LMD August 2019

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

– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

August 15, 2019 • www.aaalivestock.com

Volume 61 • No. 8

The Programs

BY LEE PITTS

I

t will soon be Fall and the time for falling leaves and falling cattle prices. It will also be time for 20% of the ranchers in the country who calve in the Fall to buy their predominately yearling bulls so they’ll be ready for turnout around the first of December.

For ranchers in Spring calving country, which is most of the country, it’s time for ranchers to clip coupons. The two activities, buying bulls and selling calves, have always been closely related but now they are even more intertwined.

Going, Going, Gone If there was an anthem for the livestock marketing sector for the past three decades it would be a knock-off of Pete Seeger’s “Where Have all the Bidders Gone?” According to R CALF CEO Bill Bullard, we’ve lost 75% of our independent feedlots and nearly 80% of all beef packing plants since 1980. For the past 20 years farmer-feeders have been exiting the auction barn faster than diners at a Farm Bureau supper serving bad beans or e coli salad. That’s a lot of buying power that’s gone missing and if not replaced by another source of buyers, the beef business would already look like the pork and poultry industries where your only decision would be whose 24 page contract you signed.

Thankfully, another group of buyers has stepped in to fill the void, a group referred to by livestock auctioneers as “program cattle”.

Partners in Quality

NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING

The first “program” I ever

When you’re young and you fall off a horse, you may break something. When you’re my age, you splatter.

- Roy Rogers heard about was one started by the Harris Feeding Company in Coalinga, California. It was called Partners in Quality and it came about for basically two reasons: in 1982 Harris started one of the first branded beef companies in the U.S. and reason number two was it was tired of paying premium prices on the video sales for the type of cattle it needed for its fledgling branded beef program.

At the time I was a small shareholder and the announcer for Western Video Market, the second largest livestock marketing video company. We thought at the time that Partners In Quality was Harris’ answer to the video sale.

In California Harris is literally the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I can remember many sales when they pur-

chased nearly half our offering.

Feeding 125,000 head of cattle at a time and a quarter million a year required lots of cattle coming off grass and when they were “off the market,” as they sometime were, we were really worried at the video as to who would step forward and buy the cattle.

Twenty-five years ago if you drove by the Harris feedyard just off California’s main artery, I-5, you’d see a yard full of Holstein and Mexican cattle. When Harris started their own branded label they knew these weren’t the kind of cattle to build a program around.

They wanted cattle with a high degree of marbling, small ribeyes, and low fat. In short, they needed more Angus, but these kind of cattle were selling on the video at prices that

made it difficult to pencil out a profit. So they started Partners In Quality in which they’d target reputation cattlemen and either help them select their bulls at California’s run of Fall Angus bull sales, or sell them Angus bulls they had in inventory. Then they’d buy the cattle from the producers after weaning, coming off grass as yearlings or as finished cattle. Prices paid were determined by Cattle Fax. That’s the biggest complaint I’ve heard about the program and that was voiced by a Partner In Quality rancher who is currently President of the the California Cattlemen’s Association. Mark Lacey has always maintained that the prices the Partners receive for their cattle should be based on the video, not the Cattle Fax prices which always seemed to lag video sale prices.

Partners in Quality was a big success and the Harris brand of beef quickly became the best you could buy in the meat case. Smaller grocery chains throughout California used Harris beef to compete with the big chain stores who were selling generic beef.

Partners in Quality became the first marketing strategy continued on page two

RFID Ear Tags To Be Required USDA Identification for ADT by 2023

BY TIFFANY.DOWELL / TEXAS AGRICULTURE LAW BLOG

I

n April, the USDA announced it will be making changes to the mandatory Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) program concerning the type of ear tags that may be used in beef cattle, dairy cattle, and bison. [View Factsheet here.]

Keep in mind that this blog post addresses only the federal regulations applicable to interstate transport of livestock. State-specific rules apply to intrastate transport and many states may have import requirements for livestock from other states. For more information on state-specific regulations, click here.

Background The ADT program began in 2013 and requires that for certain animals moving in interstate commerce, an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (“health certificate”) and official identification must accompany the animal. The ADT program applies to sexually intact beef cattle and bison 18 months of age or older; all female dairy cattle of any age; all dairy males born after 3/11/13; and cattle or bison of any age used for rodeo, show, exhibition, and recreational events. (The program also applies to sheep, goats, horses,

swine, and poultry, but those rules are not being modified at this time, so this blog post will focus only on cattle and bison.) Exceptions apply for animals that are crossing state lines in order to go directly to an approved tagging site (such as a livestock auction), for animals moved directly to slaughter or through no more than one USDA approved livestock facility, and for commuter herds that travel between premises owned by the same person or entity in two different states.

Importantly, the USDA is not expanding the scope of the ADT program and these remain the only animals, at least for now, to which the mandatory rules are applicable.

Currently, producers can comply with the ADT rules by using dangle tags, electronic ear tags, or metal brite tags. The USDA provides the metal brite tags to producers for free.

Changes The USDA has announced its plan to convert the industry from the tagging system currently used to requiring all producers to utilize RFID tags by 2023. Remember, this still only applies to the category of animals described above (for beef cattle: sexually intact, over 18 months old, transported interstate). The following deadlines apply to this continued on page three

by LEE PITTS

House Calls

P

ETA has declared victory in their battle over fur and now they want to go to war over wool. I guess no one has told PETA that you don’t have to kill a sheep to get its wool like you have to kill a mink to get its fur. PETA wants folks to wear only “vegan wool” but isn’t it already?

PETA is going after wool because they say there’s a great deal of abuse and inhumane treatment in harvesting wool and I’d agree with them 100%. You see, I was a part-time sheep shearer in my younger days and I gotta tell you, shearing sheep was the hardest work I’ve ever done and my body took the most abuse of any job I’ve ever had. To the sheep it was like getting a haircut but to me it was like being in a big washing machine in the spin cycle for three hours.

PETA says that when sheep are sheared there is a lot of punching, kicking and beating going on and that’s true. While in all the years of raising sheep I never beat, punched or kicked a single sheep but shearing just a small farm flock of 30 ewes felt like going 15 rounds with George Foreman. If PETA really wants to do some good for society they ought to form a sister organization to one called PETSS, People For the Ethical Treatment of Sheep Shearers.

My shearing business consisted of making house calls that typically went something like this.

“Thanks for coming on a Sunday to shear our five ewes but its my only day off.”

“That’s okay. How did you find me?”

“I called the guy who sheared my sheep last year.

He says he quit the business right after he sheared our sheep last year.”

“Well, where are these sheep you want me to shear?”

“Oh, they’re still out to pasture. I’ve got the flu and thought you wouldn’t mind gathering them for me. Before we begin how much do you charge?”

“Well, it’s like the sign at your local mechanic’s shop.

If you serve in some sort of an advisory capacity it’s five dollars per head and I get to keep the wool. If you don’t help it’s only two dollars per head plus the wool.”

You’d have thought I slapped his mother. “Are

continued on page five

Page 2

Livestock Market Digest

August 15, 2019

PROGRAMS that we’d later refer to as “program” cattle.

By the way, the Harris feedlot and packing plant were recently sold to Central Valley Meat making it the 7th largest packer in the country.

Although Central Valley has made their business successful by killing cows and lots of Holsteins, rumor is they’ll continue the Partners in Quality Program and the Harris brand.)

Partnering Up

Tad Menefee

For more than 100 years, Farm Credit of New Mexico has been farmer and rancher owned. Over that time, we’ve helped countless family businesses prosper and grow. Unlike other financial institutions, we’re not a bank. We’re member-driven. What can we do for you?

farmcreditnm.com 1-800-451-5997

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

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

Telephone: 505/243-9515 Fax: 505/998-6236 www.aaalivestock.com EDITORIAL and ADVERTISING STAFF: CAREN COWAN..........Publisher LEE PITTS....................Executive Editor CHUCK STOCKS.........Publisher Emeritus RANDY SUMMERS......Sales Rep FALL MARKETING EDITION AD SALES:

Subscribe Today

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

NAME

DELVIN HELDERMON, 580/622-5754 1094 Koller Rd, Sulpher, OK ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF:

ADDRESS

MARGUERITE VENSEL..Office Manager CITY

My check is enclosed for:

STATE

ZIP

One Year: $19.94 Two Years: $29.95 Single copy: $10.00 Clip & mail to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

JESSICA DECKER..........Special Assistance CHRISTINE CARTER......Graphic Designer

Almost overnight, there was a plethora of branded programs and cattle we called natural, organic, or NHTC (Non-hormone treated) cattle.) The latter being cattle capable of producing beef eligible for export to the European Economic Union.

Because there has been an ever-growing number of consumers who want non-hormone beef that is either locally produced or sourced as to origin, practically every breed association worth its salt came up with a program or two to fit this need. Of course the Angus Association had Certified Angus beef that was “an overnight sensation” that took ten years to gain traction. They also came up with Angus Source that is popular with producers but is costly and time consuming for the Associatioo. The Hereford breed followed with Certified Hereford Beef and the Akaushi breed capitalized on its tendency to marble early to develop a product that is highly sought after. The Red Angus breed has a fabulous program for verified Red Angus cross feeder calves and I have seen first hand from the auction block how popular it is when bidding wars would break out. Of course, Coleman Natural Beef should probably deserve the crown for being the originator and King of the “natural” niche. But never before have we seen the latest trend that is buoying up prices while building better beef.

Coming Back to Earth I first saw the idea when Angus breeder Dan Byrd ran advertising saying he had a relationship with a packer and if you bought his bulls the packer would buy, or at least bid, on your calves. Then the idea exploded and a year ago, after the summer’s big video sales, it looked as though these purebred producer programs were going to become a major player in the market as most of the high selling lots were purchased by purebred bull producers who were basically buying their bull customers.

In some cases these purebred program cattle were bringing $20 per hundred more than other similar cattle. Believe me, that got everyone’s attention!

Before you knew it many of the leading bull producers in the West were either buying back the calves produced by their bulls, or getting a packer to buy them for a branded beef program. Leading purebred breeders including Express Ranches in Oklahoma and New Mexico, Lorenzen Red Angus in Oregon and Riverbend in Idaho had placed feeder calves sired by their bulls on grass throughout the West.

Agri-Beef has had a program of buying back Waygu sired

continued from page one

calves from their customers, Wulf Limousin has a special program we’ve written about here. And on and on the list grows.

Of course, the Goggin’s family in Montana has long been a buyer of Angus calves and yearlings sired by their Vermillion Ranch bulls. They also hod special sales of calves and yearlings sired by their bulls on their Northern Video sales, or sales at one of their three auction markets.

Serious About Steaks Perhaps the purebred program that’s garnered the most attention for their buyback program is 44 Farms from Texas. You may know them by their beautiful full color, full page ads that consist of their brand and the most beautiful steak you’ve ever seen. I think it’s the best beef advertising I’ve ever seen. Every time I see a 44 Farms ad it makes my mouth water and triggers an urge to barbecue a New York or filet mignon.

The secret to 44 Farm’s program is they are tied-in with Walmart and they have developed two feeder calf program’s to fill Walmart’s need. One is their Angus Strong® program.

Requirements for their Never Ever (NE3) feeder calf programs are as follows: • Never, ever, no antibiotics, no hormones, no ionophores • All Natural certification • Predominately 44 Farms genetics • Meet the USDA definition of Angus • Follows 44 Farm’s Right Way® animal health protocols • Weaned for a minimum of 45 days • No more than 90 days between the youngest to the oldest in group • Subject to minimal sort by a 44 Farms representative to ensure uniformity.

Walmart’s Prime Pursuits program is almost identical to that of 44 Farm’s and it was this Walmart connection that allowed 44 Farms to blow the roof off the market at last year’s run of summer video sales.

The prices at this summer’s video sales were excellent, but one thing that was evident was that the purebred breeders programs pulled in their horns.

The last six months have seen an excellent market for natural and “program” cattle and so the purebred accounts faced more competition. Plus, you can’t pay a $20 premium over the next guy and expect to be competitive in the meat case no matter how good the beef is.

44 Farms seemed less active during the summer sales and Steve Harrison, who was employed by 44 Farms to buy most of the cattle is no longer there. We can only surmise that when Walmart got the closeouts there was some pushback on the high acquisition costs and the premiums paid. When Harrison left 44 Farms he took some of 44 Farms customers with him.

Smaller purebred breeders who don’t have a connection or the cash to buy back their bull customers calves are at a complete disadvantage. Some would show up at Reno and continued on page three

August 15, 2019

PROGRAMS Winnemucca, sit with feedlot operators and try to get cozy with them. I saw this many times sitting on Western Video Market’s auction block. Others would have real relationships with feeders who would really attempt to buy the cattle if they knew they were outstanding.

Outfits like Rancho Casino’s David Maderos and Dave Dal Porto come to mind as having a real relationship with feeder Terry Beller. He’s fed the cattle, knows how good they are and always tries to buy them.

Other outfits like Vintage Angus and Tehama Angus comes are purebred outfits that have sale-topping averages without offering to buy back any calves.

The Road Not Taken So what path as a cowman should you follow? There’s no doubt the last six months has seen the natural/organic programs enjoy great prices. It’s certainly been worth the added hassle of having to wean your calves for 45 days. But we have seen this before, where non-hormone treated cattle, verified natural, organic, grassfed, humane handling naturals would fetch a $10 to $20 per hundredweight premium. But the market is thin and supply fills up in a hurry. Sometimes it pays big premiums to have your cattle certified by outfits like IMI or Global Animal Partnership Cattle, referred to as GAP Cattle.

In just ten years the GAP program has grown to include 3800+ farms and ranches across seven countries, with product available in 5000+ outlets! GAP is different from other animal welfare programs because they audit each and every farm every 15 months through different seasons and across production life cycles.

As a long time industry observer I’d suggest that if it’s possible to wean your calves for 45 days and you believe in the natural cattle concept,

Livestock Market Digest continued from page two

i.e. no hormones, by all means shoot for the natural niche.

There will be some years you don’t get paid for it but I submit that you’ll come out ahead in the long run.

If it’s impossible to wean your calves for 45 days you have no choice. Go for higher weaning weights and hope the difference in pounds makes up for the premium the natural cattle receive. And don’t cry or wonder why your cattle sold ten bucks back.

Foresee a day when the natural cattle concept will be the norm. Someday maybe the industry and the NCBA whose coffers have been made plump with drug company dollars will wake up and say, “No more hormones, no more ionophores. No more beta agonists. Our customers don’t want them and we should be producing and peddling what our customers demand.”

The main thing is you should keep selling at auction whatever path you chose instead of becoming a pawn and signing a contract.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, The only thing keeping the cattle business from transitioning to a contract industry like the pork and poultry industries is the competitive bidding that takes place at auction markets across the country and at video sales.

These auctions establish cattle prices in a competitive and transparent process.

You don’t see pathetic poultry being sold by the competitive tones of an auctioneer do you? And the pork business lost 90% of its producers when they started signing contracts instead of selling at auction.

No matter what program you choose we better keep competitive bidding alive or detecting a pulse on the live cattle market will be harder to find than any real meat in a Beyond Beef burger

Page 3

Deceased Navy Veteran’s Name Cleared in ‘Clean Water’ Case

BY KEVIN MOONEY / DAILY SIGNAL

A

fter being convicted, fined, and imprisoned under the Clean Water Act for digging ponds to protect his Montana home from forest fires, Joe Robertson had his name cleared last week.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Robertson’s conviction in a legal victory that comes posthumously, since the Navy veteran died four months ago at age 80.

Robertson was 78 when the federal prosecution led to his prison sentence in 2016; he completed his 18 months behind bars in late 2017.

At the time of his death March 18, he was supposed to be on parole for another 20 months.

Robertson also had been ordered to pay $130,000 in restitution through deductions from his Social Security checks.

The 9th Circuit initially upheld a lower court ruling against Robertson in November 2017 and denied him a rehearing in July 2018. But last November, hepetitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case.

On April 15, the high court responded by vacating the 9th Circuit ruling and sending the case back to that appeals court for further review.

Robertson’s widow, Carrie, had stepped in to carry on his legal battle. The Pacific Legal

Foundation, a nonprofit, public interest law firm specializing in property rights, represented the Robertsons in their legal dispute with federal officials.

Prior to his conviction, Robertson operated a business that supplied water trucks to Montana firefighters.

In 2013 and 2014, Robertson had dug a series of ponds close to an unnamed channel near his home, to store water in case of fire. The footwide, foot-deep channel carried the equivalent of two to three garden hoses of water flow, his petition says.

The EPA claimed the ditch was a federally protected waterway under the Clean Water Act, and Robertson needed a federal permit to dig the ponds.

But the Montana man argued that he didn’t violate the federal law because digging the ponds did not discharge any soil into “navigable waters,” since the flow in the channel didn’t amount to that. The ponds are more than 40 miles away from “the nearest actual navigable water body,” the Jefferson River, his petition argues.

With the 9th Circuit’s action July 10, Robertson’s case has been settled in his favor.

The federal government will return to his widow the $1,250 in restitution that Robertson already had paid, according to Pacific Legal Foundation’s press release.

TAGS requirement change: • December 31, 2019: USDA will no longer provide the metal brite tags at no cost. Approved vendors may still produce the tags for one more year for purchase by producers.

• January 1, 2021: USDA will no longer allow vendor production of official USDA metal brite tags. Metal brite tags and other visual, nonRFID tags may no longer be applied to animals, although the metal brite tags will still be recognized for animals previously tagged.

• January 1, 2023: RFID

continued from page one

tags will be the only recognized official USDA identification under ADT. The USDA believes these changes will help animal health officials ability to quickly trace animals in the event of an outbreak.

One note here–brands and tattoos may still be accepted as official identification if both the shipping and receiving State or Tribe agree to accept the brand instead of RFID tags.

Questions Remain There are a number of details still up in the air regard-

ing these changes. There has been some discussion that USDA may do some sort of cost-share program to assist producers with the costs of the mandatory RFID tags.

There will also be a need for technology like electronic readers at sale barns or other auctions, which USDA may provide assistance with.

For many cattle producer, this may be a big change and result in added expense as well.

It is important for producers to be aware of these changes and applicable deadlines.

Page 4

Livestock Market Digest

Lawmakers float carbon tax bills NICK SOBCZYK, E&E NEWS REPORTER

A

group of Democrats today introduced another carbon fee-and-dividend bill amid a flurry of activity on the issue this week on Capitol Hill.

Sens.

Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) this morning announced the “Climate Action Rebate Act,” which aims to reduce greenhouse gas pollution 55% over 2017 levels by 2030. Rep. Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) introduced a companion in the House.

Also today, Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) is planning to float his own $30-per-ton tax on carbon, with revenues used to slash payroll taxes (Climatewire, July 24).

Rooney and Coons have endorsed various other carbon pricing proposals in the past, but their two new bills underscore the strategy for carbon pricing backers — to put as many proposals on the table as possible and see where Republicans will bite.

Coons said he’s still looking for a Republican co-sponsor in the Senate and plans to introduce an amended version of the legislation if he finds one.

He’s also been shopping for a GOP partner to reintroduce the Senate version of the “Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act,” H.R. 763, the bipartisan legislation Rooney and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) have sponsored in the House with backing from Citizens’ Climate Lobby and other centrist advocacy organizations.

“Long-term, part of what we’re doing here is putting out ideas and then seeing what the response is,” Coons told reporters this morning.

The new legislation would put a fee on emissions starting at $15 per

metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, rising by $15 annually, or more if emissions reduction targets aren’t hit.

Most of the revenue — 70% — would be distributed as a monthly dividend to households making less than $150,000 a year, while the remainder would be invested in developing clean energy technology and in infrastructure, including the Highway Trust Fund.

That’s in contrast to the “Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act,” which would distribute all net revenues to the public.

Coons’ most recent bill also includes a border adjustment, an effort to prevent energy-intensive U.S. producers from facing additional competition from overseas companies.

But unlike other carbon pricing proposals, it does not touch Clean Air Act greenhouse gas regulations, often a point of contention on the climate policy world.

Other proposals, including the bipartisan bill in the House, would suspend regulatory authority in exchange for the carbon fee, or, in some cases, nix greenhouse gas regulations altogether.

Coons acknowledged that the Clean Air Act likely would have to be on the table if he wants Republicans to jump on board.

“I recognize that some sort of consideration of a temporary suspension or a conditional suspension is part of conversations with Republicans,” he said. “But this is a bill that is my ideal bill, and in order to get to a bipartisan bill, there’s a number of things that might have to change.”

Separately today, Sens.

Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) introduced legislation to allow people to invest in Clean Energy Victory Bonds.

August 15, 2019

Maine & Nevada Show Why the Electoral College Helps Small States, Not Red States HANS VON SPAKOVSKY / LAURA WILLIAMSON / HERITAGE FOUNDATION

I

n June 2019, both Maine and Nevada did what was in the best interests of their states: They rejected bills that would have enrolled their states in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an unwise effort to override the Electoral College.

In Maine, it was killed by legislators in the state House after it passed Maine’s Senate.

In Nevada, Democratic Governor Steve Sisolak vetoed the bill that had been passed by members of his own party in the Legislature.The National Popular Vote compact, which is an agreement between states, requires a participating state to award all of its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes across the nation, not to the candidate who actually won the vote in that state.

In other words, states are agreeing to ignore what the majority of voters in their state decides when it comes to who they believe should be president.

This interstate compact has been sold to state governments as a means to abolish what supporters wrongly claim is the “outmoded, undemocratic Electoral College.”

What is “undemocratic” is an agreement that means that even if every single voter in a state voted against a presidential candidate who won the national popular vote, the state would still have to give all its electoral votes to that candidate.

The National Popular Vote effort was started by a frustrated Al Gore elector after the 2000 election, and the progressive left has poured huge amounts of money and resources into lobbying states to adopt the plan. After Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, the compact gathered even more steam.

Sixteen states have now passed laws to enter this compact, representing 196 of the 270 electoral votes the compact would need to constitute a majority in the Electoral College and trigger its implementation.

Nonetheless, Maine and Nevada are among at least seven states to have rejected the compact. When Nevada’s governor vetoed the compact, he correctly warned that it would “di-

minish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

Those fears are right on target, and are in fact one of the main reasons the Framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College. They feared that under a national popular vote system, presidential candidates would just campaign in the big cities and urban areas, ignoring the less populated, more rural parts of the country.

Thus, they implemented a system where the president is not elected by a direct vote but by electoral votes made on behalf of the states. Each state, no matter how small its population, has at least three electoral votes, since the number of votes the state has is based on how many senators and representatives that state has in Congress.

States with larger populations still have an advantage because they have more representatives in the House. However, under the new compact, the votes of the smaller states would be completely dwarfed by cities and states with larger populations.

Under the Electoral College system, although smaller states do not have as much influence as places like California, New York, or Texas, their votes still matter because their (at minimum) three electoral votes guarantee at least some representation of their state’s collective will out of the 538 total votes.

The nine most populous states contain 51 percent of America’s population. Under the National Popular Vote compact, a candidate could spend her entire campaign in big cities in California, Texas, Florida, and New York in order to win the election. States like Maine and Nevada wouldn’t even make the list of campaign stops.

Something that so clearly disenfranchises the interests of the other 41 states ought to inspire concern across the political spectrum.

In Maine, after the compact was voted down by a bipartisan legislative coalition, the Free Maine Campaign, founded by former state Sen. Eric Brakey, stated, “This isn’t about Republican versus Democrat.

This about whether we #SaveMainesVoice or give our voting power to big cities like NYC and Chicago.”

They’re right.

The Framers wanted a presidential candidate to win a series of regional elections so they would represent the diverse interests of different parts of the country.

In 2017, Yahoo Finance did an analysis of each state based on their largest industries.

Maine’s primary industries are hospitals as well as nursing and residential care facilities.

Nevada’s primary industry is accommodation (tourism). California’s largest industries are computers and electronics manufacturing.

It is plainly obvious that, even from a purely economic perspective, these states have vastly different interests.

Under the National Popular Vote compact, the voices of states with smaller populations (like Maine and Nevada) would be quickly drowned out by states with larger populations (like California and New York).

This would create what Alexis de Tocqueville warned against when he spoke of the potential for democracy to lead to a “tyranny of the majority.” It was for this reason that the Founding Fathers did not establish a pure democracy.

The National Popular Vote compact is unfair and is, in fact, antithetical to representative democracy. For a small state like Maine or Nevada to pass this compact is self-destructive—and it also potentially thwarts the votes of residents of larger states as well.

Article II of the Constitution prescribes the Electoral College as the method by which the president is chosen. The National Popular Vote compact is an underhanded attempt to get rid of the Electoral College without going through the formal process of amending the Constitution.

The compact’s backers even claim they can ignore the compact clause of the Constitution that, under Supreme Court precedent, requires this type of interstate compact to be approved by Congress.

Under the compact, smaller states like Maine and Nevada would suffer the most under the inevitable tyranny of the most populous states.

August 15, 2019

Livestock Market Digest

Page 5

Why State and Local Governments Are Suing Over Climate Change

BY EMMA COLEMAN ROUTEFIFTY.COM

P

iggybacking off a legal strategy that proved successful decades ago against the tobacco industry, as many as 15 local and state governments in recent years have filed lawsuits against companies that produce fossil fuels, seeking reimbursement for the costs associated with both past and future damages caused by climate change.

Local governments argue these companies are to blame for the greenhouse gases produced by their products, which contribute to higher average temperatures and rising sea levels, as well as more frequent extreme weather occurrences like rainstorms, drought, and hurricanes. For governments, all of these changes are expensive, requiring them to adapt infrastructure and services for residents.

“We’re seeing quite a diversification of people bringing cases,” said Joana Setzer, a research fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science who recently co-authored a study that looked at trends in climate change litigation around the globe. While previous climate litigants were more likely to be non-profit environmental groups, governments for the first time are taking center stage in court, she said.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits seem to be following the strategy laid out by states that brought litigation in the 1990s against tobacco companies, said Setzer. Forty states sued tobacco companies under state consumer protection laws, alleging that the companies were liable for the costs that tobacco-related illnesses put on public health systems. By 1998, 46 state attorneys general reached a settlement in the state cases with four tobacco companies, in which the companies agreed to pay an annual sum to states.

Now, cities are hoping to invoke a similar president to ensure that the cost of dealing with climate won’t fall solely to taxpayers. The first eight climate suits were filed in 2017

by counties and localities in California, most notably San Francisco and Oakland. Cities across the country took notice, and by 2018, suits had also been filed by New York City, Seattle, Baltimore, and Boulder, Colorado. Rhode Island was the first state to pursue a legal suit.

Defendants in the suits include

Aside from the San Francisco ruling, Setzer said coastal cities might have the strongest cases, as there is plentiful research linking greenhouse gas emissions to rising sea levels.

“Those cases look mostly into the future,” she said. “They estimate how much the government will have to spend now to

The company later dropped the suits, but said that officials believed their cases “brought important issues to the attention of the respective cities and counties…” major oil and gas companies like Exxon, BP, and Chevron, in addition to some smaller corporations.

The legal strategy was dealt a serious setback in June 2018, when a federal judge rejected the San Francisco and Oakland cases. The other California cases, however, were remanded back to state court, where they remain active.

“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,” Alsup said.

The president of the National Association of Manufacturers, Jay Timmons, said in a statement after the ruling that this should serve as a warning for other cities.

“Other municipalities around the country who have filed similar lawsuits should take note as those complaints are likely to end the same way,” he said.

“New York City, Boulder, and the other California municipalities should withdraw their complaints and follow the lead of others that are focused on meaningful solutions.”

RIDING HERD you kidding? That’s outrageous! If you keep the wool I won’t be able to get the wool subsidy from the USDA.” “Well sir, I had to drive an hour to get here, I’ve already wasted an hour gathering your sheep plus I think I sprained my ankle jumping over those rusted bedsprings in your pasture. I may also need a tetanus booster.”

“You won’t hurt the sheep, will you? I saw some nomads on the National Geographic Channel shear their sheep and they tied the sheep up and made them bleed. Then I went on YouTube and discovered that there’s this all new “Natural Way” to shear sheep where you chant to soothe them while you shear.”

“I promise it won’t hurt your sheep any worse than it hurt you to get that big ugly tattoo on your arm. What is that thing, some sort of dragon?”

“No, it’s a likeness of my girlfriend.”

“Oops. Sorry about that. Let’s get started, shall we? We’re burning daylight and I’ve got two more house calls after this.”

avoid future damages.”

Local governments have brought a variety of legal strategies to court to argue these cases, using public nuisance laws, human rights standards, and violations of the Clean Air Act, as well as more novel strategies that use fraud and consumer protection legislation that hadn’t previously been used in environmental lawsuits. As with the tobacco lawsuits, one common thread in the lawsuits is accusing fossil fuel companies of publicly concealing the threats posed by climate change when their own internal research acknowledged the devastating potential of global warming.

Setzer said it’s likely that more and more cases will go beyond environmental law, delving into tax and commercial law, or going after subsidies the companies have taken.

Whatever strategy they take, Setzer said local governments might not necessarily bring their cases to win. As with litigation against the tobacco industry, where it took years to reach a consolidated settlement, the first cases in the trend might

continued from page one

“You sure make it look easy. You say you’re chargin’ me two dollars plus keeping the wool?”

“You can have the wool. It’s so dirty and full of stickers it’s useless anyway. And if you’re so worried about the welfare of your sheep why did you let their hooves curl up like a French Horn.”

“For as much as your charging you should throw in a free hoof trimming too. And could you drench them for me while you’re at it?”

After I finished I said, “That will be all of ten dollars.”

“You’ll take a check won’t you? Oops, I see I don’t have any checks left. Can you bill me?

I’ll need a receipt for the wool subsidy anyway.

And while you’re here, you wouldn’t mind trimming the hooves on our horse, would you?

We can’t seem to be able to find a horseshoer after the last one went on Facebook® to describe his experience. wwwLeePittsbooks.com

be made to inflict reputational damage on companies. “That’s hard to measure in these strategic cases, but is something that’s part of the equation,” she said.

“They are other ways to win besides in court.”

Richard Herz, the senior litigation attorney for EarthRights International, who is working on the Colorado case brought by Boulder and San Miguel counties against Suncor Energy, said the lawsuit is not meant to be a symbolic action, however. The counties are suing Suncor, an oil company based in Denver, for “causing and exacerbating climate change,” which they link to more frequent wildfires and flooding in their area.

“These communities are facing significant costs that will mount exponentially over time due to the impacts of climate change,” Herz said. “And this case is meant to determine whether that cost should be borne entirely by taxpayers or if some of that responsibility should fall on those who caused that damage.”

Herz said that the Colorado counties are dealing with increased and more intense wildfires, heat waves, and infestations of pine beetles, along with changing precipitation patterns, worse ground-level ozone, and infrastructure problems. Because of these highly-localized effects, Herz said that communities should be able to seek their own legal remedies.

In court, Suncor has responded that the company is wrongly being held liable for problems that are much broader than is reasonable. “Plaintiffs’ claims derive from the nationwide and global activities of not only Suncor Energy...but also billions of fossil fuel consumers,” a one motion reads. “As such, Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants liable for global conduct—the vast majority of which involved nonparties and occurred outside of Colorado.”

A central dispute in these lawsuits is whether the legal challenges should play out in state or federal courts. (This was also the case in tobacco litigation, when companies argued that federal law regulating to-

bacco preempted state law, and therefore they could not be sued in state court.) Companies have argued to remove cases from state to federal court, often because they say that local governments are asking the court to step into the shoes of lawmakers and regulate emissions.

In one such motion to move to federal court, Suncor said that pursuing this case in state court would be asking “the judiciary to wade into the thicket of the ‘worldwide problem of global warming.’”

Herz said that is a mischaracterization of what local governments are actually seeking.

“These are local issues seeking remedy under state tort law,” he said. “It’s not about regulating emissions at all, it’s about making them pay their fair share.”

As Congress has seemed reluctant to take up the climate change issue, Herz argued the courts are the only option for cities and states seeking money to pay for mitigation efforts.

In order to win that financial relief, however, local governments often have to spend thousands of dollars on litigation, money that critics say could go elsewhere in the community— making the decision whether or not to sue a challenging one.

Setzer said that local governments are in a tough position, as they are more at risk than the federal government to have litigation brought against them by citizens and insurance companies if it appears they aren’t doing enough to respond to climate change. Because of that, Setzer said it’s likely that the country will see more cases like one in Illinois, where in 2014, Farmers Insurance brought class action suitsagainst nearly 200 Chicago-area local governments, charging that the municipalities did not account for the effects of climate change in their stormwater management plans. The company later dropped the suits, but said that officials believed their cases “brought important issues to the attention of the respective cities and counties, and that our policyholders’ interests will be protected by the local governments going forward.”

Page 6

Livestock Market Digest

August 15, 2019

The BLM’s ‘West Side Story’ Senator Cory Gardner (RCO) went public with the info on July 15.

T

he official announcement of the Trump administration’s reorganization of the Bureau of Land Management was made via a letter to Congress, as required by law, on July 16.

The BLM Director, Deputy Director of Operations, Assistant Directors and some of their staff, totaling 27 positions, will be relocated from Washington D.C. to Pueblo, Colorado. In addition, 222 employees currently performing headquarters duties will continue to perform those duties but from western states “in order to optimize the BLM’s presence where the needs are greatest.” An additional 74 technical positions will be assigned to various western states. About 84 percent of the Washington staff will be relocated westerly. New Mexico will receive 32 new positions.

Sixty positions will remain in D.C., including the Deputy Director of Policy and Programs, and those involved in legislative affairs, public affairs and other functions best suited to a D.C. presence.

Environmental groups and elected officials who support a more centralized, top-down, form of natural resource management are having a fit.

Kate Kelly, public lands director for the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, says, “The true impact of this move is to make the agency and its leadership invisible in a city where — like it or not — the decisions about budgets and policies are made. The constant

shuffling, shrinking and disassembling of BLM’s workforce will have long-term implications for the health of the agency.”

Like many of the opponents of this move, she seems to care more about the health of the agency than she does the condition of our natural resources or the citizens of the West.

“Any movement like that costs a lot of money, creates a lot of uncertainty and causes angst with employees,” said Elizabeth Klein, former associate deputy secretary at the Interior Department during the Obama Administration.

Uh oh, this will cause angst in some of the employees. Is this the same type of angst suffered by ranchers who have had their grazing permits diminished or canceled? Is this the same type of angst suffered by those whose homes and property are destroyed by out-of-control wildland fire? Is this the same type of angst suffered by those who have lost their jobs as a result of some bug or plant that is protected?

Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) says, “BLM leadership must be accessible and accountable to all affected states and to Congress, which sits in Washington.

A sudden relocation would also likely mean BLM would shed

Baxter BLACK ON THE EDGE OF COMMON SENSE www.baxterblack.com

Sir Loin

D

o you have any friends named James Roberto, Barnard or Elizabeth who don’t go by Jim Bob, Barney or Liz? If you do, they are no doubt a hangover from parents who insisted that their children be addressed by their legal name.

Unfortunately, some who are so named don’t quite fit the image. Like a Terrier-Possum cross who goes by the moniker “King”.

Names engender certain expectations...”So, what do you do, Elizabeth?...Oh. A professional wrestler, I see...”

History tells us that an ancient king liked the haunch of beef so well that he knighted it. It was thereafter call Sir

Loin.

It is my opinion that, like some of my friend’s appellations, Sir Loin is misnamed.

Because of its regal sounding name it is often touted by restaurants, supermarkets and fast food steak houses as their specialty. I am occasionally served a sirloin steak in good faith by folks. I gnaw and tear my way through the six-ply slab, gritting my teeth and trying to smile.

But no more! In the name of Sir Rib Eye, true heir to the throne, I proclaim the Sirloin steak is the most overrated piece of meat on the carcass.

Its next-door neighbors, the Rump and Round, make no pretense of being tender. They accept being pounded with a ballpeen, cut thin or roasted for hours as part of their lot in life.

But Sir Loin has let his name go to his head. He forgets sometimes that he comes

essential staff, crippling the agency’s ability to carry out its responsibilities to protect and manage our precious public lands. Based on what I know so far, I have serious reservations about this plan…”

Again, more concern about Congress “which sits in Washington”, and federal employees than the residents and resources of the West.

Other opponents are attempting to use the transfer of lands to the states as a reason to oppose this reorganization.

Former BLM Director Robert V. Abbey, who served in the Obama administration says, “It’s just another step that they are taking that will add credence to those advocates that say these lands should be managed by the states.”

“They want to dissolve gradually the federal BLM agency and transfer the responsibility and, more importantly, the assets to states, which robs the rest of the country of an asset they’ve been paying for,” says Patrick Shea, a former BLM Director who served during the Clinton administration.

I wish this were true, but it is not. It is just another arrow pulled from their quiver in a transparent effort to stymie reform. They conveniently forget from a working class neighborhood. Hangin’ around the hip bone, developing his muscles by driving 1,100 pounds of beef around for two years.

He looks up the block at the T-bone and the Tenderloin and envies their popularity.

This is not to say that the Sirloin is a bad cut of meat.

But it should not pretend to royalty. I think with proper counseling it could seek a niche where so much was not expected of it. Like the Brisket and Flank steak have done. It could have a future in fajitas, hamburger or kabobs.

I am aware that from a marketing standpoint the name Sirloin on the menu commands a higher price.

Then somewhere down the line we carved off the Top Sirloin to market to people with less stamina. But you cannot make a silk purse out of a gluteus medius muscle.

We have unfairly saddled a journeyman piece of meat with a name it can never live up to.

Had we named it properly, Sir Loin wouldn’t feel so inadequate. He would have no need to put on airs. After all, he is not a Reginald or Montgomery. He is a Mo or a Bubba. Sir Loin could learn a lesson from Chuck. www.baxterblack.com

headquarters move “threatens to devalue the mission and importance of the Bureau of Land Management.”

I can tell you from personal experience in D.C. that the BLM has long been jealous of other land management agency’s budgets and programs, especially those of the Forest Service.

BLM’ers were very resentful of always being considered a stepchild of natural resource management. Just watch them play copycat to Smokey. The Forest Service had many restrictive land-use designations. The BLM finally convinced Congress to create the National Conservation Lands System, along with the accompanying appropriations. The Forest Service and the National Park Service had national monuments, now BLM has them too. The Forest Service had a centralized system of law enforcement. BLM moved their LEO’s out from under the State Directors and created a national office. The Forest Service had administratively created roadless areas, and now BLM has administratively created “lands with wilderness characteristics”.

This struggle to upgrade the personnel and programs of the BLM has received a setback.

That ego is definitely being bruised.

Until next time, be a nuisance to the devil and don’t forget to check that cinch.

that then candidate Donald Trump was the only Republican in the presidential primaries to oppose the transfer of certain federal lands to the states.

Interior Spokesman Molly Block says, “We are not doing anything to change the legal basis of BLM’s role in land management, or the continued federal ownership of public lands administered out West by BLM.” Interior says their plan places emphasis on the need to align its personnel footprint with their resources footprint, which is primarily located in the West.

I believe that approach deserves support. It will not come close, however, to solving our problems in the West. As long as the Endangered Species Act, Antiquities Act, NEPA, FLPMA and so on remain intact, we will continue to be harmed. It is the laws that are flawed, not the geographical location of the decision maker.

The Republicans had a two-year window to address this, and did nothing. Now, with the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives, it would appear this little reorganization is all we can hope for in the near term. And make no mistake, the enviros and certain members of Congress will do all they can to prevent even this little reform from happening.

I will share with you the real loser in this proposal: The BLM’s ego.

David J. Hayes, a former deputy Interior secretary in the Obama administration, says the

Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner. blogspot.com) and is the founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation

! w o N e b i r ubsc

S

ive

ormat

tion ...

ublica

ck p livesto

k c o t s LiveDigest ost inf

t’s m thwes

u

The So

KET

MAR

S

3Yes.

Please subscribe me to the Livestock Market Digest for:

1 Year at $19.95

2 Years at $29.95

NAME

NAM

ADDRESS

ADD

PHONE

PHO

E-MAIL

E-M

MC

VISA

CARD NUMBER

CAR

EXPIRATION DATE

EXP

SIGNATURE

SIG

Payment Enclosed

SEND PAYMENT TO: Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194

@

or subscribe online

P

SEN AAALIVESTOCK.COM

Liv P.O Alb

August 15, 2019

Livestock Market Digest

Page 7

Selling residential, farm, ranch, commercial and relocating properties.

COLETTA RAY

Pioneer Realty 1304 Pile Street, Clovis, NM 88101

REAL ESTATE GUIDE

Bar M Real Estate

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

Scott Land co.

Ranch & Farm Real Estate

575-799-9600 Direct 575.935.9680 Office 575.935.9680 Fax coletta@plateautel.net www.clovisrealestatesales.com

WE NEED LISTINGS ON ALL TYPES OF AG PROPERTIES LARGE OR SMALL!

■ POST, TX. – 6,376.92 acre ranch in Kent Co., TX on lvstk./wildlife watering w/potential for commercial water pvmt. & on all weather roads w/a virtually brand new sales, all weather road. Adjoins the Pajarito Creek Ranch custom built home, really nice guest/hunting lodge, if more acreage is desired. state-of-the-art barns & pens, a complete line of farm & ■ PECOS RIVER RANCH – Guadalupe Co., NM – ranch equipment, a registered Red Angus herd of cows, Scenic, 968 +/- ac. deeded & 519 +/- state lease acres, mineral income w/potential for commercial water sales live water ranch on both sides of the Pecos River (strong & secluded, beautiful areas w/bluffs & meadows around flow daily) between Santa Rosa & Ft. Sumner; wildlife, every turn in the road, an excellent supply of stock water paired w/water & cattle for the buyer looking for top tier from subs & windmills, deep year round dirt tanks & The assets in a rugged New Mexico ranch!

North Fork of the Brazos River through the ranch.

■ LOGAN/NARA VISA, NM – 980 ac. +/- w/940.6 ■ TOP OF THE WORLD II – Colfax Co., NM – ac. CRP, irrigated in the past, land lays good & is located 7402.09 ac. +/- (4,789.69 Deeded – 2,612.4 State on the north side of Hwy. 54.

Lease) w/historic “POINT OF ROCKS” monument on the Santa Fe Trail, attractive improvements, all weather ■ SANTA ROSA, NM – 78 ac. +/- heavily improved for horses, cattle & other livestock w/virtually new barns, access! pens, cross fences etc., on city water, w/internet access ■ EAST EDGE OF FT. SUMNER, NM – immaculate to the front gate.

7.32 ac. +/- w/a beautiful home, a 900 hd. grow yard & other improvements w/a long line of equipment ■ OTERO CO., NM – 120 scenic ac. +/- on the Rio Penasco is surrounded by Lincoln National Forest lands included, on pvmt. covered in Pines & opening up to a grass covered ■ MIAMI SPECIAL – Colfax Co., NM – 40 ac. +/- meadow along 3,300 feet +/- of the Rio Penasco. This w/irrigated pastures, great cattle working & handling property is an ideal location to build a legacy mountain Call Vistafrom Realty at 575-226-0671 or the listing agent facilities & a beautiful home, on Buena pvmt., irrigated getaway home.

Lori Bohm 575-760-9847, or Melody Sandberg 575-825-1291.

Miami Lake.

■ – 472.4 ac. irr., on Dalhart/ good onTEXLINE MLS orSPECIAL www.buenavista-nm.com ■ TOP OF THE WORLD Many – Union Co., pictures NM – Clayton hwy. in New Mexico, adjoins the Grassland w/ 5,025.76 +/- ac. of choice grassland w/state-of-the-art Organic Potential. working pens, recently remodeled bunk house, barbed wire fences in very good to new condition, well watered, ■ GRASSLAND W/ORGANIC POTENTIAL – Union Co., NM - adjoins the Texline Special, 927.45 ac. +/-, on pvmt. on pvmt.

■ UNION CO., NM – 955 ac. +/- w/excellent improvements for a stocker or cow/calf operation, ■ FT. SUMNER, NM – 17 ac. +/- w/water rights modern ¼ mi. sprinkler, all-weather roads on three currently planted in alfalfa & a beautiful home built in 2007 w/3 bdrms., 3 bathrooms, an oversize garage & a sides, 374 ac. +/- CRP. 24X50 metal shop.

■ WE CAN NOW DIVIDE - THE PAJARITO RANCH – Guadalupe Co., NM as follows: 3501.12 ac. +/- of ■ PRICE REDUCED! MALPAIS OF NM – Lincoln/ grassland w/a commercial water well located adjacent Socorro Counties, 37.65 sections +/- (13,322 ac. +/to I40 w/capability of producing large incomes together Deeded, 8,457 ac. +/- BLM Lease, 2,320 ac. +/- State w/a great set of pens, a 17,000 gal. water storage tank, Lease) good, useable improvements & water, some overhead cake bin, hay barn & other stock wells. 700.89 irrigation w/water rights for 2 pivot sprinklers, on pvmt. ac. +/- of grassland can be purchased in addition to the & all-weather road.

3501.12 ac. The beautiful, virtually new custom built ■ BROWN CO., TX. – near Brookesmith - 424.79 ac. home w/all amenities and a large virtually new metal +/-, very scenic ranch w/one mi. of Clear Creek, highly barn w/an apartment inside on 40 ac. can be purchased improved ranch w/fencing, well watered, home, hunting separately or w/the ranch. Adjoins the Boylan Ranch if cabin & abundant wildlife. more acreage is desired.

■ LIITLE RIVER RANCH – Pottawatomie Co., OK – ■ THE BOYLAN RANCH – Newkirk, NM - 2,360 ac. 950 ac. +/-, beautiful home, excellent facilities, highly +/- w/useable house & pens, a large domestic well for productive, 40 mi. SE of Oklahoma City.

505-507-2915 cell 505-838-0095 fax

AsLow LowAsAs 3% As 4.5% OPWKCAP 2.9% OPWKCAP 2.9%

775/752-3040

1301 Front Street, Dimmitt, TX 79027 Ben G. Scott - Broker Krystal M. Nelson - NM Qualifying Broker 800-933-9698 • 5:00am/10:00pm www.scottlandcompany.com

Donald Brown

Qualifying Broker

AG LOANS AGLAND LAND LOANS

Paul Bottari, Broker

www.bottarirealty.com

On the Plaza

116 Plaza PO Box 1903 Socorro, NM 87801 www.socorroplazarealty.com dbrown@socorroplazarealty.com

Bottari Realty Nevada Farms & raNch PrOPerTY

SOCORRO PLAZA REALTY

INTEREST RATESAS AS LOW 3% INTEREST RATES LOW ASAS 4.5% Payments Scheduledon on2525 Years Payments Scheduled Years

521 West Second St. • Portales, NM 88130

575-226-0671 or 575-226-0672 fax

Buena Vista Realty

Joe Stubblefield & Associates 13830 Western St., Amarillo, TX 806/622-3482 • cell 806/674-2062 joes3@suddenlink.net Michael Perez Associates Nara Visa, NM • 575/403-7970

Qualifying Broker: A.H. (Jack) Merrick 575-760-7521 www.buenavista-nm.com

TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES • 890 acre Hunt Co, Texas near Dallas, McKenney and Greenville, Texas. Immaculate 5,000 sq. ft. home, 40 lakes and ponds, corrals, barns, living apartment. Some minerals. $3.9 million for real estate only. Could buy equipment and cattle separately.

521 West Second St., Portales, NM 88130

575-226-0671 www.buenavista-nm.com

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

• 160 acre Ranger Eastland Co, $560,000 • 270 acre Mitchell County, Texas ranch. Investors dream; excellent cash flow. Rock formation being crushed and sold; wind turbans, some minerals. Irrigation water developed, crop & cattle, modest improvements. Just off I-20. Price reduced to $1.25 million.

Joe Priest Real Estate

1-800/671-4548

joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.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.

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.

No improvements & very private inside the ranch.

Now only $625 per acre - $798,750.

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

SULTEMEIER RANCH – First time offering of a ranch that has been owned and operated by the

same family for over 70 years. Fifteen miles southeast of Corona, NM in Lincoln County. 11, 889 Deeded Acres, 1,640 Federal BLM Lease Acres and 2,240 NM State Lease Acres. Grazing Capacity estimated at 300 AUYL. Water provided by five wells and pipelines. Improved with two residences, barns and corrals. The ranch had a good summer with abundant grass. Good mule deer habitat. Call for a brochure or view on my website. Price: $4,400,000 $4,100,000

SOLD

19th STREET FARM – Located just outside the city limits of Roswell, NM. Six total acres with 5.7

acres of senior artesian water rights. Improved with a 2, 200 square foot residence, horse barn with stalls, enclosed hay barn with tack room and loafing shed. Price: $400,000

COCHISE RANCH – Ranch property located just west of Roswell, NM along and adjacent to U.S.

Highway 70/380 to Ruidoso, NM. Comprised of 6,607 deeded acres and 80 acres of NM State Lease acres. Water is provided by three solar wells and pipelines. Fenced into several pastures and small traps suitable for a registered cattle operation. Improvements include two sets of pens, shop, and hay barn. Price: $2,500,000 Scott McNally, Qualifying Broker Bar M Real Estate, LLC P.O. Box 428, Roswell, NM 88202 Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237 www.ranchesnm.com

O’NEILL LAND, llc P.O. Box 145, Cimarron, NM 87714 • 575/376-2341 • Fax: 575/376-2347 land@swranches.com • www.swranches.com

CHICO CREEK RANCH, Colfax County, NM. NEW LISTING. 6,404.26 +/- Total Acres, Located approximately 10 miles east of Springer New Mexico. 3,692.60 +/- deeded acres with balance in state lease.

Excellent grass and water. Two plus miles of the Chico Creek meandering through the center of the property. Additional wells and dirt tanks. Nice historic head quarters privately located with shade trees and excellent views of the property. Shipping pens in central portion of property. $2,837,318 WAGON MOUND RANCH, Mora/Harding Counties, NM. 8,880.80 +/- Total Acres, a substantial holding with good mix of grazing land and broken country off rim into Canadian River. Has modern water system located 17 miles east of Wagon Mound off pavement then 3 miles on county road. Two bedroom historic house, once a stage stop.

Wildlife include antelope, mule deer and some elk. $2,710,000.

CIMARRON ON THE RIVER, Colfax County, NM. 7.338 +/- deeded acres with 4.040 acre-feet per annum out of the Maxwell-Clutton Ditch. Custom country-chic 2,094 +/- sq ft home. Owns both sides of river in places. Horse/cow/chicken/vegetable garden/greenhouse/ orchard set up. Country living at it’s finest, in town, but in a world of your own. Very special on river. Appointment only. $650,000. $610,000.

RATON MILLION DOLLAR VIEW, Colfax County, NM. 97.68 +/deeded acres in 2 parcels with excellent home, big shop, wildlife, a true million dollar view at the end of a private road. $489,000. Also listed with the house and one parcel for $375,000.

MIAMI 20 ACRES, Colfax County, NM quality 2,715 sqft adobe home, barn, grounds, fruit trees and mature trees. Extremely private setting.

REDUCED $365,000. This is a must see. Also listed with same house MIAMI HORSE HEAVEN, Colfax County, NM. Very private approx. with 10 +/- deeded acres for $355,000.

4,800 sq ft double walled adobe 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom home MAXWELL 19.50 ACRES, Colfax County, NM quality extensive with many custom features, 77.50 +/- deeded acres with water remodeled two bedroom, one bathroom home with water rights, outrights and large 7 stall barn, insulated metal shop with own septic. buildings for livestock in NE NM. Great south facing porch for sipping Would suit indoor growing operation, large hay barn/equipment iced tea cooling off at 6,000 ft elevation. Would make great summer shed. $1,375,000. getaway and winter ski base. $260,000.

FRENCH TRACT FARM, 491.55 +/- deeded acres, Colfax County, NM MORA COUNTY 160 +/- ACRES, 12 miles south east of Wagon two pivots, some gated pipe, 371 irrigation shares in AVID, House, Mound, remote, excellent solar well good mix of sub irrigated and barn, close to exit 419 off I25 on HWY 58. All in one contiguous range. Small cabin. $154,000. parcel with access on all sides. $700,000.

Page 8

Livestock Market Digest

August 15, 2019

Researchers Asking if Grazing and Fire Practices in Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitats are Affecting Cows

I

n every ecosystem around the world there are potentially hundreds of living species that can be affected by a change in that ecosystem, whether it’s natural or manmade.

What can be good for the survival of one species might have detrimental effects on another species, so a critical balance must be maintained in order to preserve all living things in the ecosystem. Quantitative research can determine if certain ecological preservation

practices are having the prescribed results while not harming that balance.

Blake Grisham, an assistant professor in the Department of Natural Resources Management in the College of Agricultural Sciences & Natural Resources, is spearheading a research group with just such a goal. Also included in the group are: • Carlos Villalobos, associate professor, Department of Natural Resources Management;

CLASSIFIEDS KADDATZ

Auctioneering and Farm Equipment Sales New and used tractors, equipment, and parts. Salvage yard, combines, tractors, hay equipment and all types of equipment parts.

ORDER PARTS ONLINE.

www.kaddatzequipment.com • 254/582-3000

g•u•i•d•e

CORRIENTE

Bradley 3 Ranch Ltd. 70+ Charolais Bulls 200+ Angus Bulls

— BULL SALE — FEBRUARY 15, 2020 At The Ranch NE Of Estelline, Texas

www.bradley3ranch.com M. L.: 940/585-6471 James: 940/585-6171.

Ranch-Raised Bulls For Ranchers Since 1955

RED ANGUS

BRANGUS

R.L. Robbs

A SOURCE FOR PROVEN SUPERIOR RED ANGUS GENETICS

520/384-3654 4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, Arizona 85643

productivity for local producers are lacking.”

Grisham said the lacking metrics include, but are not limited to, body condition of cattle pre- and post-grazing, mineral intake during grazing events, conception and abortion rates, fecal samples, whether supplemental feed is necessary during grazing events, and pounds per acre during pre- and post-grazing.

“The goal of this study is to assess these, and potentially other metrics, for the beef herd in the area of critical conservation concern within the guidelines established by grazing management for lesser prairie-chickens by the Bureau of Land Management,” Grisham said. “Students will be respon-

sible for assessing the longterm feasibility of grazing for producers while simultaneously monitoring vegetation and lesser prairie-chicken response to prescribed grazing/burning. We also anticipate quantitatively comparing these metrics to previously published scientific literature on beef herd health and productivity in context of various operational methods across the Southern High Plains.”

Grisham hopes this research will facilitate a better understanding of if and how grazing plans tailored specifically to lesser prairie-chicken management differ from other operational standards not specifically designed around species and ecosystem management.

Truck Donation Helps the Idaho Foodbank Bridge Milk Gap

575/638-5434 angus

• Darren Hudson, professor and Larry Combest chairman, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics; • Randy Howard, Roswell, New Mexico, Field Office, Bureau of Land Management; and • Kyle Dillard, Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management, Milnesand, New Mexico.

Together, they are attempting to determine how prescribed fire and grazing practices for the lesser prairie-chicken in New Mexico affect beef herd health and productivity.

Their two-year research project has been bolstered by a grant of more than $289,000 from the Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management. They will take already established methods of fire and grazing management in lesser prairie-chicken habitats and determine if those practice are affecting the health of the cattle, a critical socio-economic driver for the region.

“In previous assessments on prescribed grazing, emphasis was on understanding how variation in intensity and magnitude of these ecological drivers affects vegetation composition and structure as well as lesser prairie-chicken demographics,” Grisham said. “But quantitative, scientific data pertaining to overall beef herd health and

14298 N. Atkins Rd., Lodi, CA 95240 Willcox, AZ

209/727-3335

BEEFMASTER

210.732.3132 • beefmasters.org 118 W. BANDERA ROAD BOERNE, TX 78006

I

daho families struggling with hunger just got a big boost from Dairy West. The organization, which represents Idaho and Utah dairy farmers, recently donated a new refriger-

ated truck to The Idaho Foodbank to increase the nonprofit’s ability to safely store milk and other perishable food products and deliver them to food pantries throughout the Gem State.

Adorned with a vehicle wrap that proclaims, “Feeding Families -- Building Healthy Communities,” the 26-foot 2020 Kenworth T370 refrigerated truck cost $115,000 and can store roughly 1,800 gallons of fresh milk.

According to Karen Vauk, President and CEO of The Idaho Foodbank, dairy foods are among the most requested but least available items at food pantries nationwide.

“Dairy proteins are so critical to a nutritious diet and there is a huge demand for milk, cheese, and yogurt among those we serve,” Vauk says. “It’s easy for people to give canned and dry goods, but the perishable nature of dairy foods makes it challenging to donate. Dairy West’s generous donation of a refrigerated truck is a game changer for The Idaho Foodbank, our partners, and the families we serve.”

Meanwhile, Albertsons customers donated $20,866.79 to benefit The Idaho Foodbank and its clients via a “Moo Bucks” campaign the retailer staged with Dairy West the first two weeks of June. The Foodbank will use the funds to purchase and distribute dairy foods to clients and give them vouchers to redeem for milk. Albertsons Market Street in Meridian and Albertsons in Ammon were recognized as the top collecting and second top collecting stores, respectively.

Dairy West CEO Karianne Fallow says the milk gap in the

U.S. is significant and daunting.

“On average, people served by food banks receive the equivalent of less than 1 gallon of milk per person per year, but you need to drink 68 gallons a year to meet the FDA’s daily recommendations,” Fallow says.

“One in seven Americans relies on food banks for nutritional assistance, and here at home in one of the top agricultural-producing states in the country more than 210,000 Idahoans -- including nearly 70,000 children -- are food insecure.”

Fallow says milk and other dairy foods are a great choice for people struggling with hunger.

“Dollar for dollar, milk is one of the most nutrient-packed foods a family can have on the table,” she says. “One serving of milk provides eight grams of protein and nine essential nutrients, including three of the top nutrients commonly missing in the American diet.”

Fallow says Idaho dairy farm families have worked closely with local food pantries for decades to provide their food-insecure neighbors with nourishment they desperately need.

And since 1998, Dairy West and its predecessor, United Dairymen of Idaho, have supported The Idaho Foodbank with cash contributions for the A Chef’s Affaire annual gala, its Backpack program providing nutritious weekend meals for kids during the school year, the “Cookies from the Heart” partnership with the Girl Scouts of Silver Sage and Albertsons, and other efforts.

Fallow has been a member of The Idaho Foodbank’s Board of Directors since 2014.

Livestock Market Digest

The View FROM THE BACK SIDE

Disappearing America, Not Yet!

BY BARRY DENTON

The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association or this publication.

W

e attended the World’s Oldest Rodeo on July the fourth at Prescott Frontier Days in Prescott, Arizona. The best thing about it was that we prayed together, sang the National Anthem together, and honored our military together.

Yes, that’s right hundreds in attendance and no one took a knee. These cowboys and cowgirls that compete get no salary or guaranteed income of any kind. Their very existence boils down to how well they compete and how healthy they remain.

If they hurt their thumb, or if they break their leg, no one pays them. It is quite obvious that rodeos are one of the last bastions of American individualism. Why don’t those same values hold up in our society today?

Have you ever noticed a politician or a college professor offering to take a pay cut during a slow economy? These individuals have a salary that is guaranteed to them by their fellow citizens. If they were true leaders of the community, when the chips are down they would be the first ones to accept a pay cut.

Gee, have you thought about our President lately? Every month he donates his salary to charity because he is a true leader. Perhaps it is time for the citizens to start demanding these salaries back from these alleged public servants that only take and do not produce.

The funny thing is that I always thought it was a disgrace to take money from your fellow taxpayers. If you are a public servant not doing your job, you should feel pretty low taking forced donations from your constituents. I have no idea why, but these politicians take your tax dollars and continue to try and take more. I have seen many instances where they actually get arrogant about it.

Stop and think, every time they tax you they are eroding your freedom. President Trump has cut taxes tremendously and more money than ever is flowing into the government. Take property tax for instance, if your property tax is $5000 per year and you pay it, then that’s $5000 that you earned and yet it was confiscated from you. You were not allowed the freedom to spend it on your family. Much of it was spent on a welfare system that allows capable people not to work.

Have you ever wondered why rural families have to pay property tax when they get no services? You work all your life to pay off the mortgage on your place and then you have to pay an annual fee to your county

government. Now for that fee you almost never see a sheriff’s patrol car or a road grader. Why are rural people paying property tax? Rural people are hard workers and pay more than their fair share of taxes for little or no services. How can this be right?

Yet, some politician will show up at your house, lie to you about all he can accomplish for you, flood your mailbox with unwanted solicitations, and do exactly the opposite of what he told you when he gets elected.

Unfortunately, there isn’t one in ten that feels beholding to the constituents that pay their salary and benefits.

The next thing that you ought to be concerned with, are public schools and universities. In this day and age you are probably better off never sending your children to these institutions. One thing about it, they won’t learn anything about American history. I saw a textbook the other day that contained only one paragraph on World War One. You had better research your private schools and send your children there so they are not indoctrinated in the leftist agenda.

I recently hosted a public meeting with the dean of the local community college and the supervisor of the local high school. I have never met more arrogant, agenda driven, public servants in my life. This wasn’t just my opinion, but the general consensus of the attendees.

People left that meeting in shock and regretted paying their taxes to such unworthy recipients. I long for the days that public school was to better the community through education, not indoctrination of a leftist political agenda. In my book, these folks were such extremists, that they were anti-American. Sure citizens always have had a difference of opinion, but we used to come together for the common good. The other side is beyond compromising with on anything. We have at least two Congresswomen that won’t condemn the attack on ICE facilities in Tacoma, Washington. They obviously think it is a good thing. Isn’t that known as anarchy?

I think our non-politician President Trump’s soaring popularity is indicative of the majority of people in America. I do believe that most of us are for fairness and hold traditional values even though the vast majority of media would never broadcast it. Instead they saturate us with the news of fools and their ridiculous escapades. However, I think most of us see through it.

The rodeo cowboy or cowgirl that competes for a living has more courage, honor, and fortitude than almost any politician. My hat is off to these great young people. If the politicians want to save themselves, they may want to try involving God in their decisions.

Page 9

“What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat”

A

new book, “What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat,” looks at what the Bible has to say about using and eating animals from several different perspectives.

The book, edited

by Palm Beach Atlantic University’s Wes Jamison, PhD and Paul Copan, PhD, tackles topics including the challenges to Christian meat-eating, human exceptionalism and humanity’s dominion over other living creatures.

“Over the past decade, a growing number of misleading messages about modern animal agriculture have been presented by animal rights activist groups to church and religious leaders or in religious forums, under the guise of religion and compassion,” said Kay Johnson Smith, president and CEO of Animal Agriculture Alliance,

You’ll be better prepared to push back against activist claims after reading this book.”

In addition to chapters from Drs. Jamison and Copan, the book includes chapters from five different authors with unique perspectives and expertise in theology: Tom St. Antoine, PhD, Palm Beach Atlantic University; Timothy Hsiao, PhD, Grantham University; Walter Kaiser, PhD, evangelical Old Testament scholar and Randy Spronk, a Minnesota hog farmer.

“This book reminds us that we have the blessing to eat meat with joy and thankfulness,” said Dr. Jamison.

Copies of the book can be purchased from the Alliance for $15.00 plus shipping and handling. Bulk order discounts are available for quantities from 25-99 ($13.00 per copy plus shipping and handling) and 100+ ($10 per copy plus shipping and handling).

which helped fund the production of the book. “What Would Jesus Really Eat? will help arm farmers and ranchers and others in the animal agriculture industry with the information they need to have informed conversations about the complex subject of religion and eating meat.

ELM

FARMINGTON

August 15, 2019

TO SACRAMENTO

STOCKTON

HWY 4

J17 M AR

IPOSA

SALE SITE

RD

VALLEY HOME

HWY 99 OAKDALE

HWY 120 ESCALON

SALE MANTECA HEADQUARTERS

MODESTO

#N

TO FRESNO

Facility located at: 25525 East Lone Tree Road, Escalon, CA 95320

ESCALON LIVESTOCK MARKET, INC.

LIVESTOCK SALES 3 days per week on

Monday, Wednesday, & Friday MONDAY: Beef Cattle

FRIDAY: Small Animals

WEDNESDAY: Dairy Cattle

Poultry – Butcher Cows

NTS IGNME CONS OME! WELC ore rm Call fo ation m r fo in g signin on con stock. r u yo

MIGUEL A. MACHADO President Office: 209/838-7011 Mobile: 209/595-2014

JOE VIEIRA Representative Mobile: 209/531-4156 THOMAS BERT 209/605-3866

CJ BRANTLEY Field Representative 209/596-0139

www.escalonlivestockmarket.com • escalonlivestockmarket@yahoo.com

Page 10

Livestock Market Digest

August 15, 2019

Supreme Court Okays Border Wall ELLEN M. GILMER, E&E NEWS

T

he Supreme Court last week sided with the Trump administration over environmentalists in a fight over an expanded border wall between the United States and Mexico.

In a late July decision, the high court ruled Trump officials could move forward with $2.5 billion in emergency funding for barriers across wildlife refuges, national monuments, and other public and private lands along the southern border.

The Sierra Club and other opponents of Trump’s emergency funding plan successfully blocked it in lower courts. The group filed suit in February after President Trump ordered the transfer of money from certain Defense Department accounts to pay for expanded border barriers after Congress refused to make the funds available.

When the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to let construction move forward during an appeal, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to step in (Greenwire, July 15).

Friday’s order concluded that the government “has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Section 8005,” the provision of the 2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act the president relied on for the emergency funding order.

The Supreme Court’s action allows construction to move forward throughout the appeals process at the 9th Circuit and throughout any subsequent petitions to the high court.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented from the decision. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that he would have staked out a middle ground:

blocking construction for now but allowing the government to lock in contracts so it doesn’t lose funding.

Environmental lawyers decried Friday’s decision.

Today’s decision to permit the diversion of military funds for border wall construction will wall off and destroy communities, public lands, and waters in California, New Mexico, and Arizona,” Sierra Club attorney Gloria Smith said in a statement. “We’ve seen the destruction that the ever-expanding border wall has inflicted.

The Sierra Club will continue to fight this wall and Trump’s agenda through and through.”

New border wall projects are slated to cross the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, San Pedro River and San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, among other areas.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is repre-

senting the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition in the suit, vowed to push for swift resolution in the 9th Circuit.

“This is not over. We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump’s border wall,” ACLU attorney Dror Ladin said in a statement.

The 9th Circuit panel hearing the case issued a 2-1 opinion earlier this summer finding Trump’s order likely violated the Constitution’s appropriations clause, which assigns Congress the power of the purse. The appellate court has yet to weigh the broader merits of the case.

Similar lawsuits from environmentalists, states, watchdog groups and members of Congress opposed to emergency funding for the border wall are pending in courts in Washington, D.C., California and Texas.

Meat in the Middle: Blended Options Join Eaters in Sustainability CONTRIBUTING AUTHOR: KATHERINE WALLA

W

hile vegans and vegetarians already see plant-based meats go mainstream, semi-vegetarians— or flexitarians—find new blended meats appearing on market shelves. Recently spearheaded by companies like Tyson Foods, Inc. and Perdue, the blended meat products combine meat with plant-based ingredients.

To deliver blended-meat products, Tyson Foods built the Raised & Rooted brand. Initial products include plant-based nuggets and blended burgers featuring a blend of pea protein and other plant ingredients. The company’s already-established brand Aidells will launch a line of “Whole Blends” including blended chicken and plant-based sausages and meatballs. The newest products will release incrementally beginning late this summer and continuing into the fall, just after Tyson Foods sold its 6.52 percent share in Beyond Meat in April 2019.

Tyson Foods’s announcement on June 13 recognizes a segment of the consumer market that still consumes meat but desires alternative protein options for health benefits. According to Tyson Foods, the blends will have fewer calories and less saturated fat; the nuggets also contain more omega-3s and more fiber. Although plant-based meat accounts for just under one percent of all retail meat dollar sales, the Good Food Institute indicates that 11.9 percent of all United States households purchased plant-based meat over a year—and the number is increasing.

“There’s a lot of messaging that plants are powerful. It feels like something that gives you a quick fix, something is really good for you,” says Melanie Bartelme, a global food analyst with the consulting firm Mintel. According to continued on page eleven

August 15, 2019

Livestock Market Digest

Collectors Corner

by Jim Olson

What’s a Collection Really Worth?

C

ollectors collect for a number of reasons. The love of collecting items they find interesting. The thrill of the hunt. Social interaction with other collectors and dealers. Some collectors are nostalgic and want to surround themselves with memories of what they consider to be better times.

Knowledge and learning is often a motivator. Some collectors are just “OCD” and want one of everything! LOL! Apart from the reasons listed above, financial security or gain is also often a factor. We hope to sell the items we collect for at least as much (and someday hopefully more) than was paid for them. Kind of like a savings account you can enjoy looking at!

Something we need to understand about selling a collection is how value is determined.

First off, when it comes to value, what was originally paid for

an item does not matter. Period. It is what items will bring in today’s market that determines the value. However there are different kinds of value.

The highest valuation often put on an item is an appraisal for insurance purposes. Now, that is not to say folks are trying to “get at” the insurance company or commit fraud in any way.

It is just that items valued for insurance purposes are valued as to what it would take to actually replace that particular item, with another just like it, or as close to just like it as possible.

This can be hard to do, so the dollar amount needed to actually replace an item is often high.

It usually has nothing to do with what similar items may sell for in an open market. So appraised value for insurance purposes is most always above the actual market value.

That brings us now to market value. This is the amount

an item will sell for—not the amount needed to replace it.

There are several kinds of valuations within the market however. For example, there is retail, wholesale, jobber, auction and all kinds of variations thereof.

Retail market value is the highest form of market value.

It is what a gallery or dealer expects to realize for an item. It is usually not the fastest form of selling however, because the seller is waiting for that certain buyer who is willing to pay top dollar. They don’t come along every day. Of course, everyone wants to realize a retail price for their item, and it is most often how a perceived value is placed on an item. It is just very rare that collectors get to sell their things for full retail price unless they are very patient and are willing to spend a lot of time and money advertising and looking for “that end user” type of buyer.

That brings us to the next value level. Wholesale. This is what dealers typically pay for an item when buying it. A general rule is that figure is around half of retail, although it can be more, or less, depending on the price range and ease of selling or desirability on an item. For example, wholesale on a $10,000 item is probably well over half, but wholesale on a $10 item is probably under half. It has to do with the amount of expenses it takes a dealer to sell that item.

A dealer usually needs to figure at least 20%, and sometimes

Page 11 more, for overhead, advertising, labor and other expenses in order to get the item sold.

They also need to factor in a profit margin for their time and efforts. These factors are taken into account when a wholesale price is determined. Wholesale is what a collector often gets for their items if they sell or consign to a dealer or gallery.

Jobber pricing is the next level and has to do with what a wholesaler pays to a manufacturer or maker. Wholesalers are folks who buy from the source then turn around and sell to dealers. They are middle-men.

Jobber pricing is usually about ⅓ of retail, although it can also vary depending on price range and desirability such as what was described with wholesale above. Jobber pricing is what a collector might expect to receive if they are selling to a wholesaler (who then shops the item to retail sellers). Collectors rarely deal with “jobbers” however.

The price realized at an auction usually falls somewhere between wholesale and retail.

More common types of items tend to fall towards the wholesale end of the spectrum at auction while, unique items (especially of great desirability) tend to bring retail and sometimes even more at auction.

Sometimes retail pricing is even established by competitive bidding on rare items. Auctions are often a good route for collectors, especially those who have large

or unique collections. Even after commissions, they often realize more than they would have if they had sold at wholesale or jobber pricing.

As collectors, how do we put a value on our items? Good question. We all like to think they are worth more than we paid. We also like to think that ours is worth at least high retail (or what we see others asking for similar items). Everyday, folks come in with items for sale. One of the most common things I hear is, “I saw one just like this online and they are going for ____.” First off, let me tell you, asking and getting are two different things. Anyone can ask for what ever they want online. What you need to look for if you are trying to value your own items, is things like yours that have actually SOLD and at what price they sold at.

Sold items determine current market value. A dealer determines what they are willing to pay from there. Asking a reputable dealer or auction company for assistance in determining a fair value is wise. They generally have the best feel for what things have been selling for today. Not 10 years ago and not what it will hopefully be worth in another 10—but today.

In the end, what a collection is truly worth is what a willing buyer will pay for it and a willing seller will accept for it.

Jim Olson © 2019 • WesternTradingPost.com

Sleep Wins 2019 World Livestock Auctioneer Championship

R

ussele Sleep, Bedford, Iowa was named the 2019 World Livestock Auctioneer Champion (WLAC) at the 56th annual competition held at Tulare Sales Yard, Tulare, California and presented by the Livestock Marketing Association (LMA).

“It was a dream come true,” Sleep says. “I started coming to the WLAC competitions in 2009, and it goes to show hard work, dedication and a love for the livestock auction business pays off in the end.”

The competition, which was held on June 8, is composed of two parts: an interview and a live auction. During the live sale, contestants sell eight drafts of cattle to bidders in the seats. Each contestant is scored by five judges on presentation, auction chant, execution of the sale and how likely the judge would be to hire the auctioneer.

During the interview round, contestants are asked questions pertaining to the marketing industry and their role as an auctioneer.

Sleep, a nine-time top ten qualifier of the WLAC and 2016 Reserve Champion Auctioneer, earned his spot to this year’s competition by winning the LMA’s Midwest Qualifying Event. Twenty-nine other semi-finalists also

qualified through three regional qualifying events. The additional semi-, Dunlap, Iowa, was named Runner-Up Champion. Chuck Bradley, Rockford, Ala., earned Reserve Champion honors, and Will Epperly, Dunlap, Iowa, was named Runner-Up Champion.

Other top ten finalists were Eric Drees, Nampa, Idaho; Dean Edge, Rimbey, Alberta; Steven Goedert, Dillion, Mont.; Brennin Jack, Prince Albert, Sask; Ryan Konynenbelt, Ft. Macleod, Alberta; Wade Leist, Boyne City, Mich.; Jacob Massey, Petersburg, Tenn.

Additional semi-finalists were Neil Bouray, Webber, Kan.; Colton Brantley, Modesto, Calif.; Darren Carter, Ninety Six, S.C.; Dakota Davis, Caldwell, Kan.; Brandon Frey, Creston, Iowa; Philip Gilstrap, Pendleton, S.C.; Shane Hatch, Kirtland, N.M.; Jim Hertzog, Butler, Mo.; Garrett Jones, Los Banos, Calif.; Lynn Langvardt, Chapman, Kan.; Justin Mebane, Bakersfield, Calif.; Jeremy Miller, Fairland, Okla.; Daniel Mitchell, Cumberland, Ohio; Christopher Pinard, Swainsboro, Ga.; Jay Romine, Mt. Washington, Ky.; Jim Settle, Arroyo Grande, Calif.; Dustin Smith, Jay, Okla.; Curtis Wetovick, Fullerton, Neb.; Tim Yoder, Montezuma, Ga.; Vern Yoder, Dundee,

Ohio and Zack Zumstein, Marsing, Idaho.

Kristen Parman, LMA VP of Membership Services, says, “LMA is proud to sponsor an event that brings together North America’s top livestock auctioneers in a competition that showcases professionalism and promotes the auction method of selling livestock.”

As a part of the champion’s role, Sleep will spend the next year traveling the country, sharing his auctioneering skills with other livestock auction markets and acting as a spokesperson on behalf of the livestock marketing industry and the LMA. “The auctioneer championship showcases the importance of the local livestock markets and the role the auctioneer plays in true-price discovery and I’m looking forward to promoting that this year,” Sleep says.

Sleep, a Missouri Auction School graduate, works as a contract auctioneer for Knoxville Regional Livestock Market, Fort Scott Livestock Market, Inc., Southeast Kansas Stockyards LLC, Clarinda Livestock Auction, Inc., Russell Livestock Market and Green City Livestock Marketing LLC. He lives in Bedford, Iowa with his wife Lacey and three children.

MEAT Mintel’s 2018 report Plant-Based Proteins in the U.S., 88 percent of U.S. consumers identify plantbased proteins as healthy options.

While Tyson Foods is the latest company to tap into the market, the announcement follows Perdue’s announcement only a day earlier. Perdue, a major chicken, turkey, and pork producing company, is not only appealing to the plant-based food trend, but also hopes that the blended nuggets, tenders, and patties help flexitarian families get their children to eat vegetables. “Not only are we helping to meet demands for millions of parents but we are appealing to the growing number of flexitarian families who have an increased commitment to getting more plants and vegetables in their families’ diets,” says Eric Christianson, Perdue’s Chief Marketing Officer.

Through a partnership with The Better Meat Co., Perdue’s blends deemed “Chicken Plus” will feature cauliflower, chickpeas, and other plant proteins.

Each serving of product also in-

continued from page ten

cludes a half-serving of vegetables. Perdue will officially release the products in September 2019.

While the blended options may not satisfy the concerns of people eating plant-based meats to challenge the livestock industry’s treatment of animals, they may appeal to those choosing flexitarian diets for the environmental benefits. Partially replacing meat with plant-based ingredients can help consumers limit their contributions to diet-related greenhouse gases by up to 15 percent. According to the World Resources Institute (WRI), replacing every burger Americans eat with burgers that are 30 percent plant-based may conserve 83 billion gallons of water per year, equivalent to 2.6 million American’s yearly household water use, and reduce agricultural land demand by 14,000 square miles, an area larger than the state of Maryland.

Tyson Foods and Perdue may be the most recent participants in blended meat, but companies and organizations already

entered the market—which can amount to a US$140 billion market over the next decade, according to analysts from Barclays.

WRI’s Better Buying Lab worked with companies and partners in the culinary world to scale a beef and mushroom burger that meets consumer demand for sustainable foods—while maintaining a meaty taste and texture. Food services provider Sodexo, member of the Better Buying Lab, started blending mushrooms into burgers as early as 2016 and announced the meat in burger form, called “The Natural.” The food chain Sonic also debuted a menu featuring burgers, 25 to 30 percent made up with mushrooms.

The James Beard Foundation’s Blended Burger Project strives to improve burgers not only in sustainability, but also in flavor by challenging restaurants to develop and sell a blended burger consisting at least 25 percent mushrooms. The fifth annual project ends July 31, 2019 and awards US$5,000 to five winning

chefs with the best recipes. “We wanted to show that non-commercial food service can do it just as well,” says Justin Robinson, a participating chef in St. Petersburg, FL. “The blend allowed us

to offer our clients a burger that is healthier, more sustainable, and delicious to boot. It also didn’t hurt that it was outselling our regular menu burger nearly two to one.”

Page 12

Livestock Market Digest

August 15, 2019

Strap In: Environmental Pressure is Accelerating SOURCE: THE CENTER FOR FOOD INTEGRITY

C

onversation about the environment is growing and so is the scrutiny applied to consumption of natural resources. If you think it’s intense now, hold on tight because every indication is pressure will intensify by multiples and agriculture will be pressed like never before to go farther faster in reducing its carbon footprint, according to Terri Moore with The Center for Food Integrity (CFI).

“As the original stewards of the land, farmers should be smack dab in the middle of that conversation,” she said. “They have an impressive story to tell.”

Moore points to the following statistics: Dairy farmers since the 1940s have reduced the carbon footprint of every gallon of milk by two-thirds.

While the amount of pork produced has risen substantially over the last 50 years, producers are using 75 percent less land, 25 percent less water and seven percent less energy.

Since 1980, U.S. wheat farmers have increased wheat yields by more than 25 percent and now produce the same amount

of wheat on 28 percent less land, with 47 percent less soil erosion, using 12 percent less irrigation water.

Yet, the public dialogue is happening around them, about them, but largely without them, she said.

“The number of producers actively engaging, particularly online, is growing, but remains relatively small. By contrast, the price for silence has been large, as critics of agriculture have energetically engaged to raise concerns in well-connected online networks,” said Moore.

Profit over Public Interest The land and its gifts are the lifeblood of agriculture no matter the size and scale, the crop grown or the livestock raised. But many of those on the outside looking in aren’t particularly convinced.

Trust research from CFI shows that only 30 percent strongly agree with the following statement: “Do U.S. farmers take good care of the environment?”

More than half – 60 percent – are ambivalent.

“They’re just not sure farmers are doing enough,” said Moore.

So, why are so many doubtful?

First, the “big is bad” bias is likely at play.

“As the size and scale of farming grow, the public doesn’t trust that large farms have the public’s best interests at heart,” she said.

Only one in five respondents believe small farms will put the farm’s interests ahead of the public good, but that number doubled when we asked about large farms. There’s a perception that profit is the overriding motive on large farms and that efficiencies simply make farmers more money at the expense of people and the planet.

The sentiment is heard in the CFI Street Talk series when respondents were asked: “Do farmers protect the environment?”

“I think they’re hurting our environment at an alarming rate.”

“Some do, some don’t. I think it’s about 50/50.”

“It’s hard to protect the environment when there’s so much strain on them to produce so much food.”

“Those huge commercial farms – I don’t think they’re doing anything to protect the environment.”

Despite this bias, when we separate the farmer from the farm, it’s crystal clear that most Americans have a great deal of trust in farmers. In fact, the research shows that when it comes to food-related issues, farmers are

trusted more than dietitians, university scientists, state and federal regulators and animal and environmental advocacy groups.

The Golden Opportunity Agriculture has a golden opportunity to move the needle with the general public and those who influence conversations that impact agriculture’s future, said Moore. In fact, a majority of respondents in our survey (65 percent) say they are hungry for information about agriculture.

So, how do farmers demonstrate that they’re continually finding ways to do things better – incorporating the latest technology to produce food in a way that sustains the environment for generations to come? By engaging, said Moore, including: • Taking advantage of local public speaking opportunities.

• Pitching stories to the media about seasonal milestones on the farm (planting, harvest, etc.) – and incorporating messages about environmental sustainability and the benefits of biotechnology.

• Engaging on social media channels by posting pictures with great captions and short videos created on your phone. The simpler the video, the more authentic.

• Taking advantage of Facebook Live to give “on-the-spot” reports about what’s happening on your farm.

• Engaging in those critical day-to-day conversations to better understand what’s important to your neighbors and community, and having meaningful dialogue.

• Sharing and liking others’ posts that convey agriculture’s values to broaden their reach.

“Farmers have a trust halo.

Now is the time to leverage it to demonstrate a commitment to continuous improvement, as pressure intensifies to achieve greater environmental outcomes more rapidly than ever before,” said Moore.

The public is listening. Critics of agriculture are talking. Monumental environmental mandates are on the horizon. Farmers can help shape future farm stewardship practices, but not from the sidelines, she said.

Court Backs Federal Pine Beetle Plan

BY JEREMY P. JACOBS, E&E NEWS

A

federal appeals court recently rejected conservation groups’ challenge to a Forest Service plan aimed at addressing pine beetle infestation in Northern California.

At issue is the Forest Service’s designation of 5.3 million acres in the Tahoe National Forest as at risk, as well as a project to thin the forest in those areas to address pine beetle infestation.

The Center for Biological Diversity and Earth Island Institute challenged both actions, contending they should have triggered a National Environmental Policy Act review.

In late June, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and sided with the Forest Service.

The San Francisco-based court concluded that the Forest Service was acting squarely within its authority under 2014 amendments to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which sought to directly address the West’s spreading pine beetle problem.

Under those amendments, the agency can designate large swaths as “landscape-scale areas” where projects may be undertaken as long as specific at risk criteria are met.

The Forest Service made such a determination in the Tahoe National Forest in 2015 and, the following year, finalized the Sunny South project, which involved thinning and prescribed burns across 2,700 acres.

Conservation groups argued that both moves could affect the habitat for the California spotted owl and consequently qualified for a NEPA review. The 9th Circuit rejected their arguments.

“Designating landscape-scale areas does not mark the commencement of any particular projects; it only identifies swaths of land suffering from the harms of insect or disease investigation where certain priority projects may be implemented,” Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.

The panel also sided with the Forest Service’s assessment of the impact of the project on the owls.

“Ultimately,” Nguyen wrote, “the Forest Service concluded that the spotted owl would in fact benefit in the long run.”