicken which should come as no surprise because that’s exactly what it is - real chicken! The bad news for beef producers is that consumer research indicates that a majority of consumers are willing to try cultivated meat and perhaps even pay a premium for it.

You’re Next

collectively, than other farmed animals. And it really irks greenies when they hear claims that “more than one-third of Earth’s ice-free land and tens of millions of acres of rainforest teeming with the bulk of our planet’s biodiversity supposedly have been replaced with fields of chicken feed.”

by LEE PITTS

American Eulogy

Chicken” that allows patrons to dine on lab-made chicken

The future has arrived and meat scientists, or rather meat engineers, say that lab-beef will be the next meat after chicken that will be coming to a store near you. Chicken was first because more people eat more chicken than any other meat in the world. It’s also an environmental issue because chickens supposedly consume more food,

‘We Are Totally Awash in Pseudoscience’: Nobel PrizeWinning Physicist on Climate Agenda

BY NATHAN WORCESTER / EPOCH TIMES

Nobel Prize-winning physicist John Clauser isn’t afraid to go against the flow.

In a July 26 interview with The Epoch Times, Mr. Clauser explained that he carried out his early research on quantum mechanics against opposition from some in the field.

As a young man, he conducted the first experiment to demonstrate the reality of nonlocal quantum entanglement—the linkage between multiple particles across any physical distance. Many years later, that groundbreaking work earned him one-third of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Today, the 80-year-old scientist is up against another establishment. This time, though, he isn’t violating a prediction so as to rule out an alternative explanation to quantum mechanics. He’s violating a taboo that has slowly but surely become one of the biggest in science and politics.

“I am, I guess, what you would call a ‘climate change denialist,’” Mr. Clauser told The Epoch Times.

continued on page 4

But we’re getting slightly ahead of ourselves. Let’s review. It was a decade ago that Dutch scientist Mark Post unveiled the first lab-beef burger on television in 2013. Now, only ten years later, there are more than 150 companies on 6 continents, funded by $2.6 billion, all trying to make meat in laboratories. They all want to take a chunk out of the hide of the $1.7 trillion conventional meat business. And in so doing they say at the same time they’ll be decreasing deforestation, biodiversity loss, antibiotic resistance, disease outbreaks, and industrialized animal slaughter.

At this point it’s hard to say whether lab-meat has any better chance that plant-based meat so don’t sell the ranch and sack

continued on page 2

Companies With Good ESG Scores Pollute Just As Much As Those With Low Ones, New Analysis Finds

BY TYLER DURDEN / ZERO HEDGE

As if there wasn’t exhaustive enough evidence that “ESG” is nothing but a scam, the Financial Times out in early August with a piece detailing how many companies with good ESG scores pollute just as much as their lower-rated rivals.

Don’t say we didn’t warn you; we have been writing about the ESG con for years now, which along with other “sustainable” investments continues to see hundreds of billions of dollars in inflows from investors.

The FT added to our skepticism by revealing this week that Scientific Beta, an index provider and consultancy, found that companies rated highly on ESG metrics - and even just the ‘Environmental’ variable alone - often pollute just as much as other companies.

Researchers look at ESG scores from Moody’s, MSCI and Refinitiv when performing the analysis. They found that when the ‘E’ component was singled out, it led to a “substantial deterioration in green performance”.

Felix Goltz, research director at Scientific Beta told the Financial Times: “ESG ratings have little to no relation to carbon intensity, even when con-

continued on page 4

Acommon theme that dominates the conversation of most people my age is that they are glad they’ll be decomposing six feet under the grass and won’t be around to live in the glorious future they created. My fellow senior citizens and I feel bad for the babies born today who, on average, already owe $13,425 in state debt and $78,089 in federal debt. I, on the other hand, wish I was going to be around to witness the carnage and to say, “I told you so.”

I don’t think most younger Americans fully grasp that they’re sleepwalking into the fan blades of a giant green wind machine. As for the 31 trillion dollars they’re already on the hook for, what do they care, just like their $200,000 in student debt, they have no intention of paying it back either. Who cares if the debt is 31 trillion or 130 trillion? If we need more money we’ll just print more.

In their world young people today think they’re all gonna work from home, or sitting at Starbucks, staring at their phone all day doing what they call “work” without a boss looking over their shoulder. Or they’ll make a lucrative living being an “influencer” on YouTube, Twitter or Facebook. The Indians will make a living dealing blackjack, the blacks by playing sports and the illegal Mexicans by doing our dishes and our yard work.

We’re all gonna live in online communities of strangers and when we’re hungry our food will be delivered by Door Dash and Uber drivers and for everything else we need we’ll get it from Amazon and pay for it with Bitcoin. We won’t worry about a steady paycheck because we’ll all be getting reparations checks for something or other, so we’ll just hang around and wait for our inheritance when our parents die so we can inherit their house. And we won’t even have to move from where we’re already living.

All the pollution will disappear because all our factories will be shuttered and one third of the traffic will be parked at Tesla charging stations. We’ll live in a world of renewable energy and zero emissions and when we need more batteries we’ll just buy them at COSTCO. We’ll just

continued on page 3

Do not corner something that you know is meaner than you.

Saying things that need to be said.

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

Subscribe Today

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

HERE WE GO AGAIN from page 1 your saddle just yet. But be advised, the people in white lab coats are coming for you.

Cultivating Meat

As with the plant-based beef, there are two heavyweights that seem to be way ahead of the pack when it comes to lab-made meat. With the plant product it was Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods and with lab-made meat it’s Upside Foods and GOOD Meat, which was first seen on restaurant menus in Singapore in 2020. Both Upside and GOOD Meat have received FDA and USDA approval to start selling lab-made chicken in America.

While ranchers would prefer to call lab-based meat just that, GOOD Meat prefers to say their product is “cultivated” as if it was grown in a garden instead of slaughtered in a packinghouse, which seems to be its biggest selling point. According to the company, “Cultivated meat is also sometimes referred to as cultured meat, cell-based meat, clean meat, cell-cultured meat and in-vitro meat, but the correct term is cultivated meat.” The same company also makes plant-based egg products under the JUST Egg brand.

According to GOOD Meat, their research team, “Identified the best chicken cells to produce cultivated meat. These cells are then fed a nutrient-rich broth that includes amino acids, carbohydrates, minerals, fats and vitamins which are the same types of nutrients animals need to grow. The entire process takes place in a safe and controlled environment that looks like a beer brewery.

“After our chicken cells are harvested from the cell culture tank (known also as a bioreactor) they are mixed with co-ingredients and shaped into different meat formats, from crispy chicken bites and savory sausages to more textured products such as shredded chicken or grilled chicken filets. Instead of growing the entire animal, we only grow what we eat. This means we use fewer resources than conventional industrial animal agriculture to grow our meat and we can be more efficient, completing growth in weeks rather than months or years.”

GOOD Meat’s biggest competitor is Upside Foods, a food technology company headquartered in Berkeley, California. The company was founded in 2015 and you may not recognize the name because it was formerly known as Memphis Meats. It seems to be a favorite of the “techies” because it has strong ties to Silicon Valley. So far, 41 venture capitalists have invested six hundred million dollars in the company. What’s interesting to this observer is that one of those investors was the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

How does it feel knowing that the very same USDA that collects one dollar from you every time a beef animal changes hands to promote beef turns around and invests in a company that is trying to develop an alternative product that will put you out of business?

The Secret Sauce

David Kay, Upside Foods’ director of communications, told Health Magazine that not one chicken was killed to produce its lab-based product. With Upside, “It all starts with a cell sample from a live chicken. We take a cell sample from an animal or fertilized egg and extract the cells that have the ability to grow into animal tissue or meat. From there, we put those cells into a large stainless-steel tank called a cultivator that resembles beer-brewing equipment. We then provide the cells with the nutrients they need to grow and multiply.”

According to Health magazine, “The manufacturing process begins with acquiring and banking stem cells from an animal. Similar to what happens inside an animal’s body, the cells are fed an oxygen-rich cell culture medium made up of basic nutrients such as amino acids, glucose, vitamins, and inorganic salts, and supplemented with growth factors and other proteins.”

Many of the ingredients that make up this “meat stew” are the same ones fed to real animals in feedlots including corn, soy, pea, wheat, soybean and corn oil and a cocktail of minerals and vitamins. Yeast is added and the concoction is fermented. The meat attaches itself to what scientists call the “scaffold” which can be formed to any shape, to resemble a chicken tender or a top sirloin. According to GOOD Meat, “Thousands of dishes, ranging from crispy strips and curries to skewers and salads, have been sold in Singapore and have received universally high marks from diners. Nearly everyone who tries it says the same thing: it tastes delicious, just like chicken.”

That’s because it is!

A Green Dream

The mandatory media frenzy about lab-meat is in its earliest stages. Scientists in lab coats say that cultivated meat, IF produced using renewable energy, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 92 percent and land use by up to 90 percent compared to conventional beef. They plan on doing all this and still sell it for the same price as conventional meat products. And don’t forget, not a single bird is slaughtered in the process.

Remember that “theoretical burger” we mentioned a decade ago that had to sell for a third of a million dollars to break even? Since 2018, GOOD Meat has achieved over a 90 percent reduction in total production costs. Mosa Meat, a lab-meat meat company in the Netherlands, announced in 2020 that they had reduced their input costs by 88 fold and it only takes a month from stem cell to drumstick.

$10 Clip & mail to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF

JESSICA DECKER Special Assistance

KRISTY HINDS Graphic Designer

Chicken was picked to go first because it’s the world’s most-consumed meat, according to GOOD Meat. “It stands to reason therefore that chickens also consume more food than other meat animals” and they contend that “more than one-third of Earth’s icefree land and tens of millions of acres of rainforest teeming with the bulk of our planet’s biodiversity have been replaced with fields of chicken feed.”

According to GOOD Meat, “Consumers have already reacted positively to cultivated meat since GOOD Meat’s launch in Singapore. According to research conducted by a leading global management consulting firm, 70 percent of Singaporeans who tried

Farm Credit of New Mexico has been farmer and rancher owned for more than a century. Year in and year out, we’ve provided financial services to family-owned businesses of all sizes, helping them grow and prosper. That’s the di erence between being a bank and being customer owned. What can we do for you?

This life has been in our blood for as many generations as it’s been in yours.

GOOD Meat said it tasted as good or better than conventional chicken and nearly 90 percent said they would substitute conventional chicken with cultivated chicken.

Elliot Swartz, PhD and Claire Bomkamp PhD, who have given us the most in-depth look at lab-based meat writing for The Good Food Institute said, “The main reasons people are open to cultivated meat are because it provides a transformative solution to pressing problems, such as addressing global hunger, reducing environmental degradation, mitigating concerns about animal welfare and is anticipated to reduce the possibility of foodborne illness.”

“The most common method to acquire starter cells is by taking a cell sample from a live animal, which can be performed using minimally invasive methods. In some cases, these cells may also be acquired by biopsying a recently slaughtered animal where the tissue is still viable, which could be important for determining compliance to religious laws (e.g., halal, kosher). In all cases, the acquired cells originate from healthy animals alongside extensive documentation that ensure the quality and traceability of the cells.”

“Cell engineering can take place in the form of adaptation or genetic engineering. Genetic engineering entails permanent changes by either removing, rearranging, or introducing DNA. While some cultivated meat companies have stated they do not plan to use genetic engineering, several others have filed patents describing various engineering approaches.”

According to Health Magazine, “Cultivated meat is made of the same cell types that can be arranged in the same or similar structure as animal tissues, replicating the sensory and nutritional profiles of conventional meat.”

So What’s Not To Like?

Having made all those claims, it’s very possible that just as with plant-based meat, lab-meat may be nothing more than just another foolish and foodish fad. Peter Hart of Food and Water Watch is not yet sold on the concept. “The idea that we can build massive laboratories that grow animal cells into food sounds like the stuff of science fiction. At this point, it is mostly just that. The truth is, there are a host of concerns when it comes to lab-meat. The production process requires heavy use of antibiotics and hazardous materials. Diseases can spread throughout a facility or into the product during that process. And there are also as yet unknown health and safety risks for humans eating cultured meat.”

Hart continues, “Tech-happy investors and industry evangelists like to paint a cruelty-free future. In their vision, cultured meat grown in steel vats erases many of the worst aspects of Big Ag, like dangerous slaughterhouses and polluting factory farms. Instead, we’d be fed by laboratories churning out animal protein, indistinguishable — or so we’re told — from the real thing. But this is hype that far outpaces reality. Millions of Wall Street dollars have been invested in an array of labmeat startups. Those startups have regularly promised breakthroughs that have not materialized.”

Even if the greenies get behind lab-meat in a big way Hart says that “lab-meat likely won’t help us stop climate change.” In fact, Hart suggests that, “Scaling up production may actually be worse for the climate than the status quo. We are talking about industrialization, after all. These facilities would require enormous amounts of energy, likely from fossil fuel sources. One study found that mass production of lab-meat would have substantial ecological impacts — perhaps even more than livestock farming. And a few new, niche ‘meat’ choices won’t make factory farming disappear.”

“Stories about the FDA’s ‘approval’ of lab-meat remind us that overhyped tech fixes fall far short of actually fixing our food system.” In fact, Hart concludes, “There remain substantial doubts that lab-grown meat will ever economically compete with conventional meat. For now, there is a single location in the world where you can purchase an order of lab-derived chicken nuggets. It’ll cost you $23 and a plane ticket to Singapore.” ▫

take the used-up batteries back or store them with our spent nuclear fuel rods we don’t know where to warehouse.

The letters “USA” won’t stand for the United States of America anymore but “Unlimited Sprawl Area” because everyone will live in the office buildings made vacant when everyone started working from home. President Biden’s 30x30 dream will be realized when at least 30 percent of U.S. lands will be conserved by 2030 so busloads of Japanese tourists with cameras dangling from their necks will be running from packs of wolves, marauding bears and hungry mountain lions in our national parks. Our borders will remain open to ensure we’ll have someone to raise our kids.

Getting rid of all fossil fuels because of climate change will bring families closer together as we burn furniture and three generations snuggle together to share body heat. It will be just like camping! (But don’t forget to be on the lookout for the aforementioned wolves, bears and lions.)

The future we’ve created will

be a kinder, gentler and smarter world as everyone will be female and boys will be boys no longer. Instead, they’ll grow their own boobs, have their plumbing rearranged and have their appendage removed. (Ouch!) As for making babies, well, maybe we didn’t do a very good job of explaining the birds and the bees to our kids. And perhaps we should have come clean about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy too. As for our birth rate dipping below “sustainable” levels, well, again that’s what the open borders are for and why our Congress looks like an LGBTQ+ parade.

If, and when, there is a World War III it will all be conducted by soldiers at keyboards with joysticks, drinking 5 Hour energy drinks, just like playing a violent video game. As for this great experiment we called America, we’ll finally come to the realization that the grand experiment just didn’t work and we’ve been the big bully on the block far too long.

The only advice I have for our inheritors is to bone up on your Chinese, North Korean and Russian.

His training in science makes him “a little bit different” from some others, he said.

The physicist, who also won a third of the Wolf Prize for his quantum mechanics contributions, shared some of his views on climate during a recent speech in South Korea soon after his election to the CO2 Coalition’s board of directors.

‘Dangerous Misinformation’

“I believe that climate change is not a crisis,” Mr. Clauser told the audience at Quantum Korea 2023.

He also described the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as “one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation.”

Mr. Clauser elaborated further on his views in his interview with The Epoch Times.

Contra the IPCC and other major institutions, he argues that climate is primarily set by what he refers to as the “cloud cover thermostat,” a self-regulating process whereby more clouds start to enshroud the Earth when the temperature is too high and vice-versa. Although he accepts observations showing that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, he said he believes that gas’s effect on heat transfer is swamped by a great natural cloud cycle.

“[The carbon dioxide] may or may not be made by human beings,” Mr. Clauser said. “It doesn’t really matter where it comes from.”

The physicist said he believes that objective science on climate has been sacrificed to politics. The preeminence of politics is all the worse, he said, because so much money has already gone to climate initiatives.

“We’re talking about trillions of dollars,” he said, adding that powerful people don’t want to hear that they’ve made “trillion-dollar mistakes.”

Concerns about such mistakes may have been relevant after Mr. Clauser was slated to speak before the U.N.’s International Monetary Fund (IMF) on July 25.

In recent years, the international economic and monetary

agency has focused heavily on the climate. Officials have laid particular stress on international carbon taxes.

“The latest IMF analysis finds that large emitting countries need to introduce a carbon tax that rises quickly to $75 a ton in 2030,” the agency’s website on climate mitigation states.

Just days before his talk was to take place, the Nobel laureate received alarming news.

Mr. Clauser told The Epoch Times he had received an email indicating that the IMF’s Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) director, Pablo Moreno, didn’t want the talk to go forward that day.

In an email, an IEO senior official told The Epoch Times that Mr. Clauser’s speech “has been postponed to reorganize it into a panel discussion.”

“We are working to reschedule it after the summer,” the official wrote.

No New Date Set

For now, a new date hasn’t been set.

Mr. Clauser pointed out that a past attempt at a vigorous, transparent debate over climate change—namely, the “red team, blue team” exercise proposed by Obama administration veteran Steve Koonin in 2017—was ultimately scuttled during the Trump administration. When Environmental Protection Agency Director Scott Pruitt sought to carry out the exercise, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly reportedly shot the idea down.

In the eyes of some observers, the stated postponement looks more like a straightforward cancellation.

“Dr. John Clauser, Nobel Prize Recipient for Physics, 2022, & Board Member of the CO2 Coalition, has been summarily canceled as a confirmed speaker on July 25 at the International Monetary Fund. They say his speech is ‘postponed’. Don’t hold your breath!” Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace and now a high-profile climate skeptic, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Mr. Moore is a former chair of the CO2 Coalition.

Dr. Clay Mathis to Become the Department Head for Animal Science at Texas A&M University

Dr. Clay Mathis has accepted the position of Department Head of Animal Science at Texas A&M University in College Station and will begin serving in that role in October.

Since 2010 Mathis has served as Director of The King Ranch® Institute for Ranch Management (KRIRM) and Robert J. Kleberg, Jr. and Helen C. Kleberg Endowed Chair.

When Dr. Mathis joined the Institute he quickly established himself as a leader whose focus on the mission and vision of KRIRM not only advanced the Institute’s initiatives, but bolstered the master’s program and broadened its outreach efforts.

Throughout his leadership, he maintained crucial relationships with industry leaders that furthered the reach of KRIRM and through networking opened up opportunities for students to expand their knowledge of the industry as a whole.

“This has been an amazingly fulfilling journey,” says Dr. Mathis. “Nothing has been more satisfying and motivating to me than to watch the growth of our graduate students during the two years they spend at KRIRM, and seeing them succeed beyond their own expectations.

“I see the influence and the positions these alumni hold today, and I think back to the new students that arrived eager to learn just a few years prior. I am proud that the two years these students spent in Kingsville with our KRIRM team was at least a part of the success these students and their families enjoy

today.

“Beyond that, I am also proud that these exceptional alumni are modeling excellence in ranching across this nation. It will be exciting to watch KRIRM grow in impact and service through the compelling mission of Sustaining our Ranching Heritage through Education, Innovation, and Outreach.”

Dr. Mathis leaves KRIRM in a strong position. Today, KRIRM is positioned for significant expansion. With renewed commitment from the TAMUK administration for additional positions, and with the

continued financial support of stakeholders that invest in the mission, KRIRM will be adding several new faculty positions in the coming year.

These new faculty will help expand the research and outreach of KRIRM, and will certainly help to leverage the teaching and research opportunities made available through the gift of the H.R. Smith Ranch. KRIRM and TAMUK have begun an active search for Dr. Mathis’ replacement.

Dr. Rick Machen, who has been with KRIRM in a faculty position since 2016, will lead the Institute as the Interim Director until the position is filled.

“On behalf of KRIRM staff, students, alumni, and the ranching industry, I extend a hearty thank you to Dr. Mathis for 13 years of leadership and service to the industry. We wish him the best as he embarks on the next chapter of his career,” says Dr. Machen.

“I look forward to the identification and recruitment of the third Executive Director of KRIRM and the continuation of ongoing education, outreach, and innovation efforts the institute is known for.”

To learn more about the position, visit the Texas A&M University-Kingsville Job Board or contact the KRIRM office at (361) 5935401. ▫

sidering only the environmental pillar of these ratings. It doesn’t seem that people have actually looked at [the correlations]. They are surprisingly low.”

He added: “The carbon intensity reduction of green [eg low carbon intensity] portfolios can be effectively cancelled out by adding ESG objectives.”

“On average, social and governance scores more than completely reversed the carbon reduction objective,” he continued. “It can very well be that a high-emitting firm is very good at governance or employee satisfaction. There is no strong relationship between employee satisfaction or any of these things and carbon intensity.”

“Even the environmental pillar is pretty unrelated to carbon emissions,” he said.

Vice-president for ESG outreach and research at Moody’s, Keeran Beeharee, added: “[There is a] perception that ESG assessments do something that they do not. ESG assessments are an aggregate product, their nature is that they are looking at a range of material factors, so drawing a correlation to one factor is always going to be difficult.”

“In 2015-16, post the SDGs [UN sustainable development goals] and COP21 [Paris Agreement], when people began to really focus on the issue of climate, they quickly realized

that an ESG assessment is not going to be much use there and that they need the right tool for the right task. There are now more targeted tools available that look at just carbon intensity, for example,” he added.

MSCI ESG Research told the Financial Times its ratings “are fundamentally designed to measure a company’s resilience to financially material environmental, societal and governance risks. They are not designed to measure a company’s impact on climate change.”

Refinitiv told FT that “while very small, the correlation found in this study isn’t surprising, especially in developed markets, where many large organizations — with focused sustainability strategies, underpinned by strong governance, higher awareness of their societal impact and robust disclosure — will perform well based on ESG scores, in spite of the fact that many will also overweight on carbon.”

Global director of sustainability research for Morningstar Hortense Bioy concluded: “Investors need to be aware of all the trade-offs. It is not simple. In this case, investors need to think carefully about which aspects of sustainability they would like to prioritize when building portfolios: carbon reduction or a high ESG rating.” ▫

ESG POLLUTION from page 1

Dr. Clay Mathis

Science, Agriculture, & Global Control

BY KATHLEEN MARQUARDT / AMERICAN POLICY CENTER Science

In an August 2022, National Library of Medicine article “Trust Me, I’m a Scientist, How Philosophy of Science Can Help Explain Why Science Deserves Primacy in Dealing with Societal Problems” by Stefaan Blancke and Maarten Boudry starts out:

“Modern democratic societies tend to appeal to the authority of science when dealing with important challenges and solving their problems. Nevertheless, distrust in science remains widespread among the public, and, as a result, scientific voices are often ignored or discarded in favor of other perspectives.

Though superficially “democratic”, such a demotion of science in fact hinders democratic societies in effectively tackling their problems. Worryingly, some philosophers have provided ammunition to this distrust and skepticism of science. They either portray science as an institution that has unrightfully seized political power, or they claim that science constitutes only one voice among many and that scientists should know their proper place in our societies. As philosophers of science, we believe that it is potentially dangerous to undermine trust in science in this way. Instead, we believe that philosophers should help people to understand why science, even though it is far from perfect, deserves our trust and its special standing in modern societies.” (emphasis mine).

The article goes on: “Potentially dangerous to undermine trust in science in this way”? We older people were taught to think, to question everything, especially in science; that was how we “would eventually” arrive at the correct conclusions. And that is what scientists used to believe. Today, as this article goes on to tell us, we just need to listen to the politically correct sources.

As the authors tell us it is

“demonstrated by means of numerous empirical studies that humans are far from the ideal of rational actors who, when making a judgement or decision, calculate probabilities and objectively weigh the pros and cons of each option.”

That is true today of those ‘graduating’ from our universities where they have been deliberately dumbed down.

Here is a good example of the programming of those in the seats of ‘higher learning’:

“When faced with severe problems and challenges such as climate change and the COVID pandemic, modern societies often rely on the authority of science, both to diagnose the problem and to find solutions, on the assumption that science provide us with the most reliable picture of the world. And indeed, this expectation has not been disappointing, since science has been quite successful in helping us overcome many societal and global challenges. Think, for instance, of the incredibly rapid development of vaccines against COVID or the diagnosis and consequent solution for the growing hole in our ozone layer.”[4] Yes, think about those two things! And their sources.

Under “The Goal of Science Education” they write,

“By giving them a flavor of how biases and intuitions

have distorted our reasoning in the past, students will learn to appreciate that intuitions and appeals to “common sense” are extremely unreliable when it comes to understanding anything about the world outside of the ecological environment our minds are adapted to. If people realize that, for instance, we tend to interpret the world in “essentialist” terms, and such intuitive essentialism can lead us seriously astray (e.g. race pseudoscience, creationism), this might make them a bit more skeptical about their own “common sense” and about the way they usually obtain information about the world.” (Blancke et al., 2018)

Agriculture

“Santiago, Chile – Today, the Global Methane Hub announced that agriculture and environment ministers and ambassadors from 13 countries, including the United States, have issued a commitment to reduce methane emissions in agriculture. Last month, the Global Methane Hub collaborated with the Ministries of Agriculture of Chile and Spain to convene the first-ever global ministerial on agricultural practices to reduce methane emissions.”

We all are aware that CO2 is the GE’s boogeyman to ban oil and gas usage worldwide, but now we are hearing that methane (produced by fracking, cows and other ruminants, termites, and others), is almost equally as evil. But, as William Happer, PhD tells us:

“…even if regulations on U.S. methane emissions could completely stop the increase of atmospheric methane (they can’t), they would likely only lower the average global temperature in the year 2222 by about 0.2°C. This is a completely trivial amount given that

humans have adapted to a much larger change over the past century while reducing climate deaths by over 98%. And U.S. regulations will have little influence on global emissions, where producers are unlikely to be as easily cowed.”

Methane ...

“…degrades in the atmosphere relatively quickly—it has a half-life of about 10 years—whereas CO2 is cumulative; that is to say a single emission of CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years, and a series of them will accumulate….”

Thus they are talking apples and orangutans here.

Yet, some of the world’s largest producers of meat signed on to this commitment – US, Brazil, Argentina, and Australia. Why?

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the organization many in the beef industry trusted to represent them, climbed into bed with the World Wildlife Fund, a UN non-government organization (NGO), and a leader of UN Environmental Program (UNEP). NCBA says they just want a seat at the table, but we all know what happens when you sit down with the devil.

Even Friends of the Earth, a radical environmental group, and 50 other environmental organizations said in a letter:

“on June 27,2018, ‘This USRSB includes over 100 members from the retail, civil society, producer, processor and allied industry sector who are falsely portraying themselves as promoting a ‘US beef value chain’ that is ‘environmentally sound, socially responsible and economically viable.’

“Key USRSB leaders include JBS (the world’s largest beef processor) McDonald’s, Arby’s Merck and Elanco; the very same companies

that for years have opposed or undermined numerous policies that would bring us closer to sustainability in the bee sector. Nature Conservancy is also part of the Executive team and WWF is a founding member.

“The groups are especially concerned that member retailers and restaurants like Walmart, Costco, McDonald’, Darden, Arby’s Culver’s and Wendy’s will use the framework’s meager and misguided metrics as a basis for ‘sustainable’ beef claims – as McDonald’ did last year — thereby undercutting truly sustainable, organic and/or regenerative beef producers.”

What it’s all about –Climate Change

Author Ted Trainer in Transition to a Sustainable and Just World spells it out:

“Simply shutting down the economy is not going to get us to our goal. So, just like we need innovation for COVID-19, we also need to get rid of emissions from all the different sectors and bring down climate change… This crosses many areas, transportation, industry, electricity, all those things, and agriculture –contribute to emissions…” And there you have it. It’s all about a non-existent threat to humanity that is dressed up as the “end of the world as we know it” – if we don’t bow to the globalists seeking one world government under the guise of saving humanity from boiling heat. We should be welcoming more carbon dioxide, it is good for people, animals, plants, and the planet. ▫

BY FRANK DUBOIS

Yours Truly Bites the Dust

There are some weird stories going around about me and my absence from this publication. So let me clarify.

No, I didn’t try to bulldog a buffalo.

No, I didn’t receive these injuries in the largest bar in the world.

I had cataract surgery on my left eye two weeks prior, so on this day I had the procedure done on my right eye.

When I exited the building I remember saying, “I’m blind” because the sun was so bright.

The next thing I knew I went off an escarpment. The wheelchair hit and then turned left, landing on its right side, and throwing me off onto the asphalt. I knew I couldn’t lift myself up, and the nurses and staff at the surgery center said they couldn’t either, so they called an ambulance. The EMTs said they wanted me to go to the hospital, but I declined and requested they pick me up and put me on my wheelchair, which they did and I rode into my van.

To be honest that is the last thing I remember until I woke up in the hospital in Las Cruces. Apparently, I was making no sense and looking much sicker and my daughter and caregiver talked me in to going to the hospital. This was two days after the incident. They found that I had a twisted colon, which had become infected. After two different procedures they had it fixed. They had removed a part of the colon and gave me a colostomy bag.

There were a few setbacks and complications, but I got to come home this week

I hope to kick the blog off this weekend and have a full column for the next edition of this pub. ▫

Pope Chosen as 2023-2024 American Gelbvieh Junior Association Ambassador

Congratulations to Justine Pope,Ravenna, Nebraska, daughter of Jeff and Jeanne Pope, for being chosen to represent the American Gelbvieh Junior Association as the ambassador for the 2023-2024 year.

Justine is a six-year member of the AGJA, and a junior at Shelton Public Schools in Shelton, Nebraska. In addition to her new role as AGJA Ambassador, she is actively involved in 4-H, FFA, school sports, dance and several competitive teams. Pope has served in various leadership positions within her respective associations/organizations attending numerous events related to career development, leadership, skill building and much more.

“While showing at Junior Nationals, I also competed in all the contests throughout the week. From quiz bowl to giving speeches on Gelbvieh-related topics, I have gained much more knowledge about the breed and association. Aside from competing at Junior Nationals and showing Gelbvieh cattle, I have also begun to raise a small herd of my own.

“Most of my cattle are shown and once they have completed their show career, I return them to the herd to create more high-quality offspring. I sell my bulls privately and if I choose not to show one of my heifers, they are retained as breeding stock. Within this growing involvement and background, I have gained many beneficial experiences.

“This year, I have had the opportunity to serve on our state junior board as the treasurer. This position has helped me be more involved with other junior members in my state as well as Gelbvieh breeds,” Pope said.

The AGJA created the Ambassador program to encourage and support youth development in the breed’s activities. The ambassador will represent the AGJA at Gelbvieh functions throughout the year, including shows at the local, regional, state and national levels. We wish Justine the best of luck in her new role as the 2023-2024 AGJA Ambassador. ▫

Natural Resource Coalition v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Federal Lawsuit Filed to Make Rule Makers Follow the Rules

SOURCE: PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

Cameron Edwards has two driving passions in life: growing his small agricultural operation and realizing his grandfather’s vision. His family business, Lone Butte Farms, grows corn, ranches cattle, and operates two oil wells on 7,000 acres of land in Logan County, Kansas. Cameron’s grandfather first purchased the land, and three generations of the Edwards family have since produced food, fiber, and fuel to support the region’s economy and their livelihoods.

Environmental stewardship is another treasured Edwards’ family tradition: 3,000 acres of carefully maintained grassland on their property serve as both a healthy rangeland for cattle grazing and a potentially valuable ecosystem for the lesser prairie-chicken, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Edwards family previously saw no conflict between their business operations and environmental stewardship. Indeed, operating their property to its highest and best use as a cattle ranch necessarily involved the maintenance of high-quality grassland habitat.

Nevertheless, the Edwards family is now being punished for its stewardship. In November 2022, the FWS issued an ESA rule (known as a “Section 4(d)” rule) for the lesser prairie-chicken. That rule broadly prohibits an enormous array of common land use activity that could affect grassland habitats and thus harm the lesser prairie-chicken, no matter how inadvertently. Violators face severe civil and criminal penalties.

This rule covers a vast array of land—the lesser prairie-chicken is found in Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado, as

well as Kansas—and jeopardizes essential local government services, including the building and maintenance of roads, utility poles, and emergency radio towers. Something as simple as erecting a tower to ensure citizens are notified of a tornado warning is now regulated, and possibly prohibited by the rule.

Because the 4(d) rule heavily regulates virtually anything a landowner might wish to do within the lesser prairie-chicken’s habitat, landowners like the Edwards family will face a dilemma. They either must make costly changes to their land use to comply with the rule, which could destroy their livelihoods, or they could keep using their land freely and productively and pray that the government doesn’t punish them.

Deliberately shutting down productive and responsible land use with minimal corresponding benefits to the lesser prairie-chicken is not only illogical. It’s illegal.

Section 4(d) of the ESA requires the FWS to balance conservation efforts with the economic impacts of regulation on private parties. This principle is central to the framework set forth by Congress. And it was central to ESA reforms in 2019 that PLF inspired at the Supreme Court, championed at the Department of the Interior, and successfully defended at the Ninth Circuit.

Finalizing the lesser prairie-chicken rule with complete disregard for its economic costs violates the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the agency’s failure to analyze the rule’s impact on small businesses violates the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

By ignoring these well-established limitations on its power, the FWS essentially believes it can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. The agency is also dismissing the critical role of private landowners in species recovery and favoring conflict

over cooperation among regulators, property owners, and conservationists.

More broadly, under the separation of powers, federal agencies do not constitutionally possess inherent power over the lives of ordinary Americans like Mr. Edwards. Agencies may exercise such power only to the extent the people’s elected representatives in Congress have given it to them.

Yet, the FWS claimed breathtaking regulatory powers in another stark example of an absolutely massive power grab by the administrative state under the guise of saving the environment. If federal agencies can ignore Congress’ intent and unilaterally impose punishing regulations on landowners, then we no longer live in a country governed by the rule of law. With their livelihoods and their constitutional rights on the line, Mr. Edwards, Lone Butte Farms, Schilling Land, JDC Farms, and the Kansas Natural Resource Coalition— an association of 30 county governments—are filing a federal lawsuit to hold the FWS to its obligations as intended by Congress and in a manner that respects private property rights. ▫

Justine Pope, 2023-2024 Ambassador

Dimmitt, TX 79027 Scott - Broker

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

SMALL!

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

Sumner; wildlife, buyer looking New Mexico

AG LAND LOANS

As

ESTATE GUIDE

listing agent

575-825-1291

www.buenavista-nm.com

980 ac. +/past, land lays of Hwy. 54. Union Co., NM –grassland w/stateremodeled in very good pvmt. +/- heavily livestock w/ fences etc., on front gate. scenic ac. +/- on by Lincoln in Pines & covered meadow Penasco. This build a legacy ac. irr., on Mexico, adjoins

POTENTIAL

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

2023 for a total of $4,881.50 per month / Triple Net Lease - Term: 5 year lease with 3 remaining years and option for an additional 5 years.

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

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

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

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

www buenavista-nm com

AG LAND LOANS AG L AND LOANS

7 dirt tanks, house, barns, corrals, semi-load and livestock scales. Ranch has been in the same family since 1912. Priced at $2,900,000

TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES

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

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

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

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

• 160 acre Ranger Eastland Co, $560,000

& 6 barbed wire fence & over 7000’ of pipe fence. YOU WILL NOT WANT TO MISS THIS! Canyon School District. ■ DEAF SMITH CO., TX. – 651 ac. +/-, 7 miles N of Dawn, Tx., 1 mile E of FM 809. 349 acres native grass with well-maintained fencing and 302 acres of cultivated dry land. www.scottlandcompany.com Ben G. Scott – Broker Krystal M. Nelson – NM QB 800-933-9698 5:00 a.m./10:00 p.m. RANCH & FARM REAL ESTATE We need listings on all types of ag properties large or small!

• 270 acre Mitchell County, Texas ranch. Investors dream; excellent cash flow. Rock formation being crushed and sold; wind turbans, some minerals. Irrigation water developed, crop & cattle, modest lakes. Beautiful home, barns, and other improvements. Some minerals, game galore. All for $1.35 million.

Joe Priest Real Estate

1-800/671-4548

joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com

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

Rural Properties around Portales, NM

1242 NM 480 - Nice home on 59.7 acres, grass

427 S Rrd P 1/2 - Large nice home, lots of barns 24+ ac

1694 S Rrd 4, Great home, barns, cattle pens, location

2344 S Rrd K east of Dora, NM, great - Near wind farms

All properties excellent homes & can have horses, etc.

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

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

DUANE & DIXIE McGARVA RANCH: approx. 985 acres Likely, CA. with about 600+ acre gravity flood irrigated pastures PLUS private 542 AU BLM permit. About 425 acres so of the irrigated are level to flood excellent pastures with balance good flood irrigated pastures. NO PUMPING COST! Dryland is perfect for expansion to pivot irrigated alfalfa if desired. Plus BLM permit for 540 AU is fenced into 4 fields on about 18,000 acres only 7 miles away. REDUCED ASKING PRICE - $3,125,000

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

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

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

MILE DRAW LAND

No improvements & very private inside the ranch.

Now only $700 per acre - $894,600

BILL WRIGHT, SHASTA LAND SERVICES, INC. 530-941-8100 • DRE# 00963490 • www.ranch-lands.com

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

ranch that has been owned and operated southeast of Corona, NM in Lincoln

BLM Lease Acres and 2,240 NM State AUYL. Water provided by five wells and corrals. The ranch had a good summer for a brochure or view on my website.

Scott McNally, Qualifying Broker Bar M Real Estate, LLC

P.O. Box 428, Roswell, NM 88202 Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237

city limits of Roswell, NM. Six total acres

Improved with a 2, 200 square foot residence, room and loafing shed. Price: $400,000 west of Roswell, NM along and adjacent

Comprised of 6,607 deeded acres and 80 acres

Serving all of Southern, Arizona

Land, Farms, Homes, Country Estates, Commercial National Advertising – Local Expertise

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

United Country Real Estate | Arizona Life Homes and Land 520-403-3903 Arizonahomesandlandsales.com

Rick Frank, Designated Broker • 520-403-3903

SOLD

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

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

$350,000

NM $370,000

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

$239,000 BAR LAZY 7 RANCH, Colfax County, Moreno Valley 594.38 +/- deeded acres, accessed off blacktop between Eagle Nest and Angel Fire. Historic headquarters. Currently used as summer grazing, pond and trees accessed

CONTRACT PENDING

SPRINGER VIEW, 29.70 +/- deeded acres. Large house being remodeled, shop, trees, old irrigation pond. All back off highway with great southern aspect. 311 Hwy 56, Colfax County. $209,000 $205,000

MAXWELL, 408.90 +/- Deeded

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

COLETTA RAY Pioneer Realty 1304 Pile Street, Clovis, NM 88101 575-799-9600 Direct 575.935.9680 Office 575.935.9680 Fax coletta@plateautel.net www.clovisrealestatesales.com Selling residential, farm, ranch, commercial and relocating properties. 521 West Second St Portales, NM 88130 575-226-0671 or 575-226-0672 fax Buena Vista Realty Qualifying Broker: A H (Jack) Merrick 575-760-7521 www buenavista-nm com BottariRealty Paul Bottari, Broker 775/752-3040 Nevada Farms & raNch PrOPerTY www.bottarirealty.com 521 West Second 575-226-0671 Buena A.H. (Jack) www.buenavista-nm.com or the listing agent 575-825-1291 Many good pictures on MLS or www.buenavista-nm.com A SOURCE PROVEN RED 14298 N. ELM ESCALON CONSIGNMENTS C WELCO ■ BERRENDA CREEK RANCH — 231 AYL, 51± section cattle ranch — Hillsboro, NM. 32,870± total acres, 120± deeded acres, 23,646± acres of BLM, 9104± acres of NM state land, 12 wells, 9 dirt tanks, 2 springs, 3 pastures, 195,000 gallons of water storage. Priced at $1,432,200 ■ FLYING W MOUNTAIN RANCH — 345 AYL located in the cedar mountains of Hachita, NM. 39.60± section cattle ranch, 25,347± acres total, 1278± acres of deeded land, 3152± acres of state land, 20,917 acres of BLM, four miles of newer fence, over 55,000 gallons of water storage, 17± miles of pipeline less than 20 years old, 4 wells, 4 pastures, 2 traps,

521 West Second St., Portales, NM 88130

American Gelbvieh Junior Association Board of Directors Elected at AGJA Great Dakota Classic

The election of the American Gelbvieh Junior Association (AGJA) board of directors was held at the 2023 AGJA Great Dakota Classic in July 2023. AGJA members elected five candidates to serve a two-year term.

The AGJA board of directors is comprised of nine AGJA members. Directors serve two-year terms and are eligible to serve two full terms. Directors must be 16 but may have not yet reached their 20th birthday as of January 1 of the election year.

On the 2023-2024 board, we welcome Lincoln Martin, son of Eric and Holli Martin, Bucklin, Kansas. Re-elect-

ed for their second term includes Jaycie Forbes, daughter of Troy and Pam Forbes, De Smet, South Dakota; Lily Judd, daughter of Nick and Ginger Judd, Pomona, Kansas; Sadie Morris, daughter of Jason and Susan Morris, Batesville, Mississippi; and Jaylea Pope, daughter of Jeff and Jeanna Pope, Ravenna, Nebraska.

The board spends time following the election of directors to elect an executive committee to serve in leadership positions for the 20232024 year. Jaycie Forbes, was elected president. Gentry Warner, daughter of Dan and Kate Warner, and the late Kasey Jo Warner, Arap-

ahoe, Nebraska, will serve as vice president. Lily Judd will serve as vice president of leadership development.

Drew Stock, son of Mark and Stacy Stock, Waukon, Iowa, was elected to serve as treasurer. Isabel Lowe, daughter of Raymond and Melissa Lowe, Adrian, Missouri, was elected secretary. Retiring board members of the 2022-2023 AGJA board of directors included Rachelle Anderson, daughter of Robert and Charlotte Anderson, Jamestown, Kansas; as well as Madalynn Welsh, daughter of Brian and Gina Welsh, Franklin, Nebraska. We thank them both for their service and commitment to the AGJA and its membears during their time served on the AGJA board of directors.

BY BARRY DENTON

Veterinarians in New York started seeing a bizarre condition affecting Holstein calves on two different dairy farms. It is now known as, “calf recumbency”.

Normally a new born calf would stand on its legs and start feeding from its mother within a few hours of birth. Come to find out, these calves never could stand and would die within six weeks as a result.

The vets had the calves necropsied, but there was never anything wrong. The veterinarians then sent samples to renowned geneticist Chad Dechow at Penn State where he serves as associate professor of dairy cattle genetics.

In a short time Mr. Dechow learned of another similar situation on a Holstein dairy in Florida. The herd managers in Florida also sent samples to Dechow’s lab at Penn State.

The lab determined that 18 of the calves affected carried two copies of a region on chromosome 16. The researchers also found out that a common sire was present for the lineages on both sides of the 18 calves.

That particular sire had a very prolific son born in 2010 that is now one of the most popular sires in the Holstein industry. It was mentioned in the article that artificial insemination may have played a role.

For a more in depth look at this situation Mr. Dechow published his findings in the November 2022 issue of, JDS Communications, which is the official journal of the American Dairy Science Association.

It is truly fascinating how they tracked this down and the very simple way that they came up with to prevent it in the future. It would be of great interest to anyone in the cattle business and I urge you to look it up and read it.

On a different subject it is very popular to be a “victim” in today’s society. I got to thinking about it and decided that we cowboys, horseshoers, and veterinarians are also “victims” and are owed reparations by the rest of the taxpayers.

Now as absurd as this may sound we all had ancestors that should be held responsible for getting us into this mess. I bet you have talked to cowboys who had relatives that drove cattle from Texas to Dodge City or even to Montana.

You know darn well that many of today’s experienced horseshoers learned their trade from their father or grandfather. When I was a boy there were plenty of veterinarians that were unlicensed healers that helped horses and cattle get well.

The next generation was made to attend veterinary college and become licensed veterinarians. If you came from any one of those three different backgrounds you simply had no choice, but to continue along the same path.

For instance, you have seen the children of doctors become engineers, artists, politicians, preachers, etc. Many were able to go on and excel in whatever profession they chose.

Anyone that has grown up in the horse and cattle business knows that they are not afforded the other options. It simply boils down to having no choice. Cowboys, horseshoers, and veterinarians are all slaves to helping animals, therefore it’s my ancestors fault and I want reparations now!

Please send your checks quickly as we are a dying breed and prefer to spend your money as soon as possible. ▫

From left to right: Jaycie Forbes, De Smet, S.D.; Isabel Lowe, Adrian, Mo.; Gentry Warner, Arapahoe, Neb.; Lily Judd, Pomona, Kan.; Drew Stock, Waukon, Iowa; Preston Dunn, Saint John, Kan.; Jaylea Pope, Ravenna, Neb.; Lincoln Martin, Bucklin, Kan.; and Sadie Morris, Batesville, Miss.

Wyoming Rebuffs Feds That Hunter Education is ‘Dangerous Weapon Training’

Potential cuts to teaching hunter education in public schools because they provide “dangerous weapon training” are wrong, misguided and would deprive Wyoming kids of valuable “life skills,” local officials say.

MARK HEINZ / COWBOY STATE DAILY

Possible cuts to education programs that allegedly involve “dangerous weapon training” could hurt hunter education in public schools, which certifies hundreds of Wyoming kids each year.

It’s still unclear how, or even if, Wyoming will be affected by cutting money for school programs that involve hunting, archery and the like, as proposed by President Joe Biden’s administration,

Game and Fish spokeswoman Brenna Ball told Cowboy State Daily.

“At the moment, we believe the legislation has been misinterpreted,” she said. “At this moment, it is unclear how this

The Lethal Impact of Rising Energy

BY JAMES BROUGHEL / COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

Many of us are all too familiar with the grimace we make when we open our monthly utility bills. The soaring cost of energy is a burden we all bear, often grudgingly slashing our energy use or stretching our budget thin to cover the exorbitant costs. But have you ever stopped to consider that high energy prices may not just be an annoyance, but a literal matter of life and death? The evidence paints a chilling picture.

Economists have delved into the cold realities of energy costs, investigating the link between price spikes and mortality rates. One such study was conducted by the Economist Magazine last month, focusing on European mortality rates last winter and comparing them to the figures from 2015-2019.

According to the study, there were 149,000 excess European deaths last winter. At the same time, prices of electricity were up 69 percent and gas was up 145 percent compared to two years prior. No doubt Russia’s war in Ukraine, combined with tight restrictions on European energy supply, contributed to the price spike.

The implications are startling: a rise of merely €0.10 per kwh was associated with an increase in a country’s weekly mortality rate of ap-

legislation would impact Wyoming schools and we, along with partners are working to understand the intent of the legislation.”

Depriving Kids of ‘Life Skills’

Nathan Warren, who teaches hunter education classes in Platte County, said cutting archery and hunting courses from public schools is a terrible idea.

“To not teach that kind of stuff to kids is a disservice. You’re teaching life skills,” he told Cowboy State Daily. “They’re trying to develop more of dependence on the government, and nobody taking responsibility for their actions.”

Ball said Game and Fish stands firmly for hunting and archery courses in public schools.

“We will continue to support and advocate wholeheartedly for hunter education and archery in the schools. These programs play a vital role in fostering conservation ethic in our youngest citizens, and hunter education plays a vital role in teaching our youth the value of wildlife, conservation and safety,” she said.

proximately 2.2 percent. Shockingly, 68,000 deaths were linked to higher energy prices. To put that into perspective, the study attributed 59,700 excess deaths to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic during the same time period.

The Economist suggests expensive energy discourages people from adequately heating their homes, thereby increasing the risk of cardiac and respiratory problems due to prolonged exposure to cold conditions. This should not surprise us, given a regular reported finding in statistical research is that “warmer is healthier,” meaning higher temperatures are associated with lower death rates.

The Economist study helps to demonstrate why the impact of high energy prices is cause for concern. But we also need to look at the cost of regulation, which impacts household budgets indirectly. Regulations can contribute to an increased death toll by imposing costs that eat into disposable income.

As spending power dwindles, so too does the potential for spending on risk management and health-related expenses. This argument, known as the “wealthier is healthier” hypothesis, complements the idea that warmer is healthier. In fact, spending on energy is potentially a critical channel that can explain the frequently observed relationship between financial health and physical health, including mortality.

Two of my own research papers include estimates of the level of cost sufficient to produce one expected death in society. Depending on the study method, my coauthors and I found that for about every $40 to $115 million in costs imposed on American

‘Dangerous Weapons’

The Biden administration’s possible cuts to funding for school programs involving hunter education, archery or shooting sports have already drawn criticism from some Wyomingites, who said the cuts represent government overreach and “wokeism.”

The funding cuts were piggybacked on the federal 2022 Safer Communities Act, which came in response to school shootings and received wide bipartisan support.

Cutting money for school programs that allegedly provide “dangerous weapon training” would help create a safer and more positive environment in schools, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Schools Play Vital Role

Hunter education instructors are certified through Game and Fish, but not all the courses are connected to public schools.

Warren said he teaches hunter education through his church and has also been approached by some local Christian charter schools. Those wouldn’t be affected by the proposed funding cuts.

But Warren said he would like to teach hunter education in public schools as well.

In Wyoming, residents born after January 1, 1966, are re-

society, we can predict one death will occur by virtue of individuals being made poorer.

When we take a step back and look at the regulatory system as a whole, the death toll from the regulatory state is not trivial. My CEI colleague Wayne Crews has estimated that the total cost of federal regulations was just under $2.0 trillion in 2022.

Other studies put the cost even higher, in the vicinity of $4 trillion, or even as high as $40 trillion, annually. If we take just the two low-end estimates of cost, at $80 million per expected death there are roughly 25,000 to 50,000 deaths annually that can be attributed to federal regulations (and this doesn’t count state and local regulations).

Those numbers may sound staggering, but not when compared to the estimated 68,000 deaths in Europe from high electricity prices during a single winter, or in the context of the approximately 3 million deaths that occur every year in the United States.

This suggests regulations may explain about 0.8 to 1.7 percent of annual deaths. Furthermore, regulations probably save some lives too, which means the net death toll is somewhat lower than the gross toll.

It is high time that we understand and address the serious ramifications of high energy prices and regulatory costs, as they may have lethal consequences. With the mounting evidence, it becomes clear that the price we pay for energy might just be higher than what shows up on our utility bills.. ▫

quired to pass a hunter education course before they can hunt here.

The courses involve classroom training on such subjects as hunting ethics, wilderness survival and wildlife education. There’s also firearms instruction at a certified shooting range.

Thousands of youngsters take hunter education in Wyoming, including hundreds who get the program through public schools, Ball said.

“Currently, 22 schools in Wyoming provide hunter education either through an extracurricular activity, actual curriculum or as an after-school program. Typically, these courses are offered to middle school students, although a few schools have a fifth grade program,” she said.

“According to the International Hunter Education Association, hunter education courses train and certify more than 500,000 students annually. Last year a total of 4,095 Wyoming youth were certified, of these 554 were certified through a school program,” Ball added.

Value Goes Beyond Hunting

Warren said that for him, the value of hunter education goes far beyond teaching kids how hunt.

“It’s to teach the ethos and ethics of hunting. In reality, the reason that we hunt is so that

we keep those animals in our hearts, in our minds, with the experiences of our families, in our stories and in our traditions. That’s why I teach hunter education,” he said.

Ball agreed that hunter education has deep value.

“Beyond firearm safety, the Wyoming Hunter Education curriculum encompasses a holistic, hands-on approach to teaching a broad range of topics, including wildlife management and conservation, wilderness survival, wildlife identification, bear safety, field care of game meat, marksmanship and game laws,” she said.

And while school archery programs might not be directly tied to hunter education, Game and Fish supports those too, Ball added.

“In addition, National Archery in the Schools Program is not only a great way to get kids physically active, but it also teaches valuable life skills to our students,” she said. “The program allows youth to learn focus, self-control, discipline and patience. These skills are not only foundational for hunting or bow fishing but also for life.”

Joe

BY DAVID BERNHARDT / REAL CLEAR ENERGY

Earlier this year, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released its proposed Public Lands rule. The rule seeks new regulations to prioritize “the health and resilience of ecosystems” across the 10% of American land the bureau manages. It would do this by deeming “conservation” a specific “use” of these lands.

Unlike recent bipartisan conservation legislation, this new proposed rule would steamroll Congress’ constitutionally granted powers to determine the use of federal lands. Moreover, it could create a backdoor route restricting public recreation on these lands.

Among other items, the proposed rule seeks to invent what it terms “conservation leases.” These leases would grant an individual, company, or non-profit the right and obligation to restore or protect the ecosystem on public land rather than allowing the land to be used for activities such as fish and wildlife development and utilization — meaning the promotion of animal habitats — or outdoor recreation, which have been primary uses under the existing law for up to a decade. While the new regulation would not affect pre-existing authorized activities on the land, no future rights or leases would be issued that infringed on the objectives of a conservation lease for the duration of its term.

This bureaucratic scheme is built on sand; the executive branch has neither the constitutional power nor the explicit congressional authority to provide leases for landscape conservation. According to Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power to “make all needful Rules and Regulations” concerning federal property, including public lands. Although Congress often tasks federal agencies and their leaders with developing these rules in practice, the administrative state does not enjoy a free hand to rewrite legislation on a whim.

Bureaucratic Land Grab

The Biden Administration claims it has this authority under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, which directs the bureau to administer public land “on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield.” When crafting the statute, Congress carefully defined the key terms, including “multiple use,” “sustained yield,” and “principle or major uses.”

In no section of the FLPMA is the BLM, while exercising the powers of the Secretary, explicitly empowered to issue leases exclusively for conservation. Moreover, the statute does not even use the term “ecosystem” or “conservation” except to describe some very particular tracts of land. Rather than modernizing the current law, the Biden Administration is trying to skirt the constitutionally mandated legislative process, most likely because they doubt Congress would embrace their policy vision.

Congress’ exclusive constitutional power to regulate federal land is not an obscure legal anachronism. The Great American Outdoors Act, for example, garnered overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and Senate before President Trump signed it into law in August 2020. The law created the largest-ever mandatory investment in public lands to restore national park infrastructure, develop recreation areas, and protect wildlife refuges. Unlike the Biden Administration’s proposed rule, the previous sensible modernization of statutes became law without running roughshod over the democratic process.

The flawed rationale and potential future abuse of the proposed novel conservation leases may explain the administration’s efforts to avoid a vote in Congress. The administration asserts that “the proposed rule does not prioritize conservation above other uses; it puts conservation on an equal footing with other uses.” This insinuation that environmental considerations are maligned or overlooked considerations in federal decision-making is an egregious myth. From the National Environmental Policy Act to

the Endangered Species Act, libraries could be filled with federal legislation and its associated caselaw that mandate and shape the consideration of environmental impacts in federal decision-making. But Congress’ notions of “multiple use” and “sustained yield” inform an understanding of the term “conservation” that is much broader than the preservation of landscapes. The administration’s proposed rule suggests that conservation is a discrete use among many; in reality, the existing framework makes conservation a factor in every existing land use.

Public access and unrestricted enjoyment of these public lands through outdoor recreation may, too, be in the crosshairs of conservation leaseholders. Hunting, fishing, and camping are all largely permitted across federal lands. However, the proposed rule warns that areas under conservation leases could be temporarily closed — to the public for up to a decade — due to “restoration activities or habitat improvements.” Without clear guidelines to safeguard community access, conservation leases may become a tool to restrict public recreation under the pretense of ongoing environmental restoration and mitigation for years at a time.

The Biden Administration’s efforts to “modernize” FLPMA after 47 years by adding new definitions to the statute through rulemaking may lead to a short-term policy change. But such a change is likely to be short-lived. The courts, or a different administration, will likely roll this proposal back if it is finalized as drafted unless Congress stops the rulemaking before that happens.

If the Biden Administration were serious about achieving long-term policy success, they would seek the authority they wanted from Congress. The Trump Administration demonstrated that recent conservation legislation can be bipartisan, focused, and achievable. It’s also the process our Constitution envisions.

David Bernhardt is Chair of the Center for American Freedom at the America First Policy Institute. He previously served as U.S. Secretary of the Interior.     ▫

Biden’s

A state away, Biden’s monument designation in Arizona impacts Utah

New Arizona National Monument is ‘Frustrating News’ For Utah Gov. Cox Climate Change Lawsuits More Than Double in Five Years

BY AMY JOI O’DONOGHUE / DESERET NEWS

At a time when the Biden administration is pursuing a carbon-free economy and pouring millions upon millions of dollars into the development of next generation nuclear technology, the Tuesday designation of a new national monument in Arizona is confounding to Utah Governor Spencer J. Cox.

The monument designation locks up the richest uranium deposits in the United States for future mining in the Grand Canyon area. Uranium is needed for nuclear fuel and the area is rich in other deposits.

“They (monument designations) also needlessly restrict access to the critical minerals that are key to cellphones, satellites, U.S. defense systems and so many other American industries,” Cox said in a statement.

“This monument designation is frustrating news, especially for residents of Utah along the Arizona strip. As I’ve said many times before, massive, landscape-scale monuments like this are a mistake. These designations increase visitation without providing any additional resources for law enforcement and infrastructure to protect sensitive areas.”

On his visit to Arizona amid a trip in the West that includes a stop Wednesday in Utah, Biden designated the 917,000 acre Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Grand Canyon National Monument in Arizona, bordering the nearby Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in the Kane County area but also encompassing lands south of Washington County.

It potentially impacts Hildale, which straddles the border of Arizona and Utah.

Cultural preservation

The monument designation had been sought by a number of Native American tribes to protect cultural resources in the region, numbering in the thousands. Those tribes include members of the Havasupai, Hopi and Hualapai tribes, as well as the Kaibab Paiute Tribe, the Las Vegas Band of Paiute, the Moapa Band of Paiutes, the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, the Navajo Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, the Pueblo of Zuni, and the Colorado River Indian Tribes.

Creation of the monument also had support by Arizona’s top political leaders such as Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Arizona, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Arizona.

The new monument brought praise from environmental groups and some recreational organizations.

“The establishment of this monument is driven by a large group of tribes, and it is both timely and critical that their narrative be a central part of the story of what makes this area magnificent and worthy of greater protection and respect,” said Director of Campaigns Lauren Bogard with the Center for Western Priorities.

The designation brought praise in terms of its ability to protect against future mining.

“The area and watershed surrounding Grand Canyon National Park has been at risk from a resurgence of uranium mining, threatening ancestral tribal homelands, wildlife, and limited clean water supplies. This move provides permanent protections that will conserve valuable U.S. landscapes for generations to come,” said Nicole Gentile, senior director of conservation at the Center for American Progress.

Collin O’Mara, chief executive officer of the National Wildlife Federation, said the action is protective of tribes and wildlife.

“Generations of Indigenous Peoples and other residents of Arizona carry with them the mistakes of dangerous uranium mining. The creation of the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni — Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument — cannot make them whole, but it will help spare future generations of people and wildlife from irreparable harm,” he said.

The tug-of-war over public lands

Utah Senator Mitt Romney, R-Utah, did not echo the praise of environmental groups, citing the area’s extreme importance in the area of mining resources critical for the nation.

“The Arizona Strip is one of the most productive uranium mining districts in the country.

By eliminating this important source of uranium, President Biden has increased both our dependence on Russia and China and our ultimate carbon footprint, while decreasing our energy efficiency. It is disappointing that with this proclamation, the president has once again ignored the concerns of those who live closest to the land.”

The prohibitions on new mining are against a backdrop of a uranium mining ban around the Grand Canyon issued under the Obama administration.

In a listening session in July, impacts to ranchers were also expressed as a concern over the designation.

“Although the national monument is located within the boundaries of Arizona, portions of the national monument will disproportionately affect ranchers in southern Utah by including a remote region of the state known as the Arizona Strip,” wrote Ron Gibson, president of the Utah Farm Bureau. “The Arizona Strip is geographically separated from the rest of Arizona, is sparsely populated and is culturally tied to Utah.”

Gibson pointed out that many ranchers in Kane and Washington counties graze their cattle at higher altitudes in southern Utah and later winter in the lower elevations found on the Arizona Strip.

Both Utah politicians — Cox and Romney — said they wish politics would stay out of the game of monument designations.

“National monuments have become a political football tossed back and forth as presidential administrations change,” Romney said, adding the designation continues the cycle of Antiquities Act abuse by the executive branch.

Cox said these monument creations need to be done a different way.

“I still believe the only right way to create large new land designations is through Congress in coordination with local leaders and residents, a process that brings all voices to the table and offers the necessary funding,” he said. ▫

BY GLORIA DICKIE/ RUETERS

The number of court cases related to climate change has more than doubled in five years as impacts ranging from shrinking water resources to dangerous heatwaves hit home for millions, a report said in late July.

Some 2,180 climate-related lawsuits have been filed across 65 jurisdictions over the past five years, according to the report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and New York’s Columbia University, which tracks ongoing climate cases in a global database.

As of 2017, there were just 884 cases documented in 24 jurisdictions, the report said.

“We’re seeing a huge increase in the number of cases,” said Maria Antonia Tigre, a senior fellow in global climate litigation at Columbia’s Sabin Center, who said the number of cases filed per year has doubled in the past five years.

While the United States still dominates with more than 1,500 cases, other countries are seeing increases. About 17 percent of cases have been filed in developing countries, according to the report, with rainforest-rich Brazil and Indonesia among the countries seeing the most.

As the public looks to governments and corporations to curb greenhouse gas emissions – and suffers the consequences when they don’t — “people are increasingly turning to the courts for answers,” said Andrew Raine, head of UNEP’s international environmental law unit.

In a landmark 2021 ruling, a Dutch court ordered Shell to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent from 2019 levels by 2030.

And thousands of elderly Swiss women have taken a case to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging their government’s “woefully inadequate” climate efforts have violated their human rights.

Many cases involve claims based on accusations of corporate greenwashing or advocating for greater climate disclosures. Some seek to hold governments to account for not enforcing climate-related laws and policies.

But experts said they expect more “backlash” cases in future as companies seek to protect fossil fuel operations and assets, as well as more cases brought forward by vulnerable groups suffering extreme weather impacts from climate change.

Youth climate activists have already played a central role, with 34 cases brought forward on behalf of children, teens, and young adults. Litigation targeting the disruptive actions of climate activists is also on the rise, Tigre said.

Reporting by Gloria Dickie in Toronto; Editing by Conor Humphries ▫