LMD Dec 17

Riding Herd

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

by LEE PITTS

– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

December 15, 2017 • www.aaalivestock.com

Volume 59 • No. 12

Grading Trump

BY LEE PITTS

Don’t judge people by their relatives.

W

NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING

e’ve lived with Donald Trump as President for almost a year now and it seems like a good time to assess his performance thus far. Grading his proficiency depends upon your vantage point.

If you’re a stock investor, coal miner, Rush Limbaugh, or the Donald himself, you probably think he’s done a rip-roaring job. If you’re a farmer or rancher your view is probably less complimentary.

A good percentage of ranchers were thrilled when President Trump withdrew America from the Paris Climate Accord but if you’re an NCBA member you’re probably mad at him for also withdrawing us from the TPPA trade agreement. In my opinion, Trump’s biggest accomplishment thus far is replacing conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia with another conservative, Neil Gorsuch. I look forward to many more such appointments and if it comes to pass, a staunchly conservative Supreme Court will be Trump’s lasting legacy.

I admit it’s been disappointing to discover that Trump is like other politicians in that he promised way more than he could deliver. For example, during the campaign he said, “We are going to ask every de-

partment head and government to provide a list of wasteful spending projects that we can eliminate in my first 100 days.”

Once in office he merely asked the agencies to “reorganize”.

On balancing the federal budget he promised, “It can be done. ... It will take place and it will go relatively quickly.” But

by October 20th Trump was cheering a budget that would most definitely NOT balance the budget. He also promised we could eliminate the federal debt in eight years but the Senate Budget bill he eventually

championed only added to it.

I have no doubt that Trump sincerely meant to make good on his promises but he seems to have forgotten that Congress makes the laws, not the President. Still, there were many things he could have done for the ag community but didn’t, like pardoning the Hammonds.

There was a pleasant buzz when Trump took over and started issuing executive orders right and left but lately he seems to have been bogged down by too much Tweeting, White House infighting and staff members quitting.

From an agricultural vantage point, here’s how we grade Trump so far.

Geography... C A year ago I wrote about my fears about what a Trump presidency would mean for the West in an article titled My Forgotten Country. I wrote, “It’s easy to see who put Trump in the White House. There are 3,141 counties in the USA. Trump won 3,084 of them and Clinton won 57. It was a clear case of the city versus the country.

I saw one poll that showed 75 percent of ranchers voted for Trump. Most of us in agriculture were so elated that Hillary got beat that we hadn’t given much thought as to what a Trump presidency would mean for agriculture. It’s fair to say that Trump owes us.”

So far, it seems, those fears were well grounded. In the first continued on page two

The Curious Recovery of a ‘Threatened’ Bat Species ROB GORDON / DAILYSIGNAL.COM

Lots More Lesser Long-Nosed Bats

I

Even Fish and Wildlife acknowledges that its original claim about the bat’s “threatened” status has been a subject of “debate as to [its] legitimacy… .” Now, it says there are 100,000 of these bats in the U.S. and even more in Mexico. There are not 14 roosts in the U.S., but reportedly 75.

This would be a big deal if these big numbers reflected successful efforts to improve the bat’s abundance or distribution, but they don’t. Fish and Wildlife states that the new numbers “in large part, reflect a better approach to survey and monitoring in subsequent years.” For those who do not speak bureaucratese, that means they were way off in the first place.

Further, Fish and Wildlife assumed cattle and fire to be serious threats by consuming the flowering plants that produce the nectar that these bats—which don’t eat insects— consume. Turns out, they were found not to be as problematic as the agency thought.

Essentially, everything forming the rationale for adding the bat to the endangered-species list was wrong.

f it were true, it would be good news.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s claim that the lesser longnosed bat has “recovered” so well that it can be removed from the endangered-species list is definitely not worth the paper on which the proposed rule delisting it is printed. (At about $480 a page for 11 and a half pages, that’s about $5,500 just to print the fib.)

Worse still, Fish and Wildlife may be seeking to eliminate potentially thorny legal problems that come with a federally regulated species by making threats to the bat along the U.S.-Mexico border just bureaucratically vanish.

When the Fish and Wildlife Service proclaimed the bat “threatened,” it asserted there were only about 500 of the species and that it had only 14 known roosts—places like caves or old mine entrances, where the bats congregate when not fluttering about. (Apparently, not all bats are opposed to mining.)

Back in 1988, Fish and Wildlife contended that these low numbers, in combination with threats from livestock grazing and fires, were pushing the species toward extinction.

continued on page four

The Duke And I

I

received tons of feedback to the column I wrote about meeting celebrity animal stars like Jet Deck, Peppy San Badger, Bertha the Elephant, Poco Bueno and Borden’s Elsie the Cow. Okay, so I only received one letter in response, but it was a long one. In that missive the writer wanted to know what famous people I’d met and if I considered myself a “celebrity”.

I should say so! People used to line up to meet me at book signings. Okay, so only one person lined up.

But in my 65 years I have managed to meet a few notable celebrities.

The most valuable piece in my collection of people is a photo of me and Ronald Reagan as I presented him the honorary state farmer degree when I was President of the California FFA and he was Governor of California. The second most valuable item is a book written by Nolan Ryan that he autographed for me after my buddy E.C. made it possible for me to eat lunch with Nolan and his wonderful wife. E.C got me the book as an apology because the photo he took of me and Nolan “didn’t turn out.” That happens to me a lot as I’m not what you’d call photogenic.

I still think the beef industry should have made Nolan our permanent “pitchman”.

I got to meet one of my favorite authors, James Michener, at a Texas Brangus sale, and we have a cocktail napkin signed by Joe Dimaggio. What a gentleman he was! As were my two all-time favorite rodeo cowboys: Gene Rambo and Larry Mahan.

When I was writing feature stories for Cowboys and Country Magazine I got to interview stars like Lynn Anderson, Randy Owen and Rex Allen. I also had a radio relationship with Paul Harvey and I have a drawer full of cassettes of him reading my essays.

I’ve always been more interested in collecting celebrities in the cattle and horse trades than in seeing Hollywood stars and I

continued on page thirteen

Page 2

Livestock Market Digest

December 15, 2017

GRADING TRUMP year Trump has visited the west five times. He made two stops in Nevada, two in Arizona, one in North Dakota. If you consider Houston to be in the West you must add four more visits when Trump looked at all the damage

by Hurricane Harvey. That’s it.

In the first seven months of his Presidency he didn’t venture West a single time. He’s been to Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, South Korea, China, and Japan but he hasn’t been to California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho or Montana. If you look at a map of where he’s visited so far there are push pins all over the east with only a handful in the west.

It’s especially alarming that he has yet to visit California, nor did he campaign here, probably because California did not support him. But there are many conservatives left in California and we could use a little help. Plus, it’s the largest ag state in the nation, but ag is one subject that seems to hold no interest for Trump. Remember, this is a President born and raised in the concrete jungle of New York.

At this time last year we were worried and waiting to hear who’d be Ag Secretary but we had to wait another two months because it was among Trump’s last cabinet appointments. It seems our worries were well founded. As we said a year ago, “In Trump’s cabinet an entire part of America has gone missing. Half of it, to be more precise.”

Since then, Trump has done little to change our point of view.

History...A-

CAREN COWAN.......... Publisher LEE PITTS.................... Executive Editor CHUCK STOCKS......... Publisher Emeritus RANDY SUMMERS...... Sales Rep LYNN MARIE RUSAW...Sales Rep

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

LYNN MARIE RUSAW, 505/243-9515 email: AAALivestockMarketDigest@gmail.com

MARGUERITE VENSEL..Office Manager JESSICA DECKER..........Special Assistance CHRISTINE CARTER......Graphic Designer

A little historical perspective is needed here. Fifteen months ago we were scared silly that Hillary Clinton would rubber stamp WOTUS (Waters of the United States) that made practically every puddle of water in the country the property of the U.S. government. We were saved by Trump’s election. He named Scott Pruitt, previously Oklahoma’s Attorney General, to head the EPA and he’s been a bright spot.

WOTUS was a proposed federal regulation defining which waters are subject to the Clean Water Act. It was first proposed in 2015 and since then several states have sued to stop it. Although most people think Trump got rid of it forever he did not. He sent it back to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers for a rewrite. They both withdrew the regulation but are writing a new one so we must remain vigilant. So far though, it’s one of the best things Trump has done for ranchers and farmers.

Math...D We never did like Trump’s pick to head the Interior Department and we think even less of Ryan Zinke now. The former

continued from page one

Navy Seal seems to be more interested in building his resume for a future run at the Presidency than he does fixing the Interior Department. A year ago I wrote that Zinke could end up hurting hurt us and I take no pleasure in saying that he has done so. Western ranchers were anxiously awaiting August 24, 2017, because that’s when Secretary Zinke would send his recommendations to President Trump, hopefully to reduce the size of Obama’s national monuments. For example, folks in New Mexico were hoping Zinke would advise Trump to greatly reduce the size of the Rio Grande del Norte and the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks national monuments.

When August 24 rolled around Zinke held a press conference to announce that he was kicking the can further down Bureaucracy Street. He told us all about the field trips he’d taken but nothing about the boundary modifications, if any, he’d be recommending.

Now he is considering proposing a new monument in Montana.

It’s merely a matter of arithmetic: Trump could subtract from Obama’s gross national monument designations in a New York minute but there is no indication he has the desire, or will, to do so. For that we’re tempted to give him an F, but because there’s still time to shrink the government’s footprint we’ll up that to a D.

English...C Many farmers and ranchers agreed with candidate Trump when he said NAFTA needed rewriting. But it turns out we’re not speaking the same language. From an agricultural standpoint NAFTA is hugely important because in the 2017 trade year 28 percent of all U.S. ag exports ($39 billion out of $140.5 billion) were with Canada and Mexico. After five rounds of negotiations Trump’s negotiators don’t seem to be making any progress and America’s farmers and ranchers are starting to get really nervous.

There have been subtle signs that Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of Commerce, doesn’t seem to like farmers and ranchers very much. He has said, “The NAFTA negotiating environment has only grown more difficult as a result of industries like ag that have voiced a greater level of concern over the direction the administration is taking.”

When he was on the campaign trail Trump promised to modernize NAFTA while doing no harm to the ag sector.

But recently a group of 85 key ag players sent a letter to Ross contending that withdrawing from NAFTA, “would cause immediate, substantial harm to American farmers, ranchers, and the U.S. economy as a whole.” Ross complained to one Wall Street group that, “‘As one special interest group, say continued on page three

December 15, 2017

Livestock Market Digest

Page 3

GRADING TRUMP

continued from page two

agriculture, for example, gets nervous they start screaming and yelling publicly. They start writing letters, soliciting the Congress people, and they start screaming and yelling in public.

It just complicates the environment and, frankly, makes the negotiations harder.”

Foreign Language... D+ Recently R-CALF and the Cattle Producers of Washington filed a brief for summary judgement in their country-of-origin labeling case. The brief alleges the USDA “is knowingly violating U.S. law by not requiring meatpackers to carry forward the country-of-origin labels (COOL) that are on the packages and containers when meat is imported.” They allege, “The USDA is allowing meatpackers to remove origin labels even after the agency itself, its attorneys, and the Congressional Research Service have acknowledged that the USDA’s regulations are in conflict with U.S. law.”

The groups further state, “that rather than comply with the law, the USDA allows multinational meatpackers to reclassify foreign meat as a domestic product even if all the meatpackers do is unwrap and rewrap the imported product.

They state the USDA then allows the repackaged foreign product to be labeled as a ‘Product of the U.S.A.” Trump has shown little interest in the subject of COOL and it’s been reported that in the first five rounds of NAFTA negotiations there hasn’t been any mention of COOL.

Government...DWhen Sonny Perdue was named the Ag Secretary it seems every group issued press releases praising Trump for what a good pick Perdue was.

I couldn’t understand it then and I’ll go on record as saying he could end up as one of the worst. That’s because he withdrew two of the three Farmer Fair Practices rules, effectively siding with multinational meatpackers in their market dominance over family farmers. In doing so Perdue said the USDA would take no action on the proposed Unfair Practices and Undue Preferences in Violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The long-awaited Interim Final Rule was set to go into effect on October 19th and would have restored the rights of farmers and ranchers who

are harmed by a meatpacker’s unfair practices.

Mike Weaver, President of the Organization for Competitive Markets said, “I am beyond outraged. It is clear from Secretary Perdue’s statement that USDA’s anti-monopoly public policy is to simply ask China’s Smithfield, Brazil’s JBS, which owns Cargill pork, JBS beef and Pilgrim’s Pride chicken, and the other agricultural conglomerates to please stop being a bully in the marketplace playground.

Perdue is either the most naïve Secretary of Agriculture we’ve ever had, or he is simply in bed with the multinational corporate monopolies.”

Weaver added, “This withdrawal is a slap in the face to rural America and America’s farmers and ranchers. The administration is allowing multinational corporations led by foreign interests to hold

America’s farmers and ranchers hostage with their monopolistic, retaliatory and predatory practices. The GIPSA rule represented a desperately needed change for farmers and ranchers and I am appalled that the administration would choose to support multinational corporate interests over those of our own farmers and ranchers, especially after campaigning on a promise to drain the swamp and Make America Great Again. Since the USDA cannot get the job done, we call on President Trump to issue an executive order to immediately implement the Farmer Fair Practices Interim Final Rule.”

The National Farmers Union joined a coalition of 82 groups who sent a letter to Trump urging him to implement the Farmer Fair Practices Rules via executive order. “Massive consolidation in the meatpacking industry over the past forty years placed just four companies in control of 85 percent of the beef market, 74 percent of the pork market and more than half of the poultry market. In that time, 90 percent of hog farmers and 41 percent of cattle producers have gone out of business, and 71 percent of poultry growers now live below the federal poverty level.”

“Family farmers and ranchers, simply put, have virtually no market power any more,” said National Farmer’s Union President Roger Johnson.

“Multinational and foreign meatpackers control our market prices and are dictating much of what happens on our farms and ranches. We’re urging the President to take the

first step in addressing the most abusive and unfair practices that happen as a result of our highly concentrated markets. He can do that by implementing the Farmer Fair Practices Rules.”

According to R CALF’s CEO Bill Bullard, “The meatpackers have convinced the Secretary of Agriculture to support their interests and insulate them.” He adds, “So far, it seems, Trump hasn’t had much success draining the swamp.

Trump continues to allow the meatpackers’ corporate lobbyists, particularly the NCBA to dictate agency policies. Secretary Perdue just handed the entrenched, multinational trade associations and their high-dollar lobbyists a huge victory on the backs of hard working U.S. farmers and ranchers. The NCBA is governed by a board of directors that includes many of the world’s most powerful, multinational meatpackers, all of whom helped eliminate 40 percent of our nation’s cattle farmers and ranchers and 73% of our nation’s independent cattle feeders. The Secretary’s action ensures the continuation of Washington’s agricultural swamp.”

Final Grade Point Average... C Maybe we were asking, hoping or expecting too much of Trump to begin with, but at this point, at least from an agricultural perspective, we can barely give him a passing grade. But we’re grading on a curve here and probably should factor in an A+ for who he is not... Hillary Clinton.

Page 4

Livestock Market Digest

December 15, 2017

USDA Chief Scientist Shoots Down WHO Antibiotics Guidelines

BY RITA JANE GABBETT MEATINGPLACE.COM

U

SDA’s chief scientist came out with a strong statement against the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendations issued this week critical of current uses antibiotics in raising food animals.

“The WHO guidelines are not in alignment with U.S. policy and are not supported by

sound science. The recommendations erroneously conflate disease prevention with growth promotion in animals,” USDA Acting Chief Scientist Chavonda Jacobs-Young said in a statement. On Tuesday, the WHO recommended that farmers and the food industry stop using antibiotics routinely to promote growth and prevent disease in healthy animals.

“The WHO previously re-

quested that the standards for on-farm antibiotic use in animals be updated through a transparent, consensus, science-based process of CODEX. However, before the first meeting of the CODEX was held, the WHO released these guidelines, which according to language in the guidelines are based on ‘low-quality evidence,’ and in some cases, ‘very low-quality evidence,’” said Jacobs-Young.

“Under current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy, medically important antibiotics should not be used for growth promotion in animals.

In the U.S., the FDA allows for the use of antimicrobial drugs in treating, controlling and preventing disease in food-producing animals under the professional oversight of licensed veterinarians. While the WHO guidelines acknowledge the role

BAT SPECIES

continued from page one

The Bat and the Border Falsely claiming the mistake as a victory, however, is not the only thing troubling about Fish and Wildlife’s proposal to take the bat off the federal rolls.

The agency uses the word “border” only four times in its proposed rule and only two of those are in the context of threats to the bat. In other documents, the word “border” is sprinkled throughout like jimmies on ice cream.

In the species status review, the word “border” occurs about 60 times, with entire sections dedicated to the threat posed by border activities. The fiveyear review is similar.

The environmental movement has long claimed border security causes adverse impacts to endangered species, but this case is different.

The issue with the bat is not that a new wall or a fence would inhibit wildlife migration, that

lights would disrupt nocturnal animals, or that any other particular border-security measure would somehow pose a threat to endangered species.

These documents reveal that illegal border crossings likely present the single-biggest threat to the species.

ability to carry out conservation and research activities.”

Fish and Wildlife states that “[t]he colonial roosting behavior of this species, where high percentages of the population can congregate at a limited number of roost sites, increases the likelihood of significant declines or extinction due to impacts at roost sites.”

The agency spends pages detailing causes of roost-site disturbance that it describes as “the primary threat to this species,” and the vast majority is dedicated to the threat from illegal border crossings. All of the lesser long-nosed bat’s U.S. roosting sites are reasonably close to the border. (And, it’s worth noting that some of these roosts may be shared with yet another federally endangered bat, the Mexican long-nosed bat.)

While the bat population and roost sites were drastically undercounted when the species was listed, one of the few numbers that seems to have withstood the test of time is the number of maternal colonies in Arizona: three in 1988 and three as of 2016. (Inconsistently with the report’s narrative, the agency’s map appears to show more.)

The bigger the congregation, the more important it is to the species’ conservation, and the

The Real Threat to the Bat While Fish and Wildlife does not mention this in its proposed rule, according to underlying documents, “[o]ne of the most significant threats to known lesser long-nosed bat roost sites are impacts resulting from use and occupancy of these roost sites by individuals involved in illegal border crossings, both from individuals crossing to look for work and the trafficking of illegal substances.”

The service describes the impact illegal border activities on bat roosts: “Mines and caves which provide roosts for lesser long-nosed bats also provide shade, protection, and sometimes water, for border crossers.”

“The types of impacts that result from illegal border activities include disturbance from human occupancy, lighting fires, direct mortality, accumulation of trash and other harmful materials, alteration of temperature and humidity, destruction of the roost itself, and the in-

ELM

FARMINGTON

The law anticipates that there might be such mistakes and provides a mechanism so the agency can make a correction if the data used to justify listing a species was wrong. For Fish and Wildlife, however, calling the bats a “recovery” sounds a lot better than admitting the error, and that is something the agency has a habit of doing (see here and here).

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 WEDNESDAY: Dairy Cattle NTS IGNME CONS OME! WELC ore rm Call fo ation m r fo in g signin on con stock. r u o y

of veterinarians, they would also impose unnecessary and unrealistic constraints on their professional judgment,” Jacobs-Young added.

She said USDA agrees, however, that more data is needed to assess progress on antimicrobial use and resistance, as well as continued development of alternative therapies for the treatment, control and prevention of disease in animals.

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

FRIDAY: Small Animals Poultry – Butcher Cows JOE VIEIRA Representative Mobile: 209/531-4156 THOMAS BERT 209/605-3866

CJ BRANTLEY Field Representative 209/596-0139

www.escalonlivestockmarket.com • escalonlivestockmarket@yahoo.com

maternal colonies are by definition more vulnerable, as they are far fewer in number.

Information collected for a statutorily required five-year review of the species’ status reported threats to roosts along the U.S. southern border.

The assistant refuge manager at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge warned about the impacts on roosts at the refuge and at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, both in Arizona. He said, “[t]here is evidence of illegal smuggling activities less than one-tenth of a mile from the mine adit [opening].

“We continue to be concerned that the fence will be damaged and the adit will be utilized by smugglers, possibly forcing the bats to once again abandon the adit.”

Fish and Wildlife reports that smugglers subsequently damaged the fence and that the roost site at the refuge was abandoned. While the warning dated to 2005, the agency states that recent data is still worrisome, as apprehensions of illegal border-crossers reported on the refuge rose 56 percent from 2015 to 2016.

Additional warnings regarded a bat roost at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.

The same Fish and Wildlife official reported numerous smuggling trails in close proximity to the mine entrance used by lesser long-nosed bats on the monument and that “given the paucity of maternity colonies in the United States, any loss is significant.”

While this warning also dated to 2005, the 2016 status survey states that recent data indicates apprehensions of illegal border-crossers on the monument rose from 3,418 in 2015 to 4,915 in 2016.

According to Fish and Wildlife, illegal border activities have, at least for a period of years, caused bats to aban-

don some sites, gates put up to protect others have been vandalized, and a mesh-screen covering at another roost site was easily defeated. Yet, even if the gates could somehow be secured, the species status review indicates that both installing and removing gates “had caused bats to abandon the sites” on Fort Huachuca in Arizona for years.

Further, the agency states that “current information leads us to believe that bat gates are not accepted as well by lesser long-nosed bats … .”

Just Disappears The proposed rule to proclaim the bat recovered is more oblique.

It simply states: “Gates are currently being tested at a few additional lesser long-nosed bat roost sites,” that “[g]ating of roosts on federal lands is being implemented and evaluated,” and that “[s]ome progress has been made toward protecting known lesser long-nosed bat roost sites.”

These statements indicate that Fish and Wildlife is hopeful the primary threat to the species may be addressed at some point in the future. Given the agency’s past behavior, such as keeping a plant on the endangered list a decade after discovering millions of them, this is a strangely easy-going attitude.

It seems like an endangered species can be used to shut down just about anything—except, perhaps, illegal activity along the border.

Perhaps the Supreme Court dictum that endangered species must be conserved “whatever the cost” somehow does not apply there.

Rob Gordon is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and has researched, testified, and written on endangered species, property rights, the federal estate, and other environmental issues. He previously served as staff director for the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Natural Resources.

December 15, 2017

Livestock Market Digest

Page 5

Garlic Extracts Being Fed to Livestock Instead of Antibiotics

BY AMANDA RADKE / BEEF.COM

S

ince the inception of the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD), producers could be seeking alternative methods to feed-grade antibiotics in order to keep their calves healthy. With growing consumer concerns about super bugs and antibiotic resistance, there is a closer eye on the livestock industry and increasing public pressure to reduce and eliminate the use of antibiotics for growth promotants in agriculture.

Bavaria Corporation International (BCI), a supplier of speciality phosphates and antimicrobials to the meat processing industry, is looking to nature to find alternative solutions to traditional options typically used by cattle ranchers.

The company has developed a new product, called GOL, which is made from the compounds of garlic, a well-known antimicrobial.

“GOL is a food-grade product made from the extract of garlic or from synthesized chemicals made of the same components as garlic,” said Bruce Hopkins, BCI market development manager.

“GOL was created simply as a natural alternative to antibiotics in livestock.

Coincidentally, there is a big move in the United States today to move away from low dose antibiotics because it promotes resistant bugs. However, producers still need to maintain animal health and make a profit, so GOL offers a good solution to keeping livestock healthy and avoiding expensive and labor-intensive treatments of sick animals.”

GOL has undergone extensive research and field trials, and Hopkins said it’s become quite evident that a low dose of GOL could be a cost-effective solution for producers. It’s available in liquid form for drinking water, as a free-flowing powder for granulated feed or mash, as a micro encapsulated power for extruded feed, and liofilizated for ruminants and horses. It complements well with other essential oils and organic acid, as well. The freeze-dried version is even approved for use in organic agriculture production.

“Added to feed or water, GOL improves intestinal health, helps maintain feed consumption and reduces diarrhea during infectious events... GOL also aids in controlling Coccidiosis and increases transference of immunoglobulin G from parent to offspring thus maintaining overall health, increasing weight gain and lowering veterinary expenses.– Bruce Hopkins, BCI market development manager – “Added to feed or water, GOL improves intestinal health, helps maintain feed consumption and reduces diarrhea during infectious events,” said Hopkins. “This can be used in both monogastric animals and ruminants. Beef producers could use this on gestating cows, newly weaned calves or anywhere along the lifecycle of the beef animal. GOL also aids in controlling Coccidiosis and increases transference of immunoglobulin G from parent to offspring thus maintaining overall health, increasing weight gain and lowering veterinary expenses. Plus, the livestock really love it; it’s very palatable with a slight garlic taste.”

With an ongoing trial taking place in Mexico and a completed study in Spain, Hopkins said they don’t yet have any American customers, but the product has been tested, approved and is waiting for customers to give it a shot. The liquid version is available for $50 per liter, and the recommended dosage is 200 mL per thousand liters of water.

“In Spain, we tested GOL using 1 percent in mineral blocks, and it was very successful in maintaining animal health in the cow herd,” said Hopkins. “We are currently negotiating with a U.S. manufacturer of mineral blocks to conduct a trial using molasses tubs offered to cattle on pasture. The product is currently available in the U.S.” To purchase GOL, contact BCI at 407-880-0322 or email at bavaria@bavariacorp.com.

This product is just one of many that have hit the market as the VFD has made it more challenging and cumbersome to use feed-grade antibiotics. Prebiotics, probiotics and natural antimicrobials,

chelated minerals and even apple cider vinegar have all found their way into feed rations with mixed results and reviews from cattle feeders.

Products like BioMos, Vitamix, Ameferm and Diamond V are just a few of the more recognizable brands of products available on the marketplace today.

“We feed probiotics to our feeder cattle,” said Lance Perrion, a rancher from Ipswich, South Dakota. “With proper management, we have only treated two calves for a snotty nose since 2011. We calve in April and background the calves until March. We started porticos to gain feed efficiency.”

Essential oils such as lavender, tea tree, oregano and thyme, just to name a few, have also become a popular option to aid in digestion, promoting healing or increase feed efficiency in livestock.

“We put Oregano oil in our lick tubs with great success,” said Tiffany Kobbermann, of Clontarf, Minnesota.

Yet, little testing or research has been done on essential oils. According to Jim Paulson, University of Minnesota Extension dairy educator said, “Medicinal properties of plants have been known for thousands of years. In recent years, many of the essential oils have been studied for these antimicrobial properties. Much of the research with essential oils has been done in-vitro in a controlled lab setting.

The effects of oils seem to be diet and pH dependent with certain oils working better with a particular diet. There are limited data available from trials with lactating cows feeding essential oils.” Research is ongoing to determine whether or not the effects observed in-vitro carry

over to the rumen which is a much larger and diverse ecosystem, he said.

With many unknown variables to consider, Warren Rusche, South Dakota State University Extension beef feedlot management associate, urges producers to do their research before adding a new product to a ration.

“We are seeing more interest from feedlots, backgrounders and cow-calf producers to try alternatives to feedgrade antibiotics because of the market concerns and the hassle with the VFD,” said Rusche. “The question for these new products is, do they really work? How much research does the product have to support it? There are some cases of people out there selling foo-foo dust, so the big thing I try to stress is when we are evaluating a product, we really need to make sure the data backs up what the product claims to do.”

Rusche says direct-fed microbials and fermentation products continue to grow in popularity, but sometimes the results aren’t always consistent.

“Antibiotics work; they are just really effective, so the challenge is these alternatives aren’t necessarily an equal one-to-one substitution,” said Rusche.

“However, many nutritionists are telling me that more producers are opting out of using traditional feed-grade antibiotics to see how they get along without.

In turn, they are looking for alternatives that will promote healthy calves. If producers are considering one of these alternatives, they want to make sure to do their research and not spend money on something that has a very low probability of actually working.

Page 6

Livestock Market Digest

December 15, 2017

How to Evaluate Property for Raising Cattle

BY ROBERT WELLS, PH.D., LIVESTOCK CONSULTANT & ROB COOK, PLANNED CONSULTATION MANAGER

W

hen buying land for cattle production, there are some unique characteristics to consider before signing a contract. These characteristics include: stocking rate, forage quality and type, soil type and fertility, terrain and slope of the land, water sources in each pasture, number of pastures and traps, working pen availability and condition, fence condition and type, and other infrastructure (overhead bins, interior roads, etc.) availability and condition.

Every Property is Different Many times a potential buyer is told that a ranch in a given area will run “X” amount of cattle. For example, “ranches in this county can run a cow to 15 acres.” These figures are rules of thumb that are normally rooted

in some truth but are hardly ever accurate, especially for a specific property. Not every ranch is created equal. Ranches in the same area can have varying forage production potentials based simply on the soil types that are present.

Soil Types Soil types can vary widely, not only across counties but also across ranches. Each soil type has different forage production potential. A loamy, bottomland soil will have the potential to produce more grass than a shallow soil found along ridges or hilltops. Knowing what and how much of each soil types are on the ranch will allow you to understand the forage production capability of the land you’re investigating. Land that has the capability of producing less forage for cattle consumption than other properties in the same general area could be less valuable to a livestock producer because of the reduced animal

number it will support relative to properties of comparable size.

The Web Soil Survey website, maintained by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), is a great tool to determine what soil types are on any given piece of land. This tool allows you to map out the property and run reports on what soil types are present, in what amounts, and the forage production capability for each soil type. There is also ratings on the building suitability for home and barn sites, crop production, and pond development just to name a few. This tool can be found at websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov or with a quick internet search for “Web Soil Survey.”

Nongrazeable Land Not all of the acres on the property will be grazeable.

Roads, energy production sites, steep or rocky terrain, and high densities of brush cover will restrict grazing animal accessibility and/or reduce or eliminate forage production. These areas will have to be accounted for when determining the property value for cattle production because the production realized on other acres or income from other enterprises will need to be utilized to pay for nongrazeable acres.

Studies have shown that cattle use decreases as rock cover increases. Rock cover of 30 percent or more could result in no grazing use from most cattle in a herd. Cattle seem to avoid areas with greater than 10 percent slopes if other options are available. Reduced production from high brush densities can be overcome by implementing brush management practices.

These practices are usually relatively expensive, and must be accounted for when considering the cost of operation or purchasing land.

Past Land Management The land health must also be considered. Past management can have a large impact on land health, and large amounts of time and/or money may be needed to overcome misuse by previous managers. A quick soil test on introduced pastures will give you an idea of the soil fertility and what type of nutrient inputs will be needed to meet the management goals you have for the property. Native grass communities could be shifted to less desirable grasses or low production because of past overgrazing. These issues can be corrected with proper management but will need to be thought through when developing a grazing management plan or an analysis of the economic feasibility of purchasing and operating a property.

Water Location and Quality Water location and quality is essential when evaluating land for cattle production. As a general rule of thumb, cattle prefer

not to range more than one-half to three-quarters of a mile from a water source. Therefore, make sure water sources are no farther than 1 mile apart in each pasture. The closer the better, as areas closest to the sources will be more heavily grazed; those furthest away will have little to no grazing activity. Larger and deeper impoundments will typically have better water quality.

The larger the water source, the less susceptible it is to drying up in a drought. Well water is usually better quality and a more dependable source, especially during droughts. However, it is prudent to test all water sources to ensure there are no pollutants that could cause an animal to reduce intake or harm. Well water can be high in sulfur and salts that can be detrimental to cattle performance.

Infrastructure What infrastructure will come with the ranch? Is there is an overhead feed bin onsite that could be negotiated in staying after the sale? Overhead feed bins cost $8,000 to $10,000 to purchase, deliver and set up on a ranch. They allow for flexibility in feed types as well as when and from where feed can be procured. Are there quality and large-enough working pens that are strategically placed on the property? Look to see how well the working pens are constructed. Make sure the layout is logical and that cattle will flow calmly and smoothly through the working area. Make sure there is a good, full squeeze chute in the pens, not just a head gate at the end of an alley.

Building new working facilities on a ranch is an expensive undertaking, especially if old pens have to be torn out before a new set is built.

Additionally, make sure the ranch has good internal roads.

Inclement weather events, especially during the winter and spring months, can make it difficult to get into pastures that are only serviced by dirt roads. If the property has oil field activity, ask who maintains the roads.

A good gravel road can make it easy to feed cattle during the rainy season.

Fence Condition What

condition

are

the

fences in and are they in the right places? Fence construction typically costs more than $9,000 per mile if built on flat and clear land. If brush has to be removed or earthmoving has to occur to ensure building ease of an effective fence, costs can increase dramatically. Different forage types need to be fenced from each other to be properly managed. Native grasses should not be in the same pasture as introduced grasses or crop ground. All fences need to be in good enough condition to hold the species you plan on grazing.

Field fence with several strands of barbed wire on top is desirable in traps located adjacent to working pens and where weaning will occur. Goats will require field fencing to be most effective in containing them. Bulls will require at least a five-strand barbed wire fence in good condition to keep them apart from the cow herd during the nonbreeding season.

Easements Finally, ask if there are easements that could impact property use. Be sure you understand the nature of any and all easements that my impede portions of the land. Pipeline or power transmission line easements will require a certain setback where no building construction can occur. Have there been any easements with private groups that prevent livestock grazing?

This list is not exhaustive and the topics discussed are not intended to be looked at as a make or break on a deal.

They are only meant to make you aware of some things to consider when looking at properties. Things such as location, options to purchase other land, goals and objectives, and cost could trump any or all of these.

Remember to engage industry experts such as Noble Research Institute consultants, land-grant county extension services or NRCS employees before buying a property to help you make the right decisions. Ask the right questions and take everything into account before deciding to buy. Knowing all this information up front can help you as a potential buyer determine a reasonable value for the ranch.

Source: Noble Research Institute

December 15, 2017

Livestock Market Digest

Page 7

Cattle Feeding County Celebrates 50 Years Texas Cattle Feeders Association Remains Major Voice for Beef

C

attle Feeding Country earned its title in the late 1960s. By the late ‘70s, it was a brand known from coast to coast. And today, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas feedyards finish more than 6 million cattle a year, roughly 30% of the nation’s fed cattle supply.

Nearly all feedyards in the tri-state region are members of the Texas Cattle Feeders Association – an organization that has celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2017 – and one that continues to carry a ton of weight in making cattle policy decisions.

TCFA was born in 1967, when several leaders in the still-new southwestern cattle feeding industry decided they needed a voice within their own

segment of cattle production.

Lloyd Bergsma was the first CEO 1967-1972. A mission statement was established early on: To serve and advance the economic, political and social interests of the cattle feeding industry of Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

Charlie Ball, a former agricultural magazine editor, took over the reins in 1972. He held the position until 1988. Richard McDonald led TCFA from then until 2006. Ross Wilson, current president and CEO, has been at the helm since then.

There has been battle after battle since those late-‘60s days.

The early ‘70s saw the price freezes that hurt all phases of the business. The price wreck of 1974 was catastrophic. But TCFA, the then National Cattlemen’s Association and other beef groups held their own in fencing off added federal regulations that would further crip-

ple prices.

The mid-70s was when initial efforts began to develop national Beef Checkoff. TCFA took the lead in fighting for a “Beeferendum” vote to establish the $1 per head checkoff aimed at funding beef research and promotion.

It didn’t happen over night.

It wasn’t until 1985 that the Beef Checkoff was approved by producers and feeders nationwide. TCFA leaders like Jay O’Brien of Amarillo spent countless days and their own resources to campaign for its passage. It was an example of what has kept TCFA as a pillar in cattle policy – volunteerism.

“The volunteers within the association have been very progressive in the way they’ve addressed things,” O’Brien said earlier this year in a Calf News interview. “I was at the first TCFA convention in 1967 and I have been impressed by the

“Clean” Labels Muddy the Waters of Liability Exposure (The views and opinions expressed in this article are strictly those of the author.)

LEGALLY SPEAKING BY SHAWN STEVENS / MEATINGPLACE.COM

I

t’s no secret that consumer preferences are continuously evolving when it comes to buying foods. An increasing number of shoppers today want food products that are allergen free, GMO free, hormone free, and preservative free. In turn, more and more competing products are claiming to have the “cleanest” and most “natural” ingredients.

How should industry respond to these trends when the harvesting and processing of many “natural” products is inherently accompanied by significant hazards?

We know, for instance, that raw fruits and vegetables have inherent risks. Historically, over the years industry has learned to effectively manage many of these risks by washing the products with chemicals (chlorine or peracetic acid), treating them with heat (blanching or canning), or adding preservatives (sodium benzoate or potassium sorbate) to reduce pathogens and control growth. In addition to making food products safer, these technologies and processes have also given the products longer shelf lives, making more nutritious and healthy foods available to more people.

But even with these technologies and processes, consistently producing a safe product remains difficult. So far, this year, there have been nearly 400 food product recalls, many of which were announced because of the presence of harmful pathogens.

Indeed, harmful pathogens in food products have accounted for nearly 34 percent of all FDA

recalls this year, and 19 percent of USDA recalls. As food industry professionals, we each know how difficult it can be to consistently produce a safe and wholesome product while actually using such advanced production methods.

With that said, the recent push to eat more raw, natural, pure and clean foods is putting pressure on industry to do away with these proven forms of pathogen and spoilage control. Unfortunately, bacteria are resilient and like to grow.

As industry moves away from processes known to be effective against microorganisms, the increase in opportunities for bacterial introduction and growth may lead to more spoilage, disgruntled consumers, outbreaks, lawsuits, and visits to your facility from the government.

In addition to creating additional quality and safety challenges, the push towards a cleaner label also increases exposure for misbranding claims.

The use of the word “natural,” for instance, creates its own significant challenges. What formulation must a product have to truly be considered 100% “natural?”

Sure, a company can strive to find and use ingredients in its products that it believes to be “GMO Free,” but is there really such a thing? FDA cautions that, given historical farming techniques, such as selective breeding, a truly GMO product may no longer exist, and counsels staying away from using the term. “Non-GMO” call-outs, however, which are generally regarded as appropriate for products that are made according to “best practices” for “GMO avoidance,” may be more defensible. As industry continues to travel down this road, it will be important to remember that even the smallest of missteps in

the use of the terms “natural” or “no GMOs” could subject a company to consumer class action lawsuits.

Thus, while having the “cleanest” label is an honorable objective, be careful not to rush to quickly into the realm of “clean.” Doing so blindly without the required scientific data to ensure a safe product or to fully support your claims could, at the end of the day, leave your company cleaning up a really big mess.

As principal of Food Industry Counsel LLC, Shawn Stevens helps food industry clients protect their brand by proactively reducing their food safety exposure.

association from the very first.”

He is part of a regional ranching legacy and served as TCFA president in 1991. He has also chaired the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and is quick to recognize former TCFA leaders. “Glenn Deen was a great mentor.

Whether you go back to Glenn, O.J. Barron, Jack Carrothers or one of many others, TCFA has had a dynamic leadership.

“The term limits for directors and officers have been very beneficial. It gets everyone in the association involved. You get new ideas. It gives respect to all members. That has been a powerful program.”

Ball was a hard-nosed professional who got things done.

He treated others with respect.

And when he and TCFA officers made trips to Washington, D.C. to discuss policy matters, they set an example that other cattle associations appreciated.

TCFA was, and continues to

be a benchmark group when it came to maneuvering through the halls of Congress and regulatory agencies.

O’Brien noted, “Richard McDonald was one of the greatest leaders ever. Ross Wilson has been great with his leadership and by continuing with the volunteer program. The fact that TCFA has not been stuck in the past is one reason it has been unsurpassed at the state and national level. TCFA is not a good-old-boys club, although people who work for specific goals have a great time working together and form long-term friendships.”

Clovis’ Don McCaslin was chairman in 2007. He was involved in many TCFA efforts to offset misinformation spewed by anti-beef groups. Among the many battles undertaken by TCFA have been those against the Humane Society if the United States.

! w o N e b ri

c s b Su

e li

rmativ

n ...

licatio

k pub vestoc

k c o t s e v Li Digest t info ’s mos

st

uthwe

The So

KET

MAR

S

3Yes.

Please subscribe me to the Livestock Market Digest for:

1 Year at $19.95

2 Years at $29.95

NAME

NAME

ADDRESS

ADDR

PHONE

PHON

E-MAIL

E-MAI

MC

VISA

CARD NUMBER

CARD

EXPIRATION DATE

EXPIR

SIGNATURE

SIGNA

Payment Enclosed

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

@

or subscribe online

Pay

SEND AAALIVESTOCK.COM

Lives P.O. Albu

FARMERS

Prescott Livestock Auction

209-847-1033

Sales Jan through April & July and August Biweekly May & June and Sept to Dec Every Week Sales start at 11:00am on Tues

liveSTOCk MaRkeT Steve Haglund

RegulaR SaleS

Mon. 1:30pm Butcher Cows Thurs. 11:30am Beef & Dairy Cattle flmoakdale@gmail.com Oakdale, Ca

Hosting Cattlemens Weekend March

Richard Smyer 928-445-9571

Valley Livestock Auction,LLC

Winfield Livestock Auction 7168 Hwy US160 Winfield, Kansas 67156 (620) 221-4364

8517 Sun Valley Rd, Sun Valley AZ

www.winfieldlivestockauct.com Email: wla@sutv.com

Derek & Irene Waggoner 928-524-2600 Derek 928-241-0920 Regular sales Wed. 12 Noon Special sales as advertised Latest sale reports visit our website www.valleylivestock.info

Sales held each Wednesday in Winfield, Kansas at 11 AM Our sale is one of the leading livestock auctions of South Central Kansas.

We are now broadcasting our Livestock Sale on Wednesday, live at: www.cattleusa.com

Treasure Valley LIVESTOCK AUCTION

L I V E S TO C K AU CT I O N

Caldwell, Idaho

Los Lunas, NM

Office:

(208) 459-7475 Ron Davison

(208) 941-8114 Sales Monday & Friday 10am

www.treasurevalleylivestock.com

2011 E. Stuhr Road Newman, California

John McGill cell: (209) 631-0845 office: (209) 862-4500

REGULAR SALES Tuesday & Thursday – 3 p.m. newmanstockyardsllc@yahoo.com

Paul Bottari, Broker

775/752-3040 Nevada Farms & raNch PrOPerTY www.bottarirealty.com

BAKER CITY, OREGON Andrew Bryan, Owner/Broker Office 541-523-5871 Cell 208-484-5835

andrew@bakercityrealty.com www.bakercityrealty.com

Southwest Dennis & Tammy Chavez

505-865-4600

Regular Sales Saturday 12 Noon Tammy cell: 505-362-7116

Happy Holidays to all our customers!

RegulaR SaleS FRIDaYS aT NOON

559/591-0884

9641 Ave 384, Dinuba, Ca. 93618 www.Tularecountystockyard.com

SOCORRO PLAZA REALTY On the Plaza

NEWMAN STOCKYARDS, LLC

Bottari Realty

Donald Brown

Qualifying Broker

Regulsa: r Sale

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

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

CATTLE

Every Friday at 9 a.m.

SHEEP, GOATS & HORSES

Every 1st Thursday of the Month at 10 a.m.

For more information or to consign cattle, please give us a call or drop by. We guarantee our same high quality service as in the past.

P.O. Box 608 • Belen, NM CHARLIE MYERS Office: 505/864-7451 Fax: 505/864-7073 • Cell: 505/269-9075

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

COLETTA RAY

Pioneer Realty 1304 Pile Street, Clovis, NM 88101

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

Fallon-Cortese Land

NEW MEXICO P.O. Box 447 Fort Sumner, NM 88119 575.355.2855 office 575.355.7611 fax 575.760.3818 cell nick@ranchseller.com www.ranchseller.com

From all of us here at the Livestock Market Digest

Bar M Real Estate

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

December 15, 2017

Livestock Market Digest

Page 9

Livestock Market Digest

REAL ESTATE GUIDE HeAdquArters West Ltd.

For advertising information contact

Lynn Marie ‘LM’ Rusaw at 505-243-9515

or email AAALivestockMarketDigest @gmail.com

TRAEGEN KNIGHT

521 West Second St. • Portales, NM 88130

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

Buena Vista Realty

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

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

WAGONMOUND RANCH, Mora/Harding Counties, MAXWELL FARM W/HOUSE, Colfax County 360 +/NM. 4,927 +/- deeded acres, 1,336.80 +/- state lease deeded acres with 101.2 water shares. Seller would acres, 2,617 +/- Kiowa National Grassland Lease Acres. consider split. $445,500 8,880.80 +/- Total Acres. Substantial holding with good mix of grazing land and broken country off rim onto RATON MILLION DOLLAR VIEW, Colfax County, NM. Canadian River. Fenced into four main pastures with 97.68 +/- deeded acres, 2 parcels, excellent home, shipping and headquarter pasture and additional four big shop, wildlife, a true million dollar view at end of $489,000. House & 1 parcel $375,000 in theVista Kiowa lease.

Modern storage tank privateorroad.

Callpastures Buena Realty atwell, 575-226-0671 the listing agent and piped water system supplementing existing dirt MIAMI 80 ACRES, Colfax County, NM. 80 +/- deedLoritanks Bohm 575-760-9847, or Melody17Sandberg located on deeded. Located approximately ed acres, 80 575-825-1291. water shares, expansive views, house, miles east of Wagon Mound onon pavement shop, roping arena, barns and outbuildings. Reduced Many good pictures MLSthen orcounty www.buenavista-nm.com road. Nice headquarters and good access to above rim. $485,000 Wildlife include antelope, mule deer and some elk.

COLD BEER VIEW, Colfax County, NM 83.22 +/$2,710,000 deeded acre, 3,174 sq ft, 5 bedroom, 3 ½ bathrm, 2 car MIAMI HORSE TRAINING FACILITY, Colfax County, garage home situated on top of the hill with amazing NM. Ideal horse training facility, 4 bedroom 3 bathroom 360 degree views. Reduced $398,000 approx. 3,593 sq-ft home, 332.32 +/- deeded acres, 208 shares of irrigation, all the facilities you need to MIAMI 20 ACRES, Colfax County, NM. 20 +/- deeded summer your cutting horse operation out of the heat acres, 20 water shares, quality 2,715 sq ft adobe home, and far enough south to have somewhat mild winters. barn, grounds and trees. Private setting. This is a must see. Reduced to $375,000 Approximately 6,200 ft elevation. $1,790,000 MAXWELL FARM IMPROVED, Colfax County, NM. 280 FRENCH TRACT 80, Colfax County, NM irrigated farm +/- deeded acres, 160 Class A irrigation shares, 2 center with home and good outbuildings, $350,000 pivots, nice sale barn, 100 hd feedlot. Depredation Elk COLMOR PLACE, Mora County, NM 354 +/- deeded Tags available. Owner financing available to qualified acres, I25 frontage, house, pens, expansive views. Ocate buyer. Significantly reduced to $550,000 Creek runs through property. $249,000

Scott Land co.

Ranch & Farm Real Estate

521 West Second St. Portales, NM 88130 575-226-0671 www.buenavista-nm.com

ST. JOHN’S OFFICE:

1301 Front Street, Dimmitt, TX 79027 Ben G. Scott – Broker Krystal M Nelson –CO/NM QB#15892 800-933-9698 day/eve. www.scottlandcompany.com

P.O. Box 1980 St. John’s, AZ 85936 www.headquarterswest.com 928/524-3740 Fax 928/563-7004 Cell 602/228-3494 info@headquarterswest.com

Filling your real estate needs in Arizona

West of Portales, NM in Roosevelt Co. @349 S. Roosevelt Rd Y 80 acres of irrigated land that was in a past CRP program. It has a submersible pump, and a well, and concrete pipeline with 12” risers. Is currently in grass with good fence on the west end of property, and fence along south & west side needs repair, no fence on the north. There are structures on the property but they are being sold as is, with the property.

TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES • 100 acres, Brick home. 4 barns, 4 tanks, cattle pens. $565,000.

• 240 acres, Recreation, hunting and fishing. Nice apartment, 25 miles from Dallas Court House. $3250 per acre.

• 270 acre, Mitchell County, Texas ranch. Investors dream; excellent cash flow.

Rock formation being crushed and sold; wind turbans, some minerals. Irrigation water developed, crop & cattle, modest improvements. Just off I-20. Price reduced to $1.6 million.

SOLD

• 40 acre, 2 homes, nice barn, corral, 30 miles out of Dallas.

Joe Priest Real Estate

1-800/671-4548

joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com

Andrew Bryan, Owner/Broker Office 541-523-5871 Cell 208-484-5835 andrew@bakercityrealty.com www.bakercityrealty.com Beautiful, secluded Eastern Oregon living in Granite, Oregon! This newer log home sits on 18.50 acres and features 2 bed/2 full bath. The open living space is complete with a laundry room and internet access. Enjoy the peace and quiet on the covered deck, or sit around the fire pit. Property includes a RV parking and an outbuilding used as a shop. Escape from it all in your slice of heaven!

Missouri Land Sales See all my listings at: • NEW LISTING! 167 Acres, Cattle/Horses/Hunting Estate 5000 sq ft paulmcgilliard.murney.com inspired Frank Lloyd Wright designed home. 3 bed, 2 1/2 baths, full w/o Paul McGilliard finished basement, John Deere room, bonus room. This estate is set Cell: 417/839-5096 up for intensive grazing, 3 wells, 3 springs, 4 ponds, automatic waters.

1-800/743-0336 Secluded, but easy access, only 22 miles east of Springfield, off Hwy Murney Assoc., Realtors 60. MLS# 60081327 Springfield, MO 65804 • NEW LISTING! 80 Acres - 60 Acres Hayable, Live Water, Location, Location! Only 8 miles west of Norwood, 3 miles east of Mansfield, 1/4 mile off Hwy 60. Well maintained 3 bed, 1 1/2 bath, 1432 sq. ft. brick/vinyl home, nestled under the trees.

Full basement (partially finished), John Deere Room. This is your farm! MLS#60059808 • 10 ACRES - MAJOR PRICE REDUCTION Location, location, location. Only 4+ miles south of Mountain Grove, you will find a a secluded 10 acres at the end of Hopper Lane with 1,550 sq. ft. home, nestled under the trees. Numerous outbuildings, with an exceptionally well built 18 x 30 shop. The present owners have lived there 46 years. MLS# 60056419.

WE NEED LISTINGS ON ALL TYPES OF AG PROPERTIES LARGE OR SMALL! OTERO CO., NM - 120 scenic ac. +/- on the Rio Penasco is surrounded by Lincoln National Forest lands covered in Pines & opening up to a grass covered meadow along 3,300 feet +/- of the Rio Penasco. This property is an ideal location to build a legacy mountain getaway home.

EXCELLENT OWNER FINANCING – Huerfano Co., CO - 7,491 ac. +/- of choice grassland, excellent winter protection for lvstk. & commercial Elk hunting, watered by wells, pipeline, Sandy Creek & the Cucharas River, on pvmt.

ARROYO LARGO - 22,850 ac. +/- located in Lincoln, Chaves & DeBaca Counties, NM, well improved w/ two homes, working pens & fences, well-watered by wells & pipelines, open rolling country w/numerous draws & arroyos provide for year-round cow/calf operation or seasonal yearling operation.

NORTH FACE OF TUCUMCARI MOUNTAIN - 502 ac. +/- investment/hunting/recreation, three tower leases provides excellent income.

MALPAIS OF NM - Lincoln/Socorro Counties, 37.65 sections +/- (13,322 ac. +/- Deeded, 8,457 ac. +/- BLM Lease, 2,320 ac. +/- State Lease) good, useable improvements & water, some irrigation w/2 pivot sprinklers, on pvmt., all-weather road.

FRONTIER RANCH – 6,423.45 ac. +/- in two tracts of 3,735 ac. & 2,688.45 ac., all deeded, approx. 7 mi. apart offered as one ranch, broker will assist w/ contracts on either or both of the tracts, good country for year-round cow/calf operation or summer yearling grazing, located in close proximity to the Grey Fox Ranch for addtl. acreage.

GREY FOX RANCH – Guadalupe Co., NM – 2,919.85 ac. +/- of deeded land, all native grass, located in close proximity to the Mesa Del Gato Ranch for addtl. grazing.

SOUTH CONCHAS RANCH – San Miguel Co., NM - 9,135 ac. +/- (6,670 +/- deeded, 320 +/- BLM, 40 +/- State Lease, 2,106 +/“FREE USE”) well improved, just off pvmt. on co. road., two neighboring ranches may be added for additional acreage!

24 MI. FROM TEXAS/NM STATE LINE – Box Canyon Ranch – Quay Co., NM – well improved & watered, 2,400 ac. +/-deeded, 80 ac. +/- State Lease, excellent access from I-40.

AIRPORT DRIVE – Tucumcari, NM – Choice 160 ac. +/-, on pvmt. w/beautiful home, roping arena, steel pens & 139.5 ac. +/- of water rights.

WOOD FARM & RANCH – Quay Co., NM – 480 ac. +/-, w/292 ac. classified as cropland fully allotted to wheat & milo, 365.9 ac. of Arch Hurley Water Rights, nice combination farming/cattle operation, presently in grass for grazing.

CANYON VIEW RANCH – 1,533 deeded ac. +/- just out of Clayton, NM, beautiful, good country, well watered, volcanic rock mining operation offers addtl. income, on pvmt.

SWISHER CO., TX. – 568 ac. ORGANIC farm, located on pvmt. 2 ½ mi. from I27.

Please view our website for details on these properties, choice TX, NM & CO ranches (large & small), choice ranches in the high rainfall areas of OK, irr./dryland/CRP & commercial properties. We need your listings on any types of ag properties in TX., NM, OK & CO.

X-T RANCH – Southeastern NM cattle ranch 40 miles northwest of Roswell, NM on the Chaves/Lincoln County line. Good grass ranch with gently rolling grass covered hills. 8,000 total acres, 200 AUYL grazing capacity. Partitioned into four pastures watered by 2 wells with pipelines. Call for brochure. Price: $1,750,000 DOUBLE L RANCH – Central NM, 10 miles west of Carrizozo, NM. 12,000 total acres; 175 AUYL, BLM Section 3 grazing permit; Water provided by 3 wells and buried pipeline.

Improvements include house and pens. PRICE REDUCED: $1,150,000 (to include 73 brangus type 5-6 yr old cows & 6 bulls)

SALE G PEN DI N

LITTLE COWBOY RANCH – Small cattle ranch located in southeastern NM approximately 50 miles northwest of Roswell on the Chaves/Lincoln County line. 7,455 total acres with 2,600 deeded. 150 AU capacity and it will run them all. Two wells; one electric submersible, one solar well with some pipeline. Fenced as one large pasture and one smaller trap.

Excellent grass cover. Price: $1,200,000 L-X RANCH – Southeastern NM just ten minutes from Roswell, NM with paved gated and locked access. 3,761 total acres divided into several pastures and traps. Nice improvements to include a site built adobe residence. One well with extensive pipeline system. Well suited for a registered cattle operation. Price: $900,000

Page 10

Livestock Market Digest

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

Bulls, Cows, Pairs, Bred Heifers and Replacement Heifers for Sale www.RanchWorldAds.com To advertise call 505/243-9515

g•u•i•d•e angus

Bradley 3 Ranch Ltd. www.bradley3ranch.com

Annual Bull Sale: February 10, 2018

at the Ranch NE of Estelline, TX Ranch-Raised ANGUS Bulls for Ranchers Since 1955

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

BEEFMASTER

HEREFORD

Registered Polled Herefords Bulls & Heifers

Cañones Route P.O. Abiquiu, N.M. 87510

FOR SALE AT THE FARM

MANUEL SALAZAR P.O. Box 867 Española, N.M. 87532

Food Safety & Inspection Service?

BY DR. WILLIAM JAMES MEATINGPLACE.COM

(The views and opinions expressed in this blog are strictly those of the author.)

O

n day one with FSIS, the trainer handed me a hard hat. The sticker on the front read ‘FSQS’.

“What does that stand for?” I asked.

“Food Safety and Quality Service,” was his answer. “That was our old name.” The hard hat wasn’t new.

After the grading service was moved to another agency, FSQS became the Food Safety and Inspection Service. “I understand why ‘and’ should separate food safety from quality, but why does ‘and’ separate food safety from inspection in the new name?” was my naïve question.

“They’re not the same thing,” was his simple reply.

They should be.

Starting in the 1980s, FSIS began preparing for entry into the 21st century by shedding 19th century inspection concepts. The vision involved four steps of evolution: 1. quality control 2. process control

575/638-5434

RED ANGUS

A SOURCE FOR PROVEN SUPERIOR RED ANGUS GENETICS 14298 N. Atkins Rd., Lodi, CA 95240

209/727-3335

RED ANGUS

BRANGUS CORRIENTE

R.L. Robbs 520/384-3654 4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, Arizona 85643 Willcox, AZ

For Advertising Contact:

Lynn Marie Rusaw Office:

505-243-9515 Email:

AAALivestockMarketDigest @gmail.com

December 15, 2017

3. hazard control 4. risk control Quality control was managed

by FSIS through traditional inspection for lumps, bumps, and bruises. Even after the grading service moved to another agency, FSIS made little distinction between food safety and quality.

Process control focused more on food safety with inspection systems like the New Line Speed System for chickens. But, still there was too much emphasis on visible quality defects.

Hazard control was ushered in by the Pathogen Reduction/ HACCP rule at the end of the 20th century. This approach moved food safety forward as measured by a reduction in some foodborne illnesses.

Risk control has proven too difficult a concept for FSIS to tackle. The agency has made no progress in this century in developing an inspection program to manage the risks of foodborne illnesses.

Why? A decade ago we saw the beginning of an exodus of food safety expertise from the ranks of FSIS leadership. This food safety expertise was replaced by inspection expertise. The

inspection experts knew much about the mechanics of inspection, but lacked the education, experience, and expertise to develop useful standards and procedures to advance the interests of food safety.

Inspection is currently performed the way it is because that’s the way it was done when inspection experts started running the agency. In other words, FSIS remains the Food Safety and Inspection Service. As a result, there has been no progress in reducing foodborne illnesses for at least 10 years.

For risk control to take its place on the evolutionary chain will require eminently qualified food safety experts in positions of leadership, particularly Undersecretary of Food Safety and Administrator of FSIS. Then we might see a new agency in USDA – the Food Safety Inspection Service.

Dr. William James capped a 28-year career at USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) as the agency’s chief veterinarian. During his career in FSIS he worked in the offices of Field Operations, Policy, Science, and International Affairs. James supervised district offices, coordinated animal welfare enforcement throughout the country, directed ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection of livestock and poultry, implemented pathogen and residue sampling and had executive oversight of import and export issues for FSIS.

Fossil Free CU Latest Campus Divestment Group to Shut Down Operations

I

n mid-November, Fossil Free CU, the student divestment group at the University of Colorado at Boulder, announced it was ceasing operations in a Facebook post. It’s a somewhat ironic development based on the fact that CU Boulder is typically ranked among the nation’s “greenest” campuses each year—but it’s a reflection of where the divestment movement stands both in the state of Colorado and across the country.

The closure comes after a five year campaign that proved unsuccessful in convincing the state-wide elected Board of Regents to divest from fossil fuels. In 2015, the CU Board of Regents voted against divestment in a 7-2 vote, a tally which included “no” votes from two Democrats. The vote came despite organized protests by students that included sit-ins and camp-outs in the snow.

During the 2016 elections, the issue remained front and center during the race to replace an at large seat on the Board. Most candidates ended up coming out against the unpopular policy, including 350.org-backed Democrat Alice Madden (after months of avoiding the question). Heidi Ganahl, who ran an anti-divestment campaign, ended up winning the seat.

Instead of continuing to perpetuate unsuccessful divestment protests, Fossil Free CU is now associating itself with the Sunrise movement, a group involved in broader climate policy, but one that does not specifically focus on divestment.

It’s not just CU Boulder–divestment has been an overall failure throughout the state of Colorado. Early this year the University of Denver rejected divestment, despite an intense campaign organized by 350.org. The board did not buy the argument that stigmatizing an industry would somehow help the climate:

“A strategy of industry stigmatization drives a wedge between the University of Denver and the fossil fuel companies that represent an important part of the economic base of Colorado and the nation. Equally important, stigmatizing fossil fuel companies inherently involves stigmatization of their employees as well. As a general matter, the panel believes that stigmatizing individuals based upon a career choice to work for an employer engaged in a lawful enterprise is inappropriate.”

In the lead up to the decision, the Denver Post also called the movement “unrealistic and unwise” in an editorial: “…it’s completely unrealistic to think that our state, our nation or other others can immediately stop depending on the plentiful fossil fuels available to provide the power we need to live the lives to which we are accustomed. It would be cruel to poor and hardworking people in our country and impoverished nations beyond our borders to do so.”

And Fossil Free CU is not the first Colorado University to stop operations. About a year ago Colorado College’s campus divestment group shut down because of a lack of student interest. As reported by the student newspaper, the Catalyst at the time: “’Throughout the years there have been a number of proposals to the Board of Trustees, and they have basically been shut down every time,’ said Scott Broadbent, a senior graduating in December. ‘And so I think a lot of kids grew tired… Basically it all fizzled out.’”

It seems that colleges have caught on to the fact that divestment is an empty gesture that does nothing to help the environment.

At the end of the day, its price tag isn’t worth the outcome. It appears students can see the tough road ahead of them, and are looking to change direction.

December 15, 2017

Livestock Market Digest

Page 11

Author: Use Mountain Lions to Control Wild Horses

BY SETH TUPPER, JOURNAL STAFF, RAPIDCITYJOURNAL.COM

P

ulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Philipps has an idea to help restrain the number of wild horses that roam federal lands.

“The solution,” he wrote near the end of his new book, “is mountain lions.”

As naively simple as that may sound, the idea will not be easily dismissed by anyone who reads “Wild Horse Country.” That’s the title of the book and the name Philipps has assigned to the dry, desolate pockets of the intermountain West where most wild horses — aka mustangs — are found.

The book takes readers on a journey that begins with prehistoric horses in America, continues through their extirpation and later reintroduction to the continent by European explorers, and culminates with the near annihilation of wild horses as they were rounded up in great numbers and processed into dog food during the 1920s and ’30s.

Along the way, Philipps demystifies the hold that wild horses exert on the American psyche, in part by explaining them as a reflection of the American spirit.

“They are freedom. They are independence,” Philipps wrote.

“They are the ragtag misfits defying incredible odds. They are the lowborn outsiders whose nobility springs from the adversity of living a simple life. In short, they are American. Or at least they are what we tell ourselves we are, and what we aspire to be.”

That myth helps explain why

Americans do not eat or indiscriminately kill wild horses, as people in some other countries do. And the myth is partly to blame for the U.S. government’s modern wild-horse predicament.

Decades of activism and legislation have pushed horse slaughterhouses out of the United States and resulted in legal protections for wild horses on designated federal lands in the West, where horse numbers have grown exponentially.

Pressure from wild-horse advocates has kept government land managers from using euthanasia as a management tool. Instead, excess horses are rounded up and sent to big pastures, called holding areas, where landowners are paid to let the horses roam.

It is an unsustainable system that is collapsing under the weight of its own costs. There are now 73,000 wild horses roaming 31.6 million acres of federal land, despite the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s assertion — challenged by wildhorse advocates — that the land

can support only 27,000 wild horses.

The roundups have not been able to reduce the wild-horse population to the target number, but the roundups have continued nevertheless. In addition to the wild horses on the public ranges, there are now 45,000 wild horses and burros in 60 off-range holding areas, including corrals, pastures and sanctuaries. About 1,200 of those horses are in South Dakota, at holding areas near Newell and Eagle Butte. The Newell land is owned by Neal Wanless, who bought it with the proceeds of a $232 million Powerball jackpot he won in 2009.

Philipps briefly referenced the Wanless holding area in the book and talked about it in a Journal interview.

“It’s ironic,” Philipps said, “that to preserve something wild and free, we’ve spent millions enriching the already wealthy while keeping animals captive.”

During the 2016 fiscal year, the BLM paid a total of $49.43 million to keep wild horses in off-range holding areas, which amounted to 63 percent of the entire budget for the BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program.

As an alternative to roundups, the BLM has made limited use of a contraceptive substance known as PZP, which can be administered to wild horses with dart guns. Philipps acknowledges a place for PZP in wild-horse management, but he does not like the “human interference” it introduces into wild herds.

The use of mountain lions, Philipps argues, would protect the wildness of wild horses. And there is proof that mountain lions can help keep wild-horse

numbers in check.

“In one study after another, researchers tracking wild horses in the Great Basin have come across significant numbers of lion kills,” Philipps wrote in his new book. “Each time, the impact was significant enough that scientists trying to study other aspects of horses were astounded.”

But Philipps contends the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has ignored the research on mountain lions, in part because the bureau has been too busy rounding up and transporting horses to holding areas.

Since the publication of the book, Phillipps said, he has heard no reaction from the

BLM. The Journal sought a comment about the book from the BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program but did not receive one.

“I still don’t think they take it seriously,” Phillips said. “I don’t think they will until somebody makes them.”

Philipps said it will take a public outcry — perhaps motivated by the deaths of thousands of wild horses from euthanasia or drought, for example — to push the BLM in a new direction.

“I don’t think that the public is really going to get involved until we reach catastrophe,” Philipps said. “But I think we might be getting close to that.”

National Equine Health Plan Published

T

he American Horse Council (AHC), in conjunction with the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and state animal health officials, has published the National Equine Health Plan (NEHP).

The purpose of the NEHP is to protect the health and welfare of the U.S. equine population, facilitate the continued interstate and international movement of equines and their products, ensure the availability of regulatory services, and protect the economic continuity of business in the equine industry. Ultimately, these goals support the larger mission of enhancing the health and economic viability of the U.S. equine industry.

The NEHP functions as a roadmap for coor-

dinating owners and industry organizations with veterinarians and state and federal animal health officials to prevent, control, recognize and respond to diseases and environmental disasters.

Organizational preparedness, effective rapid communication, and owner education make up the foundation for preventing diseases and disease spread.

All stakeholders need to be aware of the roles and responsibilities of all segments of the horse industry when there is a risk of infectious disease spread or natural disaster, which can affect the health and welfare of horses as well as the economy of the equine industry.

To read the full plan visit: http://equinediseasecc.org/national-equine-health-plan

Ninth Circuit Affirms Prison for Man Who Built Ponds Without Permit

BY ANTHONY L. FRANCOIS SENIOR ATTORNEY PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

T

he Ninth Circuit just issued a disappointing decision affirming the federal conviction of a Montana man for building some ponds without a Clean Water Act permit. Joseph Robertson argued that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause prevents the government from prosecuting him for violating the Act, because it is endlessly confusing as to where it applies in the first place.

Despite seeming to sympathize with Robertson at oral argument, in late November the Ninth Circuit disagreed. The court relied on its prior decision, River Watch v. City of Healdsburg, which interpreted where the Act applies by adopting the vaguest standard available for that question. The appellate court’s endorsement of City of Healdsburg is doubly disappointing, since that case decides the scope of federal power under the Clean Water Act based on one criterion only: what interferes the least with federal power over citizens?

1-866-838-3647

Page 12

Livestock Market Digest

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

What’s Christmas to a Cow? I know you’ve prob’ly asked yourself, what’s Christmas to a cow?

You’ve not! Well maybe, just perchance I’ve got you thinkin’ now, When we march out on Christmas morn like nothin’s goin’ on, Has Yuletide struck the night before and disappeared by dawn?

Were plastic sleeves a’hangin’ up around the calvin’ shed?

Did visions of molasses blocks cavort inside her head?

And did she lay awake all night tensed up anticipating Or, in excitement, milk her bed by accident, while waiting?

Do cows pretend to be just cows, devoid of all intrigues But really lead a secret life like women’s bowling leagues?

Did we just miss the mistletoe? Did all the clues elude us?

Does she believe in Santa Claus or just Santa Gertrudis?

And if we looked would we see sign of reindeer in the pen Or would we just convince ourselves the goat got out again?

And after we’d all gone to bed would they join in a hymn And sing that little manger song they learned in Bethlehem?

I guess that it don’t matter much if cows believe or not.

We’ll fork her out a flake of hay and head back in a trot To celebrate our Christmas Day and all that we espouse And when we say our dinner grace we’ll thank him for the cows.

For the livelihood they give us and life we get to share.

But do the cows have Christmas cheer?

Who knows, but just beware if you see chicken tracks among the straw and drying chips, you better check suspicious cows for eggnog on their lips. www.baxterblack.com

Take your marketing program to the top!

Advertise in

Contact:

Lynn Marie ‘LM’ Rusaw

Advertising Representative & Marketing Specialist Office: 505-243-9515 Cell: 505-577-7584 AAALivestockMarketDigest@gmail.com

December 15, 2017

Reopening The Sage Grouse Debate Has Ranchers, Conservationists Weighing Risk & Reward

BY COURTNEY FLATT, NWPR/EARTHFIX

T

he Interior Department is set on changing up an Obama-era plan to protect greater sage grouse. That’s given stakeholders in the high-desert Northwest a lot to reconsider.

For more than 10 years, ranchers, conservationists and government agencies worked on a plan to keep the greater sage grouse off the endangered species list. That hard-fought compromise led to what many hoped would be a new way to protect species on the brink.

But Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke wants to take another look at the plans, with an eye toward more mining and drilling on public lands. Many in Oregon who have worked hard to save the birds are worried that any roll back of the Obama-era plans could threaten the work that’s been done so far — and lead to the birds’ ultimate landing on the endangered species list.

That could mean more land-use restrictions that many ranchers and industry groups involved in the original plans had hoped to avoid.

“If we make any amendments at all to those federal plans, we do not want a federal listing of the species. We are walking somewhat of a fine line here — there’s a balance here,” said Tom Sharp, a rancher and landowner in Harney County. He was one of several stakeholders in Baker City, Oregon, this week for a gathering called the Sage-Grouse Conservation Partnership — or SageCon, for short.

Both ranchers and conservationists in Oregon have expressed misgivings about the current plans. Some said the secretarial order to open up public comments on the plans could be an opportunity to address those issues.

“Any plan amendments that we make going forward should follow the science,” Sharp said.

“We have an opportunity here, but at the end of the day we don’t want to see a listing of the species.”

Many people said one issue with reworking current sage grouse plans is that there hasn’t been enough time to try them out.

“Bottom line is this plan has not been allowed enough time to work so that we can see if it will work to stop concerning trends,” said Dan Morse, conservation director with the Oregon Natural Desert Association.

Morse’s organization was not initially happy with the plans — it wanted more stringent conservation goals. But the group decided if the current plans were “implemented aggressively it could work,” Morse said.

“We should not turn our backs on this work,” Morse said. “We shouldn’t open Pandora’s Box and expose ourselves to the uncertainty of new plans and more litigation and the possibility of a listing.”

Dave Hunnicutt, with the Eastern Oregon Mining Association, said his organization was originally concerned with initial plans to withdraw two million acres of mining land in Oregon. The federal government canceled those plans in October.

“At this point,” Hunnicutt said, “We’re okay with the status quo. If nothing changes, we’re fine with that. We can live with what we have, and that’s good. We’re fine if (the U.S. Bureau of Land Management) wants to reopen discussions, but not if the end result is a listing or if you get a counter reaction from the state saying, ‘Well, we’re reducing standards on federal land. We’re going to tighten them up on state land.’”

There are federal and state plans to manage and protect sage grouse and sagebrush habitat.

Many people at the meeting said they liked how the plans currently line up and work together. You need both plans, they said, because sage grouse don’t see land boundaries.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s natural resources director, Jason Minor, said the state is committed to moving forward with its conservation plans.

“The Oregon plan and approach is a solid plan.

It’s one that is durable because of stakeholder buy-in,” Minor said.

The hope, said ODFW director Curt Melcher, is to not get stuck.

“We don’t want to get into a perpetual planning mode. We really think that we need to give the plans a chance to work,” Melcher said.

Sage grouse are quirky looking, iconic birds across 11 western states, especially known for their flamboyant mating dances in the spring.

It’s difficult to say exactly how many birds live across its wide habitat, including parts of Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Federal estimates range from 200,000 to 500,000 birds.

Threats to the bird are as wide-ranging as their habitat. It’s been said that sagebrush country is facing a “death of 1,000 cuts.” In the Northwest, the most prevalent threats include wildfires, invasive grasses, like cheatgrass, and encroaching juniper trees. Less known are threats from corvids and West Nile virus. Elsewhere, the birds have faced habitat fragmentation from energy development and mining.

Oregon’s most recent sage grouse counts, discussed at this week’s SageCon Partnership Summit, showed the state’s population decreased by about 8 percent in 2017, likely because of a normal downswing in the birds’ numbers, biologists said.

Officials estimate there are now around 20,466 sage grouse in Oregon. That number is still above the 2015 population estimates — the decline follows three consecutive years of population growth.

The state department of Fish and Wildlife also reported discovering 23 new leks, or mating grounds, and 12 new lek complexes this year during helicopter and ground surveys. Leks are an important part of sage grouse habitat.

Lee Foster, the ODFW sage grouse conservation coordinator, said this 8 percent decline was “fairly slight” compared to earlier years — and it was much smaller than what other states saw in 2017.

“I’m decently optimistic that this is just a bit of a blip on the radar, and hopefully we’ll be moving back up next year with the good snow conditions we had last winter,” Foster said.

A lot of conservation positives have happened over the past year, but there are still bumps in the road, said Brett Brownscombe, with the National Policy Consensus Center.

“Yeah, we’re having a big policy discussion now. We were having a big policy discussion then. People come. People go. Administrations change. We’ve been through bumps and high-pressure times before,” Brownscombe said.

“We’re still learning as we go, and we’re still here, despite bumps in the road — maybe to help with the bumps in the road.”

December 15, 2017

Livestock Market Digest

A senator’s falsehood, a big win for the Goss family, a BLM move to Denver?

A ‘land grab,’ really?

A

recent news item appeared concerning the growing rift between New Mexico’s two Senators and the Secretary of the Interior. The primary focus of the column was how Udall and Heinrich disagree with much of what Zinke is doing, in spite of them both having voted for his confirmation.

There were two statements in the column that really grabbed me. The first was by Heinrich: “I’m prepared to do anything necessary to protect New Mexico’s national monuments from a Washington, D.C., land grab,” Heinrich said.

That is just hilarious. Sad, but hilarious. Before the monument, most of these lands were managed for multiple use. If necessary, roads could be built.

Rights-of ways could be issued.

Flood control dams could be constructed, range improvements could be built, geothermal energy could be harvested, sportsmen and recreationists had off-road access to these lands, and so on. Then along came Obama, with the full encouragement of Heinrich, and with the stroke of a pen either prohibited or restricted all of the above. If the monument designation were to be removed, all of those uses would be returned to the people. The review had the possibility of revoking a land grab, not initiating one.

Heinrich’s attempt to describe it otherwise is laughable.

The other statement in the article, which is not new, is the Senators’ concern over accuracy: Staffers for both senators told me last week that Udall and Heinrich also want Zinke to address errors of fact in the New Mexico sections of the monuments report.

This must be a newfound desire for accuracy, for we didn’t hear a peep out of the Senators concerning the many inaccuracies in Obama’s proclamation creating the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. Dr. Jerry Schickedanz, Dean Emeritus at NMSU and currently with the Linebery Policy Center,

has identified many errors in the proclamation, including objects that aren’t even within the boundaries of the monument, and other objects that are either wholly or partially on private or state land, and therefore not in the monument.

These and other errors could have been addressed during the review process, but by opposing the review, the good Senators apparently do not want those inaccuracies corrected.

Because of the importance of these documents to the local community and to the health of the natural resource, both should corrected. This selective, narrow focus on errors falls short of good public policy and reeks of pure politics.

Zinke appears to be proposing a sort of halfway house...

Of thistles, poppies & water rights A pioneer New Mexico ranch family has won an important case for property rights.

The Goss family has been raising livestock in the Sacramento Mountains of New Mexico since 1885. Respect to that family for persevering through all these years with a successful ranching operation.

A hundred years later along comes the Forest Service to erect “enclosures” to keep livestock out of certain riparian areas, ostensibly to protect the Sacramento Mountains Thistle.

Additional “enclosures” were later constructed on behalf of the Southwestern Prickly Poppy. In addition to having their livestock fenced off water, in 2000 their allotment was cut from 553 head to 428, with additional cuts in 2004. The Goss family had sought to pipe water into the allotment, but those requests were denied by the Forest Service.

In 2004 the Goss family filed a claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging a Taking under the fifth amendment of their water rights, their grazing permit and their preference rights. Over time, their claims on the grazing permit and preference rights were dismissed. Further, the New Mexico Supreme Court had ruled that a vested stock

watering right did not lead to a right to forage, nor did a rightof-way create a compensable right to forage.

Through many twists and turns this all led up to a favorable 2017 decision on vested (pre-1907) stock watering rights, and rest assured the feds fought it each step of the way.

Among other things, the feds argued that even if there was a compensable property interest in the water rights, the statute of limitations applied in this instance. Wrong said the court, ruling the statute of limitations did not bar the court from adjudicating the Goss’ Taking claims.

The feds argued the Goss documents claiming the right to put the water to beneficial use were inadequate. Wrong said the court, ruling the Goss family had established a prima facie right to beneficial use of the water as required by New Mexico law.

The feds argued the acquisition of a water right under New Mexico law requires a diversion of the water and the consumption of water by livestock is not a diversion. Wrong said the court, finding that “neither state statutes nor case law require a physical diversion to establish the right of beneficial use of stock water.”

Finally, the feds argued that even if the ranchers had a property right in the use of the water, they were only entitled to beneficial use, not a right of access to a particular location. The court ruled it was a well-established principle that a physical taking occurs if the government denies an owner all access to a property interest. The court further ruled the Forest Service had incrementally, and then finally, denied the Goss family beneficial use of stock water.

In conclusion, the court said before it determines the amount of compensation to be awarded, both parties should make a renewed effort to see if alternative

Page 13 sources of water could be made available.

This is good news for the Goss family and for ranchers with vested water rights, and once again should educate everyone on the importance of water in the West.

The wrong focus There continue to be reports that Secretary Zinke plans a major reorganization of the Dept. of Interior, including moving the headquarters of BLM and other entities to a western city.

Some want to keep the current centralized system of resource management. Others propose transferring the majority of these lands to the states, or some other form of decentralized management. Zinke appears to be proposing a sort of halfway house, transferring the managers instead of the resource. My thought is that as long as the federal laws (ESA, FLPMA, NEPA, etc.) remain as currently written and inter-

RIDING HERD loved interviewing Walter Merrick and Reba’s little sister Susie. What a great gal she is!

And Baxter Black has pounded on our piano, fed our cows and slept in our bed, although there’s no sign saying so.

Many celebrities are attracted to cattle and horses and seem to love auctions. The purebred cattle business attracts celebrities like it does IRS auditors. Some of the stars who have cattle include two members of Alabama, and one half of Brooks and Dunn and the Bellamy Brothers. I once worked a horse sale where George Strait was present and an Arab horse sale for Wayne Newton.

I met Mrs. David Rockefeller on a plane as we were both headed to the same Simmental sale and by the time we bid adieu the next day we were old buddies. I met Huey Lewis in the San Francisco airport and we had a good chat about his fondness for Red Angus.

Sports stars are also drawn to the cow business and in one of the first sales I ever worked we sold some cattle for Harmon Killebrew. I met Bobb McKittrick, former longtime offensive line coach for the 49ers, through Paul Harvey and sat with his lovely wife through many 49er games. Another

preted, the same poor results will occur no matter where the federal managers are located. Further, much precious time will be taken up debating where the federal landlords are stationed, rather than focusing on the real problem and potential solutions.

If your grazing permit is cancelled or your private lands are taken as a result of a critical habitat designation, will you really care whether the decision-maker is in Denver or DC? I’m afraid this is more about the plain old politics of moving federal jobs and dollars, rather than being a sincere attempt to correct the many problems associated with federal ownership of our resources.

Here’s wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

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

continued from page one

extremely enjoyable celebrity I met was Bill Bertka who used to coach the Lakers. I loved talking hoops with him. Speaking of basketball, Horace Grant, who played on four of the same World Champion teams that Michael Jordan did, was in my section at a charity auction and he was extremely cordial.

As was TV’s favorite bachelor, Andrew Firestone. Rob Lowe did a great job announcing one auction I worked.

I suppose the biggest star I ever worked for was John Wayne. I worked his 26 Bar Hereford sale for many years and his cattle sold for a lot of money while he was alive and on the auction block. After he died they brought far less. The difference is what I call the “celebrity factor”.

I fear in that respect the Duke and I may be very much alike. For my wife’s sake I hope there is at least some celebrity factor attached to the books I autographed for her as I was counting on that being the life insurance I never bought.

I hope that answers the deluge of mail I received. wwwLeePittsbooks.com

Page 14

Livestock Market Digest

December 15, 2017

Wildlife Services Officials Urge Ranchers to Report All Cattle Deaths SOURCE: WWW.CAPITALPRESS.COM

C

oming across a dead cow in the herd with no outward signs of what killed her often leaves cattlemen guessing about the cause.

But they shouldn’t assume it was poison, bloat, a broken neck or that she got stuck on her back. Her death could have been caused by a wolf, Todd Grimm, Idaho state director of USDA Wildlife Services, said during the Idaho Cattle Association annual convention.

A wolf’s teeth are blunt and not meant to rip, puncture or tear; they’re meant to crush muscle. Because of their thick hides, a significant majority of dead adult cattle killed by wolves show no outward sign.

But they do show subcutaneous

hemorrhaging and bite marks under the hide, he said.

Those clues can help investigators confirm a wolf depredation — but only if cattlemen report the death. The agency is urging cattlemen to report all deaths and to leave the carcass undisturbed to preserve the evidence.

In the past 22 years, the agency has confirmed 750 wolf depredations in cattle, affecting 400 producers in 32 counties in Idaho. But deaths from wolves are likely much higher, he said, adding that the science says that for every kill confirmed, there are probably six or seven more.

The agency needs additional data to take to the predator control board to show the problem is bigger than estimated to ease the restrictions it faces on wolf

Cattleman Gives $80M+ Gift to West Texas A&M

BY LISA M. KEEFE / MEATINGPLACE.COM

P

aul Engler and the Paul F. and Virginia J. Engler Foundation have agreed to donate at least $1 million a year for a period of no less than 80 years to West Texas A&M University, the university said in a news release.

At least $500,000 a year into the foreseeable future will be funneled to both the ag school and the business school, now renamed the Paul Engler College of Agriculture and Natural Sciences and the Paul and Virginia Engler College of Business.

Engler began raising cattle when he was 12, and founded Cactus Feeders, the largest cattle-feeding company in the world.

“West Texas A&M University is the lifeblood of the Texas Panhandle,” John Sharp, chancellor of The Texas A&M University System, said. “An investment in this institution is an investment in the future of the region.”

The university’s administration will work with the Engler Foundation to distribute contributions for endowments to benefit five different areas: scholarships, professorships, named spaces, community outreach and strategic planning and improvement.

“Paul Engler has been a driver of economic development in the Texas Panhandle for 50 years,” Dr. Ty Lawrence, professor of animal science, said. “Paul is now leaving his mark on West Texas A&M University with an unparalleled legacy.”

In 2010, Engler gave $20 million to his alma mater, the University of Nebraska—Lincoln.

In 1998, Engler famously led Texas cattlemen in a lawsuit against Oprah Winfrey for remarks made about beef on her daytime talk show.

removal. And it’s had success in doing that in the McCall zone, a chronic depredation area, where ranchers have responded to the agency’s request to report all livestock deaths.

This year, the agency has confirmed 70 wolf depredations of cattle in the region, compared to 32 in 2016. The increase in confirmed deaths is not just from more wolf activity, but also from the agency paying more attention and ranchers calling the agency to look at every carcass, Grimm said.

“We realize there are a lot more kills that cattleman aren’t identifying,” said Greg Jones, a trapper-gunner with USDA Wildlife Services.

The agency has found many of those mysterious deaths show signs of exertional myopathy,

which could be caused by the stress of being chased by a wolf.

It’s found dead cows with grass or dirt pushed up in their nostrils, indicating a face plant. Other signs are animals with nose in legs out, buckled hoofs, legs straight out and no ground disturbances around the carcass, which would signify a struggle — such as being stuck in the mud or trying to get up.

“She’s dead on her feet before she hits the ground,” he said.

While there might be no external signs of a wolf attack, investigators can skin the carcass to look for subcutaneous hemorrhaging with associated bite marks that can confirm wolf depredation.

If ranchers find a dead animal, the agency wants to look at it, he said.

“We need to look at it so we can confirm. If you see something, don’t just run on by,” he said.

The only way to reduce wolf depredation is to remove more wolves, and the agency needs the data to do that, he said.

Increased depredations in chronic areas have led the agency to look at more animals it can confirm, and myopathy is playing a part, Grimm said.

“The bottom line is it doesn’t cost anybody any time or money to have us come out and look at it at the least,” he said.

Even if it’s in backcountry, cattlemen can report the death and GPS coordinates of a dead animal and the agency will investigate. It has also been able to confirm wolf depredation on scavenged carcasses, he said.

Saddle & Sirloin Honors Tom Burke Missouri Angus breeder receives prestigious livestock honor during North American International Livestock Expo.

T

om Burke, Platte City, Missouri, has been selected as the 2017 inductee into the Saddle and Sirloin Portrait Gallery, largely considered the highest honor in the livestock industry. The Saddle and Sirloin Gallery was established in 1903 and recognizes one individual each year for their lifetime of exceptional service to the livestock business, both nationally and internationally.

Burke, a fourth-generation cattleman, was raised on his family’s registered Angus operation in southeast Minnesota.

His great-grandfather used the first registered Angus bulls in the late 1800s and early 1900s on the Burke Farm, which was homesteaded more than 130 years ago.

Burke has spent more than 50 years of his life traveling the country as a sale manager for the American Angus Hall of Fame, which is also home to the world’s largest collection of Angus memorabilia. Among his many accolades as a lifelong sale manager, USA Today named him “America’s Most Traveled Person” in 1994. Burke also served on the American Angus Association Board of Directors from 2013-2016.

“I was born into an Angus family, and I am proud of it,” Burke said. “My father was an Angus breeder, my grandfather was an Angus breeder and my great-great-grandfather raised commercial Angus cattle.”

During his tenure with the American Angus Hall of Fame, Burke has attended 10,000 Angus sales in 47 states, Canadian provinces and the Caribbean.

Due to his commitment and dedication to the promotion of the Angus breed, Burke received the Promoter of the Year Award from the American Angus Association for 20 consecutive years.

Burke is a true Angus supporter in every way. Burke has never missed a North American International Livestock Expo (NAILE), held each November in Louisville, Kentucky, in it’s close to 45-year history. Nor has he missed a National Junior Angus Show (NJAS), where he served as the showmanship announcer from 1967-1973. Currently, Burke runs a herd of 200 registered Angus cattle and a flock of 40 Suffolk sheep.

The Saddle & Sirloin Club honored Burke and his many industry contributions during a special program and portrait

unveiling Nov. 12 in conjunction with the NAILE at the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center in Louisville, Kentucky.

“Being inducted into the Saddle & Sirloin Club has been one of the highlights in my life,” Burke said. “It’s like receiving the Heisman trophy of the cattle industry. It thrills me to no end to be inducted.”

Burke has established the Tom Burke Young Angus Achievement Awards Endowment Fund with the Angus Foundation at 3201 Frederick Avenue, St. Joseph, MO 64506.

The Tom Burke Endowment Fund will support two Tom Burke Young Angus Achievement Awards of $1,250 awarded annually at the NJAS to one young boy and girl 8-13 years of age. The award winners will be selected for the award by a point system cumulating from their involvement in the National Junior Angus Association’s officially sanctioned, competitive show ring and contests held at the NJAS. Contact Angus Foundation President Milford H. Jenkins at 816-383-5163 to learn more about the Tom Burke Young Angus Achievement Awards Endowment Fund.

Noble Range Con Receives Honor for Advancing Rangeland Management

N

oble Research Institute pasture and range consultant Rob Cook has been selected as the 2017 Texas Section Society of Range Management (SRM) Association Outstanding Young Range Professional award recipient. Cook was honored at the society’s 2017 annual meeting on Thursday, Oct 12.

Cook was selected for the award because of his dedication to improving rangeland management.

“Rob is a tremendous asset to the Institute,” said Hugh Aljoe, Noble Research Institute director of producer relations. “He is a knowledgeable advocate for rangeland management issues, and he is effective in communicating those issues to producers and others in the agriculture industry.”

Cook joined the Noble Research Institute

in 2015 after working as a Natural Resources Conservation Service rangeland specialist for 11 years. He is a member of the Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas sections of SRM. Cook serves on the board of directors for the Oklahoma Section.

He is active in the National Grazing Lands Coalition and is a member of the American Forage and Grassland Council and The Wildlife Society.

The award is presented to an individual member who has demonstrated extraordinary potential and promise as a range management professional. “It is an honor to be selected by my peers,” Cook said, “This award is about more than just my accomplishments; it’s about the mentors and people who have advised, guided and motivated my passion for rangelands.”

December 15, 2017

Livestock Market Digest

Victory For Property Rights at Wisconsin Legislature

BY JAMES S. BURLING VICE PRESIDENT FOR LITIGATION / PACIFICLEGAL.ORG

Good news out of Wisconsin: The Legislature has acted to shore up the rights of property owners that the U.S. Supreme Court undercut earlier this year in its unfortunate decision in Murr v. Wisconsin. Lawmakers have approved bills by Rep. Adam Jarchow and Sen. Tom Tiffany to stop government from denying landowners their rights simply because they happen to own two parcels next door to each other.

Represented by PLF, the Murr family appealed to the Supreme Court after St. Croix County robbed them of a family legacy—a vacant riverfront parcel that their late parents bought years ago as a family investment. The Murrs would like to sell that lot to pay for repairs to their beloved family cabin that sits on their separate parcel, next door. But government officials—imposing regulations enacted after both properties were purchased—have forbidden them from selling or making any productive use of the vacant investment parcel.

To avoid having to reimburse the Murrs for cancelling their property rights, officials insisted on arbitrarily treating both lots as if they were a single, unified parcel.

By a 5-3 vote this past June, the Supreme

Court gave a pass to this ploy, undermining the Constitution’s protection against uncompensated takings.

Responding to that disappointing setback, Rep. Jarchow and Sen. Tiffany stepped forward to help the Murrs and every property owner in the Badger State who might fall victim to a similar scheme.

Among other things, their measures protect owners of separate, adjacent lots from having their properties combined without their consent. In other words, government can’t single out people for denial of basic property rights because they have “too much property.”

Now that lawmakers have passed these measures, they go to Gov. Scott Walker. The Murr family and everyone who values property rights hopes he adds his signature enthusiastically.

John Groen, PLF’s Executive Vice President and General Counsel, who represented the Murrs at the Supreme Court, had this statement: “All of us at Pacific Legal Foundation are very pleased with the legislative progress made today. Special thanks to Rep. Adam Jarchow and Sen. Tom Tiffany for recognizing the need to restore property rights for the Murrs and the people of Wisconsin. Whether through the courts or the legislature, securing individual rights in property is fundamental to liberty. Today’s action advances liberty.”

Oklahoma Cattleman Selected as Beefmaster Breeder of the Year Tom and Deidra Hood, Hidden Hollow Beefmasters of Tahlequah, Okla., were announced as the 2017 Beefmaster Breeders United (BBU) Breeder of the Year during the 57th Annual BBU Convention “Beefmasters on the Bay” in Galveston, Texas.

Tom and Deidra have been BBU members since 1984 and are active members of the Central States Beefmaster Breeders Association (CSBBA), Arkansas Beefmaster Breeders Association, Central Texas Beefmaster Breeders Association, Louisiana Beefmaster Breeders Association and the Ozark and Heart of America Beefmaster Marketing Group (OHOA).

The Hoods played an important role in the success of both OHOA and CSBBA for more than a decade, serving as sale manager for their annual sales and serving in multiple leadership roles, including on the board of directors. Tom also served on the BBU board of directors from 2014 to 2016 and this dynamic duo has worked for over three decades marketing Beefmaster cattle throughout the United States.

The Hoods take pride in being whole herd reporting members and recording one-hundred percent of their calf crop with BBU for the past 20 years.

They understand the importance of BBU classification and ranch visits, through both of these programs they have been able to improve their cattle herd and gain Typesetter status on several animals. The Hoods have implemented arti-

ficial insemination and embryo transfer into their breeding program. About eighty percent of their heifers are artificially inseminated for their first calf, while forty percent of their breeding females are inseminated with top performance bulls. They have collected ultrasound data on their entire calf crop since 2012 and have used this data for heifer and bull selection. All herd sires are selected for minimum intramuscular fat (IMF) and ribeye area (REA) values, ratios and expected progeny differences (EPDs). EPDs are front and center for their program, as well as DNA verification. All of these practices have ultimately led to extremely quick genetic progress for Hidden Hollow Beefmasters.

“Their main goal is to produce functional, quality bulls for the commercial cattleman,” said Wesley Hood, the son of Tom and Deidra. “They have used their position as sale managers to market thousands of Beefmasters to a vast array of commercial producers, advanc-

ing the breed in various areas.

But more importantly, they have utmost integrity.”

The Hood Beefmaster operation is a complete family enterprise. Their son and daughter-in-law are active partners in the cattle and sales management business, while also operating their own veterinary clinic and Beefmaster herd. Tom and Deidra also have two granddaughters that are active in showing cattle through the Junior Beefmaster Breeders Association. Overall, the goal of the Hood family is to continue Beefmaster genetic advancement and family ownership for many more years to come.

The BBU Breeder of the Year award was created to recognize the efforts and contributions made by members to promote BBU and Beefmaster cattle, while also evaluating the type, size and management practices of the member’s breeding program. The award requires that the breeder is an active BBU member in good standing, and has not received this award in the previous seven years.

Page 15

Consumers Confuse ‘Organic’ & ‘Non-GMO’: Study Finds

BY TOM JOHNSTON MEATINGPLACE.COM

C

onsumers mix up foods labeled “organic” and “non-genetically modified” and some view the two labels as synonymous, according to a new study by the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.

The study, led by UF assistant professor Brandon McFadden with Purdue University agricultural economics professor Jayson Lusk, explored ways to communicate to consumers whether food has genetically modified ingredients. Researchers conducted a national survey of 1,132 respondents to gauge their willingness to pay for food labeled as genetically modified vs. non-genetically modified.

Researchers wanted to know specifically how much consumers were willing to spend on food labeled as “USDA Organic” vs. that labeled “Non-GMO Project Verified.” Genetically modified material is not allowed in food labeled “USDA Organic,” while “Non-GMO Project” means the food has no more than 0.9 percent genetically modified characteristics, the study notes.

Researchers measured respondents’ willingness to pay

for a box of 12 granola bars and a pound of apples. Granola bars represent a manufactured food commonly differentiated by its absence of GM material, while apples are a fresh fruit that requires companies to tell if they contain GM material.

In the study, when consumers looked at packages of Granola bars labeled “non-GMO Project,” they were willing to spend 35 cents more than for the boxes that had text that read, “contains genetically engineered ingredients.” With the “USDA Organic” label, consumers were willing to pay 9 cents more.

With apples, respondents were willing to pay 35 cents more for those labeled “nonGMO Project” and 40 cents more for those labeled “USDA Organic.”

The results led McFadden to conclude that consumers don’t distinguish definitions of the two food labels.

“For example, it’s possible that a product labeled, ‘NonGMO Project Verified’ more clearly communicates the absence of GM ingredients than a product labeled ‘USDA Organic,’” he said.

The study is published in the journal Applied Economics: Perspectives and Policy.

News with a view & a whole lot more...

I

THE most effective advertising medium in ranching today!

f you have livestock, a product or service that stockmen and their families need, they will find out about it quickly if you advertise in the Digest.

Digest readers know value when they see it and they respond rapidly to a good offer.

Before you plan your advertising budget, think hard about how to stretch your dollars and where they are spent the most efficiently. Are you paying more to reach fewer qualified potential customers than you woud receive in the Digest? The Digest’s circulation is concentrated

in the most important livestock producing states: Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, California, Oregon, Washington and Texas.

The Digest caters to the most active readers in the livestock world - who ARE the buyers and sellers of livestock, the ones who show up and speak up. It is the ONLY place to get Lee Pitt’s perspective on the world and how we are going to thrive into the future.

To plan your advertising, contact Caren Cowan at: caren@aaalivestock.com or 505/243-9515, ext. 21

Page 16

Livestock Market Digest

December 15, 2017

The Challenges of Keeping Bulls

BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS

O

n most ranches, bulls are a necessary evil. Like the old saying goes, “You can’t live with them and you can’t live without them,” because they are the other half of the equation for producing next year’s calf crop.

John P. Kastelic, DVM, PhD, Professor, Cattle Reproductive Health, Department of Production Animal Health, University of Calgary has done extensive research on bull reproduction and has a lot of experience with bulls. He says ranchers are often frustrated by the challenges in keeping bulls and trying to get the most from this investment.

“Bulls are expensive to buy, expensive to feed, and expensive to keep because they can wreck a lot of fences and facilities. They have a fairly high rate of injury when they go to war with each other. The attrition from body condition loss, injury etc. is quite alarming. Typically the breeding pasture has multiple bulls so there’s the dominance issue as well,” says Kastelic. Some bulls are always fighting instead of breeding, or trying to keep the other bulls from breeding.

Often producers buy younger bulls and sell the older ones after a certain age (or sell the injured and crippled ones), and have bulls of several ages in the breeding pasture.

“Ranchers tend to send out mixed age groups of bulls and the younger ones may not get much chance to breed cows. It all contributes to fighting because the older bulls tend to fight more than the younger bulls.

The worst thing you can do is send out bulls of multiple ages; the young one gets beaten up and pushed away, or intimidated,” he says.

There’s no easy solution. To solve some of these problems a person may simply use young bulls, or might put just young bulls in a breeding pasture, and an older bull in a separate breeding pasture. “If you have bulls together that are 2 years of age or less, this does two things. It cuts down on fighting and injury, as well

as minimizing the spread of diseases like trichomoniasis. We also encourage having breeding soundness exams done before the breeding season. The goal is not to identify the good bulls, but to identify the bad ones—so you are not turning out bulls that are not going to do their job and settle cows,” he says.

“But you also have to keep in mind that simply having a bull with lots of good sperm is not enough.

That bull also has to be able to identify cows in heat, mount and breed, and deliver those sperm. Our standard breeding soundness exam is focused on the bull’s reproductive system, semen, general health and well-being, which is hugely import-

ant, but does nothing in terms of checking libido.”

You don’t know if that bull will actually go out and breed cows. He may have low libido or a problem with being able to mount and breed cows. “He may have a sore back, a deviated penis, or some kind of abnormality that interferes with actually breeding a cow. Thus it becomes the owner’s responsibility to monitor the bulls after turning them out with the cows. Is the bull identifying the cows in heat, mounting and breeding those cows?” You want to know if a certain bull isn’t doing the job—before too late in the breeding season—before a lot of cows come back into heat.

“Many ranchers have large acreages, fields to work, hay to put up, and don’t always have a chance to check the breeding pastures. They just turn the bulls out and may not see them except every few weeks and then in the fall, to see what happened. The breeding soundness is very important but we really should be observing bulls to check libido and see if a bull actually achieves mating,” he says.

The AI Option Some ranchers have opted to use fewer bulls and breed most of their cattle by AI. “What works well for many situations is to breed one round of AI and then use a cleanup bull. There are some programs where you can use timed AI and get 50% or more of the females pregnant. You don’t need to AI every cow on the place; you might start with your replacement heifers, breeding them AI. Then you might also do the cows being bred for their second calf because that’s the group that tends to be slower to cycle after calving. For that group, a person could use a progesterone or MGAbased program to hasten cyclicity and tighten up the calving interval,” says Kastelic.

“A number of years ago when we were doing AI on-farm, we’d simply electro-ejaculate a bull and extend the semen and we used that to breed cows. This was a relatively inexpensive source of semen. Even if you purchase semen from an AI company, there are ways to keep your costs in line. Semen that cost $30 per straw or more if you are breeding purebred cattle in March and want breeding certificates might be a lot cheaper if you are breeding in June and don’t care about breeding certificates. In many cases, you can buy semen from bulls that are just as good or better than bulls you can afford to buy, and you can create some good crossbred calves,” he says.

“Furthermore, by having half of your calves from one sire and born over a short interval will result in a more uniform calf crop. It’s important to realize, however, that in a group of cattle inseminated on one day, calving will still usually occur over a couple of weeks (since bull calves are carried longer than heifers and twins have shorter gestation than singles). Sires with good calving ease also tend to sire calves with shorter gestation, which reduces birth weight and calving problems,” he explains.

Many people think AI is very expensive, but they don’t actually sit down and figure up the expenses of owning a bull. “Figures from studies a few years ago showed it to be $40 to $50 or more per cow per year exposed to a bull—if you are honest about your investment, your insurance, maintenance, etc. Bulls are not cheap.”