Riding Herd
“The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it.”
by LEE PITTS
– JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL
July 15, 2018 • www.aaalivestock.com
Volume 60 • No. 7
Rest In Pieces
Globaloney I BY LEE PITTS
No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle.
W
NEWSPAPER PRIORITY HANDLING
hile listening to pundits and politicians recite the many glorious benefits of globalization you may find it difficult reconciling that with current cattle prices. To better understand the current escalating trade wars think of them as a not-so-friendly game of badminton. On one side you have Donald Trump representing the United States and on the other side of the net stands communist China, who has dominated the sport for decades. You, my farmer and rancher friends, are the little white shuttlecock, more often referred to as the “birdie”, that gets pummeled and slammed back and forth over the net. Bam, bam, bam. Trump started the game off with a powerful volley in February when he instituted a tariff of 25 percent on Chinese steel and 10 percent on aluminum imports. China returned the volley with one of their own. Next, Trump slammed a 25 percent tariff on Chinese technology goods exported to the U.S that would amount to $50 billion dollars! After China fired back with another round of tariffs Trump escalated the standoff again by asking our trade representative to consider an additional $100 billion in
tariffs on Chinese goods. Trump eventually slapped similar tariffs on steel and aluminum from Mexico, Canada and the EU because the current level of aluminum and steel imports to the U.S. had the “potential to threaten our national security.” If we found ourselves engaged in another World War we wouldn’t have the parts, let alone the smarts, to ramp up and produce the planes, tanks, and destroyers necessary to fight such a war.
Thanks to globalization, the U.S. aluminum industry went from producing 30 percent of the world’s primary aluminum to producing just 3.5 percent. Now here’s the part where you get stuck with the tab. The same day Trump put tariffs on technology goods from China, the communist Chinese government released a long list of 124 items that China listed for increased tariffs. Of the 124, 94 were agricultural! Pork producers, who
shipped over a billion dollars in pork to China last year, were among those who felt the blow the hardest. On April 2nd, China placed a 25 percent punitive tariff on U.S. pork in addition to the 12 percent tariff they were already paying. Corn, wheat and soybean farmers will also feel the retaliatory sting. In the case of soybeans it will especially hurt because more than 60 percent of U.S. soy exports have been sent to mainland China in recent years. No wonder that ag fans sitting in the bleachers watching this trade game haven’t been overly enthusiastic. Trump’s standing with soybean farmers is getting tested because Trump won 89 percent of America’s counties that produce soy. Even Zippy Duvall, President of the American Farm Bureau lost some of his usu-
continued on page two
A Worthy Pardon for the Hammonds Trump corrects a federal injustice against two Oregon ranchers
BY THE EDITORIAL BOARD, WALL STREET JOURNAL
T
he pardon power has its most compelling use when correcting a government injustice. President Trump used his authority on Tuesday for precisely such a purpose in pardoning Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven. In 2011 the federal government charged the two Oregon ranchers with arson and destruction of federal property for having done nothing more than utilize the same fire-management tools that the government routinely employs. The Hammonds had set fires in 2001 and 2006—one to fight invasive species, another to protect against a wildfire. Both fires unintentionally spread to burn nearby public grazing land—139 acres in the first case, a single acre in the second. A federal jury acquitted them of most charges but found them guilty of setting the fires—which they’d already admitted. A federal judge gave them reduced sentences, saying that anything more would “shock the conscience” and be “grossly disproportionate to the severity” of their conduct. We wrote about their case in 2016. The Obama Justice Department, in its usual restraint against its political opponents, appealed and persuaded a different judge in 2015 to impose a mandatory five years each under the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Yes, a terrorism statute.
The exercise smacked of retribution and coercion, since the Hammonds remain one of the last private ranching families in the Harney Basin. The feds have been on a campaign to drive out private landowners to expand a federal bird refuge around Malheur Lake. In recent years the feds have revoked grazing permits, mismanaged water to let ranchlands flood, and harassed ranchers with regulatory actions. The Hammonds refused to give in to these tactics and ended up in prison. The elder Dwight Hammond, 76, has now served three years, while Steven, 49, has served four. They have also paid $400,000 to settle a federal civil suit against them. The federal treatment of the Hammonds fueled the 40-day citizen takeover in 2016 of Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. That occupation (which the Hammonds did not endorse) was inexcusable and ended in violence, though it highlighted the growing fury of Western landowners over the federal government’s bullying practices. The Trump Interior and Agriculture Departments are attempting to rein in these abuses, reminding federal employees that private landowners are crucial for conservation and economic stability across rural America. The change in policy is overdue, as was justice for the Hammonds. Appeared in the July 11, 2018, print edition.
f the obituary of our country is ever written, this is how it might read: United States of America, July 4, 1776 - November 4, 2046. 270 years of age. The last of the great super-powers died quietly at home surrounded by 350 million greedy, spoiled offspring. She had been in hospice care for 30 years. She didn’t die from a Chinese nuclear bomb, election-tampering Russians or global warming but had become fat and lazy in her old age, squandering the wealth that generations before had created. On life support, by mutual agreement the money-grabbing family members pulled the plug on the greatest experiment in democracy, liberty and freedom to have ever lived. An autopsy revealed she died of natural causes including apathy, laziness, political correctness, self-indulgence, sloth and corruption. Conceived in garages, machine shops, farms and ranches, America was born in Little Italy, the barrios, Chinatown, African American ghettos, in Hell’s kitchen, Irish and Mormon communities, on Ellis Island, upon the plains and in the great American West. She lived a life full of public service and proclaimed to the world, “Give us your poor, your huddled masses.” Condolences poured in from around the world from those who were saved by her armies, her doctors and her farmers. Foreign leaders remembered America as a loyal neighbor who always spoke her mind but who gave up her sons and daughters willingly so that others might be freed from the wicked rule of ruthless despots, murdering dictators and barbarous Ayatollahs. A veteran of foreign wars, her sons stormed the beaches of Normandy and her daughters nursed the world’s sick back to health. She willingly gave her bombs and her blood to conquer bullies like Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Bin Laden and countless others. After she’d beaten them in battle she literally gave the shirt off her back to rebuild their cities and their econ-
continued on page five
Page 2
Livestock Market Digest
July 15, 2018
GLOBALONEY al zippy-ness when he said, “Growing trade disputes have placed farmers and ranchers in a precarious position. They are facing the worst agricultural economy in the last 16 years.”
ELM
FARMINGTON
The Canary In The Coal Mine
TO SACRAMENTO
STOCKTON
HWY 4
J17 M ARI
POSA
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 r more Call fo ation inform ning sig on con stock. your
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
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
The Pork Producers Council has grunted the loudest about Trump’s trade war but their jeers were also echoed by the NCBA. Only one national beef organization was leading the cheers for Trump and that was R-CALF. Said R CALF CEO Bill Bullard, “For nearly half a lifetime the United States refused to protect domestic industries critical to America’s economic and national security out of fear that doing so would elicit cries of protectionism and isolationism. This was the strategy designed by the entrenched lobbyists of transnational corporations to persuade past presidents and past Congresses to take no action to protect America’s self-interests, even in the face of harmful, mercantilist trade practices by foreign countries. “Those mercantilist trade practices allowed foreign governments to “weaponize” their industrial trade policies to bring U.S. manufacturers to their knees, eliminate good-paying U.S. jobs, gut America’s middle class, and render America’s family farmers and ranchers unprofitable.” Bullard said this is why America’s conventional agricultural trade organizations remained silent while unrestrained imports destroyed America’s commercial sheep industry, displacing America’s domestic sheep production with a staggering 314 percent increase in imported lamb and mutton from 1994 through 2007. Bullard said that during this time period more than 3.7 million domestic sheep and more than 15,000 sheep producers were eliminated. According to Bullard, “Today’s beleaguered sheep industry produces less than half the lamb and mutton that Americans consume each year.” Globalization has been nothing but baaaa...d news for the American sheep industry and it could end up doing the exact same thing to our beef business. “The sheep industry is the American family farmer and ranchers’ canary in the coal mine,” says Bullard. “America’s largest segment of agriculture, the U.S. cattle industry, is only a few years behind the sheep industry if we don’t make radical changes to our nation’s failed trade policies. “The President’s tariffs on steel and aluminum stops the economy-destroying train that has long since left the station. Now is the time for America’s family farmers and ranchers to stand up and support the Administration’s efforts to turn that train around by ending the mercantilist practices of foreign countries so we can
continued from page one
rebuild America’s dwindling middle class. Food purchases by America’s middle class, after all, holds our best promise to restore farm prices that will reverse the decline of America’s family farmers and ranchers,” Bullard concluded.
Rip It Up! Taking center court in this trade war is 24 year old NAFTA which Trump has called the worst trade deal ever. And when it comes to deals, Trump wrote the book (The Art of The Deal). Old timers may remember 25 years ago when then-Presidential candidate Ross Perot said that if NAFTA was enacted the next sound we’d hear would be a great big sucking sound; sucking away our jobs, money, culture and environment. After President Clinton enacted NAFTA critics were no longer laughing at Ross Perot. Farmers and ranchers were promised that NAFTA and other free trade agreements would allow us to increase exports, increase farm and ranch income and keep family farms together. The outcomes have been exactly the opposite. During the NAFTA years (since 1994) the U.S. has accumulated a $32 billion trade deficit for beef products alone. And it’s getting worse. The beef deficit was $3.8 billion in 2014, $4.9 billion in 2015 and $3 billion in 2016. If the next 24 years are like an average of those three, our beef trade deficit will triple to $96 billion over the same time period. According to Bill Bullard, “Since the 1994 implementation of NAFTA, we have lost 20% of all of our beef cattle operations in the United States.” Bullard isn’t opposed to trade... just unfair trade. Stricter regulations make it more expensive to produce beef in the U.S. than in Canada or Mexico and ranchers in those countries get more help from their governments. Bullard states, “If Mexico can produce cattle far cheaper than the U.S., then we should add tariffs to that product coming into this country so that our beef produced under the U.S. production regime can compete with the Mexican cattle.” Philip Davis, a Colorado ag producer writes that NAFTA has been really bad for another reason. “It was the first trade agreement to include the corporate power grab known as the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision. Under ISDS, corporations have equal status with nations in enforcing trade agreements, and if they are able to convince their cronies at the WTO that they have been harmed they can recover not only compensation for any actual loss, but also for lost future revenues they had hoped to earn.” Davis reminds us, “In 2015 multinational corporate meatcontinued on page three
July 15, 2018
Livestock Market Digest
Page 3
GLOBALONEY packers used the threat of lawsuits based on NAFTA’s ISDS provision, and the World Trade Organization, to force Congress to repeal COOL for meat, despite widespread public support for the labels.” More often than not American farmers and ranchers are getting hit with a double whammy: they face tariffs abroad while foreigners get to ship their products into this country free of tariffs, and environmental and social costs. Like Trump, Bullard says if NAFTA can’t be fixed to make it more fair for American farmers, ranchers and industrialists then, “We should rip it up.”
Breeding For Bigger Tongues As with most issues facing cattlemen today, the NCBA and R CALF have diametrically opposed opinions about globalization. NCBA is a 100 percent pro-globalist while R CALF wonders why we need to open up the best beef market in the world to nearly 40 countries around the world. We’re told by the NCBA that we should just let the market take care of itself: we sell beef tongues and offal to other countries and they ship us fat and grinding meat we need to make all our hamburgers. But that oversimplification doesn’t hold up to further scrutinization. One NCBA-ite recently told the BBC that by exporting our beef tongues and livers to other countries the American rancher gains an additional $150 to $180 per head of cattle. That sounds more like pure bologna
continued from page two
to us! Suppose a rancher averages $800 on his calves this year, are you telling me that nearly a quarter of the value of those calves is in tongues and livers? If so, we should be breeding for bigger tongues and livers, to heck with ribeyes!
Riches for Ranchers Meanwhile, back in the real world, Germany’s Bayer just swallowed American-made Monsanto for $66 billion and will now control more than a quarter of the world’s seed and pesticide market and easily become the largest seed and crop chemical company in the world. Dow and Dupont merged and Chem China bought Syngenta, a global agribusiness that deals in seeds,chemicals and genomic research. China’s WH Group bought Smithfield, an American company founded in 1936 in Smithfield, Virginia The company is the largest pig and pork producer in the world with over 500 Smithfield-owned farms in the U.S. and another 2,000 independent contract farms around the country. It has a reported annual revenue of $14 billion. Then we have some corrupt Brazilians buying up America’s best beef assets to become the largest beef packer in the world. Globalization, a cheap dollar and a gaggle of lobbyists roaming the halls of Congress have made it all possible. I could give you a laundry list of some of America’s best companies that have been purchased by foreigners while our own factories were shuttered and our jobs outsourced overseas
wherever labor is the cheapest.
The Real Face of Globalization The real face of globalization looks more like this: • The United States brings in more beef and cattle than any other country in the world. • Even before Japan slapped a 50% tariff on American beef Australia was paying a 28% duty into Japan for their beef while we were paying 38%. Who made that deal? • Australia is a leading beef exporter into the U.S. and has just implemented a mandatory retail Country of Origin Labeling requirement. According to the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), “Current U.S. policy allows Australian beef to pass through a USDA inspected facility and then to be labeled “Product of U.S.A.” This allows Australians to receive a premium in both the U.S. and Australian market.” • While we were eliminating COOL at home, exporters were using a “Produced In The USA” label to get enormous premiums in high dollar restaurants around the world. • The globalization-loving NCBA pushed the TPP trade deal hard and bragged that the Japanese tariff on American beef would be cut from 38% down to 9%. What they didn’t tell you is that wouldn’t happen for another 16 years! Trump looked at TPP and saw it for what it was... a bad deal. • Checkoff-funded organizations like the NCBA are fond of telling us how much extra money exports bring us,
but have you ever heard them say how much imports of beef and cattle are costing us?
Paying The Price Fighting a trade war and tearing up old unfair trade agreements is not easy. And Trump’s efforts are costing American farmers and ranchers more than any other group. They have seen their net farm income cut in half over the last five years, but that wasn’t Trump’s fault. When the President is reminded of the high price America’s farmers and ranchers are paying he says, “We’ll make this up to them. They understand that they’re doing this for the country. In the end they’re going to be much stronger than they are right now.” There is one way that Trump could immediately pay back cattle ranchers. With one flourish of his pen he could reinstate COOL in his ongoing renegotiation of NAFTA as well as by initiating a rulemaking within USDA to require imported beef to bear its foreign marking through retail sale. The move would be popular with ranchers and consumers, 93 percent of whom want COOL labels. If the past is any indication COOL would immediately boost cattle prices. Remember, it was back in May 2009 that the COOL law went into effect and prices started their upward trajectory towards the highest prices ever received for cattle. At the exact time when we were receiving the highest beef prices in history thanks to COOL, the World Trade
Organization ruled it violated international law. In June of 2015 when the U.S. House of Representatives voted to repeal COOL we experienced the biggest beef crash in prices in history, back to where prices were before we had COOL. President Trump promised he’d repay us for helping elect him and for standing by his side as he fought the globalist’s agenda. I can think of no better pay back than to make COOL the law of the land once again.
Page 4
Livestock Market Digest
Baxter BLACK ON THE EDGE OF COMMON SENSE www.baxterblack.com
Civilized W
hen you hear the word uncivilized, what mental picture do you form? A grizzled trapper? Atilla the Hun burning and pillaging eastern Europe? American In-
dians before the Puritans and the Spaniards? And when you hear the civilized, what comes to mind? English barristers wearing wigs? Nobility dueling and drinking
Underneath this broad definition is the implication that a civilized person has accomplished the departure from manual labor. Has removed himself from the basic requirements to feed, clothe and shelter himself with his own hands. To become civilized means no one can survive without the knowledge of how to grow a crop, build a log cabin, dress a deer, tan a hide, sharpen a knife, find water, read a sign or make a ham. Civilizations are not new. They are as old as Noah’s banker. I’m certain there were civilized people in ancient Rome who could not milk a goat or catch a fish. Is America becoming more civilized? Certainly, according to the definition, there has
July 15, 2018
been a mass exodus from the country to the city. The percentage of people who make a living off the land continues to decline. And the stigma of being less civilized still applies to farmers, lumberjacks, fishermen, hunters, miners, ranchers and cowboys. Those whose jobs require exposure to the elements, manual labor and physical risk. This stigma is a benign prejudice that allows opportunists to manipulate urban opinion to our disadvantage. “Stop the mining, curtail the drilling, up their grazing fee, steal their water, condemn their land, cripple their dirty little towns. After all, they’re only peasants. Not really civilized, you know.” We fight back with righteous indignation, bluster and
the moral conviction that we have rights. That our cause is noble, that our labors are worthwhile for the good of mankind. We feed, clothe and shelter ourselves and our urban neighbors. So the fight goes on. From the Ottoman Empire, through our century and into the next. And we of the land manage to cling to the outskirts of civilization as unwelcome but as necessary as an IV tube in the vein of a feverish man. Consoling ourselves with the knowledge that we can live without them but they cannot live without us. Being civilized has as little meaning as being polka dot. It says nothing about the heart and soul of a man. www.baxterback.com
Fly Control Considerations for Cattle on Pasture
WRITTEN BY ADELE HARTY AND JANNA KINCHELOE WWW.IGROW.ORG
H
orn flies, face flies, and stable flies are not just irritants to livestock, but are economically important to producers due to negative impacts on milk production and calf wean-
ing weights. In addition, they can affect grazing distribution and transmit eye diseases such as pinkeye and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR). It is difficult to predict what fly levels will be like for any given year, but hot, dry weather usually results in high numbers. It is import-
Figure 1. (Left to Right) House fly, stable fly, horn fly and face fly.
ant to understand identification and life cycles of pests affecting livestock in order to choose the most effective control options.
Horn Flies
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
Horn flies are one of the most common and economically devastating insect pests of the US beef industry. They are about 1/2 to 1/3 the size of the common house fly and will commonly be found on the backs, shoulders, sides and poll area of the cattle. During the heat of the day they can be found on the belly. Adult females deposit eggs in fresh manure, and the eggs typically hatch within 1 to 2 days. The total life cycle of the horn fly is between 10 and 20 days, depending on temperature and time of year (Campbell, 1993). As adults, they spend most of their time on cattle, piercing the skin of host animals to suck blood. Horn flies may take between 20 and 30 blood meals per day (Campbell, 1993). If left untreated, densities of horn flies may reach several hundred or thousand flies per animal by mid-summer. If fly populations are high (over 200 flies per animal), treatment may be required. Options include dust bags, feed additives, sprays, pour-ons, and insecticide ear tags. Dust bags or oilers may be either forceduse (placed in an area that animals must pass through) or free choice. They offer good control, but require time to be spent checking and repairing bags. Feed additive products contain insecticides that pass
through the animal’s digestive system and kill horn fly larvae in the manure. While these additives are effective in reducing the number of larvae, this does not necessarily correlate to a reduction in the number of adults since flies will migrate to and from neighboring herds. Also, it is difficult to control intake of these feed additives and some animals may not eat enough of the feed additive for the insecticide to be effective. Sprays and pour-ons require applications every 2 to 3 weeks, which may not be feasible for some producers’ summer grazing situations. Ear tags contain an insecticide that moves from the surface of the tag to the coat of the animal. They are easy to apply and can be effective; however, there is a history of horn fly resistance to active ingredients used in some of the tags. Because of resistance issues, there are a variety of ear tags available that contain different insecticide classes, including synthetic pyrethroids, organophosphates, organochlorine, avermectin, and pyrethroids + organophosphates. Always read and follow label directions. Products vary, but some general guidelines are listed below. • Tag animals as late as possible to ensure maximum effectiveness when horn flies are present. Do not tag earlier than June 1st. • Do not use the same type of insecticide tag two years in a row. • Tag mature cows and weaned calves, but there is
no need to tag nursing calves. Horn flies typically do not bother calves. • Remove used tags at the end of the season. This will help reduce the incidence of horn fly resistance. • Use high quality tags. Inexpensive tags are generally not as effective. Researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have conducted trials on some of the newer options available for horn fly control, including insecticide strips that attach to the button side of an existing ear tag and CO2-powered device that delivers pyrethroid. Both of these methods appear to result in acceptable control, with reported reductions in horn fly populations between 81% and 89%.
Face Flies Face flies resemble house flies but are slightly larger and darker. They are non-biting flies that cluster around animals’ eyes, mouth, and muzzle to feed on animal secretions. Females lay eggs in fresh manure from cattle on pasture, with the complete life cycle taking around 21 days. They are usually most numerous in pastures that have a lot of shaded areas and waterways. Face flies can cause damage to eye tissues, which can predispose animals to infection. Control of these pests is essential in controlling pinkeye. If pinkeye is a recurring problem, it is a good idea for producers to visit with their veterinarian continued on page five
July 15, 2018
Livestock Market Digest
Page 5
How to Set Up an Equitable Cow Lease Arrangement BY HARLAN HUGHES / BEEF MAGAZINE
O
ne of the best ways for a retiring rancher to transition out of the business and for a young rancher to get started is with a cow lease arrangement. While the specifics will vary depending on the desires of both parties, there are many benefits to both sides of the arrangement. Periodically, I get a phone call asking what would be a fair beef cow lease arrangement. Usually, one partner wants to own the cows and the other partner wants to run the cows. Their question is generally, how should they share the calf crop? Often, the cow owner is a senior rancher looking toward retirement, and the other business partner is a younger rancher wanting to get into the beef cow business. The question they ask me is, how should they set up this business agreement so that it is fair to both parties? A beef cow leasing or sharing agreement allows the two business partners to share the production costs and, in turn, the cow herd’s income. The beauty of a share lease is that the production expenses can be shared in many different ways, as long as the calf
crop is shared in the same proportion as the expenses are shared. This, in turn, suggests there should not be one common leasing arrangement across the industry for leasing beef cows. Yet, this is what I tend to run into. Each lease agreement can and should be tailored to the specific business situation at hand. There are some do’s and don’ts in setting up a beef cow lease. First, the lease should run from weaning one year to weaning the next year. The annual leasing agreement should end on the day the calves are weaned. At that time, the calf crop is either sold or divided between the two business partners. Each partner is responsible for his or her share of the calf crop after weaning. Remember, the cow owner gets the cull cow income. If this is to be a perpetual cow herd, the cow owner generally provides the replacement heifers or bred replacement cows. Even though you may want to, DO NOT put the replacement heifer development inside the cow lease. This just does not work and can quickly lead to disagreement — and even a lawsuit. Replacement heifers actually work best if they are developed by a third party, and the cow owner pays
FLY CONTROL about vaccine options. Because of the locations on the animal in which face flies feed and the fact that these flies are not on the animal most of the time, control of face flies can be difficult. Effective control may require more than one method of treatment, including the use of insecticide ear tags, dust bags, and sprays. In contrast to horn flies, both cows and calves must be treated in order to reduce face fly populations.
Stable Flies Stable flies are the size of a house fly but darker in color. These are blood-feeding flies that mainly feed on the front legs. The most common sites for development of stable flies are feedlots or dairies, as larvae develop in decaying organic matter such as wet hay. How-
Making the transition Leasing a cow herd to another rancher is a nice way for the senior rancher to transition out of the cow business — especially from an income tax standpoint. It is also a good way for a young rancher to get started with a beef cow herd. In this case, the working rancher might develop the replacement heifers each year, and these new cows are all his and are kept out of the lease. Now, the cow owner gets the cull income from only the original leased cows. The working rancher gets the cull income from the replacement heifers when they are eventually culled from the herd. After seven or eight years, the complete herd has been transferred to the working rancher. The cow owner has sold his cow herd over seven or eight tax years, and the working rancher has bought his herd over a seven- or eight-year investment period. continued on page six
! w o N e b i r c s
continued from page four
ever, they can also be found on pastures, particularly around winter hay feeding sites. Cattle often react to stable flies by bunching, stomping their legs, or standing in water. This can disrupt grazing patterns, and Nebraska studies indicate reductions in weight gains from 0.2-0.4 pounds per day for grazing steers. Because stable flies mainly congregate around animals’ legs, it can be difficult to get adequate control with insecticides. Sprays are usually the best option for stable fly control, and require weekly applications to manage populations. Mist blower sprayers can be used for this purpose; however, initial costs may be high. One of the best ways to eliminate stable flies is to remove sources of organic matter that create breeding
RIDING HERD omies. During her life she adopted countless refugees from around the world, gave sanctuary to the UN and her farmers and ranchers fed billions who would have died otherwise. With 5% of the world’s population and 6% of the land, she produced 20% of everything man-made on earth. She gave the world Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Google, and birthed the tech and the green revolutions. She taught the world how to farm. Her engineers and her scientists invented ways to remove much of the drudgery from work, her teachers educated the world’s most highly intelligent, and her doctors, missionaries and volunteers kept famine and disease at bay. America’s passing left many unanswered questions: who will be willing to sacrifice her sons and daughters the next time a global bully tries to massacre an
the development costs and then transfers the pregchecked heifers into the mature breeding herd just after weaning time each year.
grounds. Cleaning areas where cattle were fed during the winter and drying down manure by spreading it or dragging fields will help reduce fly populations. A successful fly control program requires proper identification of the pest(s) causing the negative impacts, determining the best control method and following label directions on the product to get optimum control and decrease the chance of resistance. A listing of products available for control of insect pests can be found in the Nebraska Management Guide for Insect Pests of Livestock and Horses. References: Boxler, DJ. 2014. Nebraska Management Guide for Insect Pest of Livestock and Horses. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Publication EC 14-1550. Campbell JB. 1993. Horn fly control on cattle. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Publication. G93-1180-A
Sub
ive li
ormat
n ...
licatio
k pub vestoc
k c o t s e v i L Digest s
uthwe
The So
st inf t’s mo
KET
MAR
S
3Yes.
Please subscribe me to the Livestock Market Digest for:
1 Year at $19.95
2 Years at $29.95
NAME
NAM
ADDRESS
ADDR
PHONE
PHON
E-MA
continued from page one
entire race? Who will give freely trillions of dollars when hurricanes, earthquakes or despotic dictators leave a path of human destruction behind? Who will seek out and destroy the terrorists who want to murder everyone who doesn’t worship their god? Who will tear down the walls that communism built or be a sanctuary for refugees who have no where else to turn? Who will entertain the world or spawn the next generation of Disneys, Jobs, Gates or Bezos? Who will say to the world’s unfortunate and poor, “Follow us and we will lift you up?” America was preceded in death by common sense, decency, freedom, hard work, thrift and good manners. She is survived by 50 states who suffer from the same deadly disease. Pall bearers were a corrupt career politician; a millennial on a skateboard staring at his cell
phone; a representative of the transgender community who didn’t know which bathroom to use; a homeless father who sired five kids and then ditched them; a Hollywood celebrity who made gory movies and violent video games but blamed the second amendment every time a teenager tried to kill as many of his classmates as he could in ten minutes; the CEO of a corporation who didn’t pay taxes and stashed their cash overseas; and a quarterback who made millions of dollars playing a game in the good old US of A but wouldn’t even stand for her flag or her national anthem. There will be no graveside service as America lost her faith decades ago. Instead of flowers go to a church, synagogue or mosque and say your prayers for the rest of the world. wwwLeePittsbooks.com
MC
VISA
CARD NUMBER
CARD
EXPIRATION DATE
EXPIR
SIGNATURE
SIGN
Payment Enclosed
SEND PAYMENT TO: Livestock Market Digest P.O. Box 7458 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194
@
or subscribe online
Pa
SEN AAALIVESTOCK.COM
Live P.O. Albu
Page 6
Livestock Market Digest
HOME
• Successful people show up on time, with a plan, and a commitment to execute it and follow it through. Go for it!
SPUN
By Jim Olson
Tips For Success • Do what you love, love what you do, and deliver more than you promise. Go the extra mile, it’s rarely crowded. • There is only one way to have a good reputation and that’s by earning it. While it takes a heck-of-a long time to earn one, it only takes a short time to ruin it. Once you have it, don’t ever let it slip away. • Challenge yourself to learn something new every chance you get. Improve yourself daily. Stay current on rules and changes related to your business and try to know everything there is to know about the business you are in. • Stay positive. You cannot inspire others to do business with you if you have a negative attitude or a losing personality. Avoid people that are down and bitter, their negativeness can rub off.
• Remember, It’s hard to soar like an eagle if you are hanging around with the turkeys! Successful people seek out other successful people. Pro Ropers, Golfers, Ball Players, etc. don’t practice with beginners or amateurs on a regular basis when they are working to improve their “A Game,” and neither should you. • Every day remember to take at least a small step towards your dreams and goals. It helps to keep the power and energy of your mind focused on it! Most often, if you believe you can, then you can! • Seek out a mentor. Learning from those who have already been down the trail can be very useful. • You never know till you ask. Most people avoid risk their whole lives by simply assuming that the other guy will say no. If you are afraid of a little rejection once in a while, you will never go far in business. Ask—and you probably will receive! • If you want to double your income, then you have to double your efforts in some way or another. Working smarter is often the best way to find the increased output. • Write it down. Remember that the person who counts on his memory for a filing system has a fool of a filer. • Opportunities are sometimes like
sunsets. The best ones are often fleeting. Cease the moment, don’t procrastinate. You will not get dealt a winning hand unless you are in the game. Take risks. You are better off being scared than bored. Go for it. • It’s better to be prepared for opportunity and not have one, than to have an opportunity and not be prepared for one. • If you don’t fail some of the time, then you’re not trying hard enough. Never think of failure as a failure, think of it as a temporary setback. As the legendary Joe Beaver said, “If you don’t break the barrier once in a while, you’re not pushing the line enough.” • “Knowledge is power.” That statement is only true if you put your knowledge to good use! The most powerful weapon you can possess in any negotiation is superior information and knowledge. • Do not overwhelm people with too much information all at once, listen carefully, determine what they really need to know at that time to make an informed decision and don’t overwhelm them with unnecessary information. It’s awful hard to watch what you are saying if you’re talking out your “hind end”! • Dress for success. The clothes may not make the man, but as Mark Twain said, “Have you ever tried to take a naked man seriously”. Like it or not, your appearance has a big impression on how people take you. Dress the part!
COW LEASE
Making it work Let’s take a detailed look at this proposed joint business venture and see how these two business partners might go about setting up an “equitable” agreement: i.e., how they will share the production expenses and total income generated from the leased cow herd. I argue that an equitable beef cow lease agreement is one where the two business partners share the calf crop
July 15, 2018
• Always be professional. That means professional in dress, manners, knowledge, etc. • You’ll always catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Be personable, be nice, be polite and courteous. You will not come across as a professional if you are all “sour grapes.” • A deal can always be made when the parties see that it is also to their own benefit. Show them what they are getting out of the deal. Remember, if they don’t say no, then keep forging ahead like it’s a yes. • Leave emotions out of business. Any decision made based upon emotions is a decision bound for disaster. Think it through. • It’s not about what happens to you that matters, it’s about how you handle what happens to you that matters. • Selling is simply creating conditions that convince a person they want to buy and that it was their own idea. If you are in sales, leave the used car salesman routine at home. • Do not allow success to make you lazy. Be persistent. Stay after it. Don’t give up. Stay after it or your success will fade out eventually. • Learn to open your heart and give without requiring anything in return. Practice random acts of kindness. Most successful folks I know are also very generous, the two go hand-inhand. Jim Olson ©2018 • www.WesternTradingPost.com
continued from page five
from the beef cow herd in the same proportion that they share the production expenses. So now, let’s determine how the production expenses will be shared. One business partner will be designated the cow owner; the other business partner, the working rancher. I then suggest that these two partners construct a detailed, annual full-cost budget for running that beef cow herd. A full-cost annual budget includes all
normal annual production expenses such as feed, vet costs, etc., and also includes the cost of the investment capital, all labor costs and a management charge. This full-cost budget should have five columns: • List of individual production factors • List of quantities associated with each production factor • Total dollar cost associated with each production factor • A column labeled “cow owner” • A column labeled “working rancher” This special budget will be used to allocate each production expense to each business partner. Each production resource should be valued at its fair market price. Figure 1 presents my example cow leasing budget. The figures are my estimates; your figures will likely be different. Winter feed costs are projected to be $161 per cow, and all of that cost is to be allocated to the working rancher. All pasture costs are also allocated to the working rancher. On the other hand, the cow owner agrees to pay all vet and medicine costs. The working rancher agrees to give the vaccination shots to all the animals as part of his labor.
Share gross, costs proportionally Since this is to be a perpetual beef cow herd, the cow owner agrees to furnish all replacement heifers and the replacement bulls. The agreed-upon labor of eight hours per cow is all provided by the working rancher. Management charge is agreed to be 5 percent of gross, with 10 percent to the cow owner and 90 percent to the working rancher. If the columns are added up, the cow owner contributes 33 percent of pro-
duction costs, while this working rancher is scheduled to contribute 67 percent of the production costs. This, then, suggests the calf crop should be shared 33 percent to the cow owner and 67 percent to the working rancher. Remember, in addition to getting 33 percent of the calf crop, the cow owner also gets the cull cow income. Once the cull cow income is added back in, the cow owner, in this example, is projected to get 41 percent of the gross income generated in this cow lease enterprise. Let me summarize: • First, these agreements should be in writing, with the written contract clearly identifying all the agreed-upon specifics. • Second, be sure to cover all production costs, identify expected death losses and establish associated penalties on the part of both parties for excess open cows; and excess death loss of cows, bulls, and/or calves. Specify exactly how the business agreement is to be terminated. It is a lot easier to work out the details before the agreement is signed than to work out a termination agreement after an emergency or disagreement occurs. • Third, any two parties can enter into any legal agreement that both parties agree to, even if it is not equitable. • Both parties should have their lawyer review the final draft before either party signs the agreement. The University of Nebraska West Central Research & Extension Center has a software Decision Aid spreadsheet titled “Cow-Calf Share Lease Cow-QLator” available free on the internet. Hughes is a North Dakota State University professor emeritus. He lives in Kuna, Idaho.
July 15, 2018
Livestock Market Digest
Page 7
Dart Decisions \BY JOHN MADAY, EDITOR / BOVINE VET ONLINE
B
ring up the topic of medicated darts among a group of cattle producers and veterinarians and you’ll hear a range of strong opinions. Opponents maintain that darts, or “remote delivery devices” (RDD) as manufacturers call them, should rarely, if ever, be used to treat cattle with antibiotics. They site potential problems including hitting an inappropriate injection site, injecting the wrong tissue such as into a muscle or vein instead of subcutaneous, inconsistent dosage that could contribute to antibiotic resistance, safety and other concerns. Proponents stress that RDD can offer convenience and protect animal welfare, allowing treatment in remote pastures where capturing, restraining and/or transporting an animal for hand injection can create additional stress. For detailed background on the topic, read “Dart or No Dart” in the September 2016 issue of Bovine Veterinarian. Over the past few years, much of the argument on either side has drawn primarily on anecdotal evidence, as research data remains scarce. Two recent reports add to the knowledge base, but with somewhat conflicting results, will not definitively end the debate. Results of one recent study, led by Dr. David Bechtol and the Agri Research Center, Canyon, Texas, indicate producers can, with the appropriate equipment, consistently deliver subcutaneous injections with RDD with results similar to hand injections. For this test, the researchers used saline injections with food-grade blue dye for visual documentation of distribution of the injected solution. All injections were in the BQA-approved injection sites in the neck. The team used 48 Angus-cross feedyard steers, with each receiving two different subcutaneous injection treatments to either side of the neck. The researchers compared injections using: An industry-standard ½-inch 16-gauge needle for hand injection. An RDD equipped with a ½-inch 14-gauge needle. An RDD equipped with a ¾-inch tri-port 14-gauge needle. Of the total 68 RDDs delivered, 68 detonated, while two partially deployed with one more so than the other. According to the research report, the study met its objective of evaluating an RDD equipped with ½-inch 14-gauge versus a ¾-inch 14-gauge tri-port needle in comparison to a hand syringe injection equipped with a stan-
dard ½-inch 16-gauge needle. The gross and histopathology results showed an RDD equipped with a ½-inch needle having good skin penetration thus providing subcutaneous injection with no muscle damage, whereas the ¾-inch tri-port needle had good skin penetration with majority subcutaneous injection: however, did have some minimal muscle penetration. The researchers conclude that the RDD equipped with a ½-inch 14-gauge needle is adequate for subcutaneous injections with least amount of muscle penetration and equal to that of a hand syringe in-
jection if the hand syringe is administered with proper care. In contrast, a study from Kansas State University’s Beef Cattle Institute led by Dr. Hans Coetzee, found inconsistencies. In this study, researchers used RDD to inject cattle with Draxxin (tulathroymycin). Of 15 animals treated using RDD, for of the darts failed to deliver the drug. In other cases, researchers found trace amounts of the drug in the animals, but not at efficacious levels. They also found that darted animals had a lower overall exposure to Draxxin compared to animals that were held in a squeeze chute and in-
jected under the skin. The researchers also point out that the test animals were restrained with rope halters, with an experienced veterinarian firing the darts from a dead rest at a fixed distance. And yet, in one-third of the treated animals, the dart hit outside the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA)-compliant injection-site area of the neck. More research is needed, but in the meantime, veterinarians and producers should limit their use of RDD treatments to necessity, rather than convenience. If you have instances where RDD seems the best choice, take reasonable steps
to ensure compliance with BQA guidelines. Comply fully with product labels, including mode of injection, total dosage and maximum dosage per injection site. Practice with the dart gun to ensure consistent ability to hit a small target at an appropriate range. Keep detailed records of all treatments, and if possible, recover all used darts for safety and to verify the dose was injected. Follow all gun-safety rules, such as keeping the safety on until ready to fire, always pointing the rifle in a safe direction, knowing your target and what is beyond your target and always treating every gun as if it is loaded.
N I E U L A V G N I S I T R E V D A ! Y T S R E T S B U E D N TH I K C O T S E V I L N R E WEST
Call Lynn Marie “LM” Rusaw for information at 505.243.9515 or email
Reserve your space now in
Livestock Market Digest’s
Annual Fall Marketing Edition
aaalivestockmarketdigest@gmail.com
ADVERTISING DEADLINE: August 1
Page 8
Livestock Market Digest
The View FROM THE BACK SIDE
A Little Hoss Training BY BARRY DENTON
Y
ou just never know where you might end up, but here I am giving riding lessons each week to clients that want to achieve more with their horses. Some of our clients come from ranching backgrounds while others just love the western lifestyle and want to embrace it. My wife Laurel and I train working cow horses, ranch riding horses, and reining horses to show in American Quarter Horse Association and National Reined Cow Horse Association sanctioned horse shows across the southwest. At the same time we manage our cow ranch as well. Most of the time this is a very fun endeavor. The best part of it is that we are surrounded by nice people that are honest and are easy to do business with. Like many others in our business we work hard and devote our life to getting better at it. One thing about this business is that in order to stay on top you have to be out there around others to learn the latest techniques and to find the best horses. Often it will get intense, but it has stayed rewarding as well. It’s an odd transition for me because when I was younger I never had any real interest in giving someone lessons. I have certainly have learned from it. By observing someone else’s mistakes I often figure out how to ride my horses even better. I have riders that are at all different levels of riding, so it is a challenge for me to figure out how to make progress, at each level. If you know anything about training
horses, you realize that training does not always progress forward. Many times you will be working on a horse that you think is a star on Wednesday and Thursday you are wondering if this is the same horse you were riding the day before. Riding students learn in very much the same way. People that are not involved with livestock often have no idea why their horse will not get better each day and remain that way forever. Normally students with a background in livestock will naturally progress better than ones that did not get an interest until later in life. Like anything, experience is the best teacher. One thing that is the hardest to teach is that horses are reactive to you the rider. If you give the horse the proper information consistently he will become a good performer. If you give the horse the wrong information he will do nothing correctly. Horse training is developing a body language with your horse that he can understand. Green riders often develop the notion that horses think like they do. When riding students figure out how to think like a horse then they begin to advance. Watching my rider’s progress, is my reward as a teacher and when they digress I pull my hair out. Of course, when they digress I have to figure out another way to teach them. Teaching horses to me is pretty easy compared to teaching people. If you keep asking a horse for the same thing repeatedly without getting upset, eventually he will give you what you desire. You may have to think of six different ways
July 15, 2018
to communicate your point to him first. However, with people it is much more complicated than that because you have to contend with a variety of emotions, egos, and body limitations. Once your rider learns how to not let those three items interfere then he or she is on their way to becoming a better rider. Now comes the hard part, adding a cow into the equation. You have to teach your green rider how to deal with the unpredictability of the cow. All of the sudden you have taken both the horse and the rider out of their comfort zone. Now you are teaching them to control an additional animal. Needless to say, it becomes very challenging when you have to deal with a horse, a green rider, and a cow. You can never set up a training regimen as no two cows are ever the same. Horse and rider have to learn how to respond to the random behavior of the cow. Needless to say that you need a well trained horse and a well
trained rider before you introduce them to the bovine. People have mentioned to me that horses or cows are always honest. Funny, but I have never found that to be true. I think our animal counterparts are very similar to humans. Some animals are very honest, a small percentage are not. I do think that horses and cows react more than they plan, but as time goes on I think horses and cattle become smarter. Each new generation of breeding and training keeps getting better. Since horses have advanced in ability, you have to become a better trainer. Yes, I still see cowboys get a great amount of work accomplished on untrained horses and their ability amazes me. Just think of how much more the cowboy would get accomplished if he was mounted on a well trained horse? I think we are seeing lots of changes in this direction as ranches and cowboys have to become more efficient. They have had to because our economic structure on the ranch continues to change to be able to
compete in today’s ever changing economic climate. Tradition is a wonderful thing but when minor change can advance your plight and station in life, embrace it. Better trained horses, better trained cowboys and cowgirls only make life easier on the ranch. Always try to advance your horsemanship and your cowmanship. It astounds me how training horses and people reflects life. Hopefully, in your first 18 years your parents gave you the foundation you need to deal with life and its unpredictability. Then when you decide on what you want to do, you have to learn to apply yourself enough to accomplish that task. Once you learn that aspect then hopefully you try and advance that skill to a higher level. You can never quit learning or you will stagnate and quit advancing in life. If someone throws a high headed wild cow into your life, then what will you do? Hopefully, you will respond with aplomb, control the situation, not let it ruffle you, and come out on top.
REAL ESTATE GUIDE 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
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, NM. 4,927 +/- deeded acres, 1,336.80 +/- state lease acres, 2,617 +/- Kiowa National Grassland Lease Acres. 8,880.80 +/- Total Acres. Substantial holding with good mix of grazing land and broken country off rim onto Canadian River. Fenced into four main pastures with shipping and headquarter pasture and additional four pastures in the Kiowa lease. Modern well, storage tank and piped water system supplementing existing dirt tanks located on deeded. Located approximately 17 miles east of Wagon Mound on pavement then county road. Nice headquarters and good access to above rim. Wildlife include antelope, mule deer and some elk. $2,710,000 MIAMI HORSE HEAVEN, Colfax County, NM. Very private approx. 4,800 sq ft double walled adobe 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom home with many custom features, 77.50 +/- deeded acres with water rights and large 7 stall barn, insulated metal shop with own septic. Would suit indoor growing operation, large hay barn/equipment shed. $1,375,000. MAXWELL FARM IMPROVED, Colfax County, NM. 280 +/- deeded acres, 160 Class A irrigation shares, 2 center pivots, nice sale barn, 100 hd feedlot. Depredation Elk Tags available. Owner financing available to qualified buyer. Significantly reduced to $550,000
RATON MILLION DOLLAR VIEW, Colfax County, NM. 97.68 +/- deeded acres, 2 parcels, excellent home, big shop, wildlife, a true million dollar view at end of private road. $489,000. House & 1 parcel $375,000
SOLD
MIAMI 80 ACRES, Colfax County, NM. 80 +/- deeded acres, 80 water shares, expansive views, house, shop, roping arena, barns and outbuildings. Reduced $485,000 COLD BEER VIEW, Colfax County, NM 83.22 +/- deeded acre,3,174 sq ft,5 bedroom,3 ½ bathrm,2 car garage home situated on top of the hill with amazing 360 degree views. Reduced $398,000 $349,000 MIAMI 20 ACRES, Colfax County, NM. 20 +/- deeded acres, 20 water shares, quality 2,715 sq ft adobe home, barn, grounds and trees. Private setting. This is a must see. Reduced to $265,000 FRENCH TRACT 80, Irrigated farm with gated pipe, house, stone shop, many out buildings privacy. Reduced to $292,000 $350,000 MAXWELL SMALL HOLDING, home with horse improvements, fenced, water rights and 19+/- deeded acres. Handy to I25 on quiet country road. $232,000.
521 West Second St., Portales, NM 88130
575-226-0671 www.buenavista-nm.com
Rural Listings with Homes & Barns in Eastern New Mexico 2638 S Rrd G, 160 ac very nice ranch setting near Causey, NM 361 S Rrd W, 38 ac w/ 3bdrm, 2 bth home 7 mi west Portales, NM 1866 NM 236, 10 ac w/4 bdrm 2 bth, barns, storage – 2 miles from town 1509 Davis Rd, very nice home, lots garage – barn space – 3 miles out 1242 NM 480, fantastic ranch home on 58 ac overlooking Portales See these and other properties at www.buenavista-nm.com
SOCORRO PLAZA REALTY On the Plaza
Donald Brown
Qualifying Broker
505-507-2915 cell 505-838-0095 fax
116 Plaza PO Box 1903 Socorro, NM 87801 www.socorroplazarealty.com dbrown@socorroplazarealty.com
TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES • New 40 acre Nice older brick home, 3/3/2, 4 barns, excellent grass. Kaufman Co., Texas. 35 miles from Dallas Court House. $350,000.
D L O S
• 165 acres Nice spanish style house, nice barn, 3 tanks, city water. Sold at $750,000. • 270 acre Mitchell County, Texas ranch. Investors dream; excellent cash flow. Rock formation being crushed and sold; wind turbans, some minerals. Irrigation water developed, crop & cattle, modest improvements. Just off I-20. Price reduced to $1.6 million.
D L O S
• 40 acre, 2 homes, nice barn, corral, 30 miles out of Dallas. $415,000.
Joe Priest Real Estate
1-800/671-4548
joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com
July 15, 2018
Livestock Market Digest
Page 9
K-State Study Looks at the Economic Impact of Using Antimicrobials S CATTLEBUSINESSWEEKLY.COM
tate University agricultural economists and veterinary medicine faculty members have completed an analysis of the economic impact of treating groups of high health-risk animals with antimicrobials, and they think their findings will help to inform public debate on the topic. Their work focused on the practice of metaphylaxis, or the mass treatment of a pen of high health-risk cattle to eliminate or minimize the onset of disease. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, metaphylaxis is used selectively by 59 percent of U.S. feedlots on 20.5 percent of all cattle placed on feed. The use of antimicrobials in
BAKER CITY, OREGON Andrew Bryan, Owner/Broker Office 541-523-5871 Cell 208-484-5835
andrew@bakercityrealty.com www.bakercityrealty.com
livestock production is under intense public scrutiny, with many major restaurants, food service companies, supermarkets and others pressuring producers to use fewer antibiotics. “There’s a general sentiment and public policy concern about the use of antibiotics in animal production,” said Ted Schroeder, a livestock economist with K-State Research and Extension and University Distinguished Professor of agricultural economics. “Our study assessed the economic impacts on the beef cattle industry and on consumers of using metaphylaxis in the beef cattle industry.” Their major finding: if metaphylaxis were eliminated in the U.S. cattle industry without
suitable health management alternatives, it could cost that industry as much as $1.8 billion annually. “We know that if metaphylaxis were not available, a reduction in revenue would result from reduced average daily gains, increased feed conversions, higher health costs from treating more sick animals, more deaths primarily for those high health-risk animals,” among other factors, said Elliott Dennis, a K-State doctoral student who worked on the study. “That reduction in profitability would then be passed up and down the beef supply chain, ultimately resulting in higher prices for consumers to pay for beef at the supermarket. Consumers, when facing higher beef prices at the supermarket would then
Bar M Real Estate
HeAdquArters West Ltd.
SCOTT MCNALLY www.ranchesnm.com 575/622-5867 575/420-1237
ST. JOHN’S OFFICE: TRAEGEN KNIGHT
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
Ranch Sales & Appraisals
Filling your real estate needs in Arizona
AG LOANS AGLAND LAND LOANS
Bottari Realty
AsLow LowAsAs 3% As 4.5% OPWKCAP 2.9% OPWKCAP 2.9%
INTEREST RATESAS AS LOW 3% INTEREST RATES LOW ASAS 4.5% Payments Scheduledon on2525 Years Payments Scheduled Years
521 West Second St. • Portales, NM 88130
Paul Bottari, Broker
775/752-3040
(choose) other meat products besides beef.” The economists’ findings are based on data from 10 large Midwest feedlots in which they analyzed production and health management data from cattle that were classified as high health-risk and administered an antimicrobial upon entering the feedlot. They classified animals into three weight categories to determine differences between treating high health-risk animals compared with those not treated. They found that for 550-pound animals, producers would lose on average $104 per head by not treating those high health-risk cattle. For 700-pound animals, they would be expected to lose about $99, and for 850-pound animals,
the losses would be $64 per head. “We found that if metaphylaxis was not available for high health-risk cattle, it would reduce industry gross revenue by about 1 percent,” Dennis said. “That’s a sizable amount if metaphylaxis was not allowed to be used in feedlots on high health-risk cattle.” Schroeder noted that removing metaphylaxis or any animal health management technology from feedlots has a snowball effect. “A lot of that direct cost would be absorbed by the feedlot, but a very significant amount of it would go back to cow-calf producers continued on page ten
Missouri Land Sales
See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com
• WHAT A GREAT WEEKEND RETREAT IN THE WOODS, or permanent Paul McGilliard residency if you love privacy and seclusion. Winter view of the North Fork Cell: 417/839-5096 River, walk to the river, be sure to bring your canoes. Would be a great spot 1-800/743-0336 for a corporate retreat or a large family, could easily sleep 15+. Propety sells Murney Assoc., Realtors Springfield, MO 65804 fully furnished, down to the sheets and spoons. Very unique property, only one like it! Call Paul or Wes 417/823-2300 for your private showing. • 1+ ACRE CORNER LOT IN MOUNTAIN GROVE, MISSOURI sits this charming, one owner, custom built, 3200 sq ft home, 4 bedrooms, 3 full baths, formal living and dining room, gourmet kitchen, sun room, 2 fireplaces, w/o finished basement, too many amenities to list. $359,900 MLS#60102756. • 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
Scott Land co. Ranch & Farm Real Estate
1301 Front Street, Dimmitt, TX 79027 Ben G. Scott - Broker Krystal M. Nelson - NM Qualifying Broker 800-933-9698 • 5:00am/10:00pm www.scottlandcompany.com
WE NEED LISTINGS ON ALL TYPES OF ■ SOUTH CONCHAS RANCH – San Miguel Co., AG PROPERTIES LARGE OR SMALL! 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! ■ 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. ■ GREAT STARTER RANCH – Quay Co., NM – well improved & watered, 2,400 ac. +/-deeded, 80 ac. +/- State Lease, excellent access from I-40. ■ OPORTUNITY TO OWN A PIECE OF AN OLD WEST RANCH – Guadalupe Co., NM - There are multiple owners of the Frontier Ranch consisting of their individual, undivided ownership of 6,423.45 ac. +/- w/undivided ownership ranging from 38 ac. +/- & greater. You may buy undivided interest in this ranch at your discretion, improvements are average for the area, this is good country suitable for a year-round cow/calf 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 Frontier Ranch for addtl. grazing. ■ ALFALFA & LIVESTOCK – Tucumcari, NM 255.474 ac. +/-, state-of-the-art huge hay barn & shop (immaculate), steel pens, Arch Hurley Water Rights, two nearly new sprinklers, alfalfa established.
SOUTH BROWN LAKE RANCH – Nicely improved cattle ranch located northwest of Roswell, NM. 5,735 total acres to include 960 acres deeded. 164 A.U. yearlong grazing capacity. Modern residence, bunkhouse, shop and feed barn. Three wells and buried
■ RANCHO DE LOS PETROGLYPHS – 14 sections +/- deeded, 120 +/- BLM, 20 +/uncontrolled, beautiful Santa Fe style completed remodeled rock/adobe home, employee housing, good set of working pens, located SW of Santa Rosa, NM. ■ SAN MIGUEL CO., NM – 3,000 +/- ac., mostly deeded, virtually new mobile home w/ metal hay barn, metal shop bldg., good pens, open country to deep canyons. ■ GRASSLAND W/ORGANIC POTENTIAL – 800 ac. of choice grassland – Union Co., NM, FSA allotments, no cattle in 3 yrs., on pvmt., irrigation in area. ■ 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. ■ GRASSLAND W/STRONG WATER POTENTIAL – Union Co., NM - approx. 927.45 ac. +/-, on pvmt., organic poss. ■ 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. ■ WEST CLOVIS HWY. 60 – 1,536.92 ac. +/- of grassland w/two mi. of hwy. frontage on Hwy. 60, ½ mi. of frontage on Hwy. 224, 3 mi. of frontage on south side of Curry Rd. 12, watered by one well at the pens piped to both pastures.
L-X RANCH – Southeastern NM just ten minutes from Roswell, NM with paved gated
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.
575-226-0671 or 575-226-0672 fax
Buena Vista Realty
Qualifying Broker: A.H. (Jack) Merrick 575-760-7521 www.buenavista-nm.com
Joe Stubblefield & Associates 13830 Western St., Amarillo, TX 806/622-3482 • cell 806/674-2062 joes3@suddenlink.net Michael Perez Associates Nara Visa, NM • 575/403-7970
Nevada Farms & raNch PrOPerTY www.bottarirealty.com
BLACK DOG RANCH – Central NM, near Corona in Lincoln County. Comprised of 314 deeded acres with nice new of remodeled improvements. Good elk, mule deer and turkey hunting. Comes with elk tags. Price: $565,000 Price: $525,000 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 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
pipeline. Excellent grass country. Price: $1,300,000
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
For Real Estate and Classified Advertising Please Call 505/243-9515
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
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
FOR SALE AT THE FARM
Cañones Route P.O. Abiquiu, N.M. 87510 MANUEL SALAZAR P.O. Box 867 Española, N.M. 87532
575/638-5434
RED ANGUS
A SOURCE FOR PROVEN SUPERIOR RED ANGUS GENETICS 14298 N. Atkins Rd., Lodi, CA 95240
209/727-3335
CORRIENTE
BRANGUS For Advertising Contact:
Lynn Marie Rusaw
R.L. Robbs 520/384-3654
Office: 505-243-9515 Email:
4995 Arzberger Rd. Willcox, Arizona 85643 Willcox, AZ
AAALivestockMarket Digest@gmail.com
July 15, 2018
ANTIMICROBIALS who are supplying calves,” he said. “Even if they are supplying healthy calves, they are still going to be influenced because overall the feedlot sector’s costs get passed down because they are a margin-taker.” “So it’s a very important issue not only for the feedlot sector, but for the cow-calf sector and consumers, as well.” Dennis said the agricultural economists plan to continue their analysis, looking more closely at options that producers may have for using different types of metaphylaxis drugs, “and what happens if they took away certain drugs, but allowed other drugs to be present. Kind of get down to the producer decision level so that we could create a tool for producers to look at the options they have when it comes to metaphylaxis
continued from page nine
use.” Schroeder said the current study and future work will nonetheless help to better inform those who make decisions regarding animal health management. “These studies take a long time to do; there is considerable research analyst time to complete projects like this,” he said. “Our goal was to make sure that as such policy options are being debated that at least folks are informed about what kinds of economic impacts alternative strategies like this could entail.” K-State’s study can be read online at http://www.agmanager.info/livestock-meat/ cross-subject-areas/value-arrival-metaphylaxis-us-fed-cattle-industry.
STEPHENVILLE HORSE SALE DATES
*
SALE DATES July 6 August 3 September 7 October 5 November 2 December 7
First Friday of Every Month Tack Sale Begins at 6:00 P.M. - Horses Follow Day of Sale Unloading Opens @ 8:30 A.M.
Thursday Night Unloading from 6:00-9:00 P.M., Prior to Sale
Troy: 254/967-1950 Barn: 254/968-4844 Stephenville Cattle Co. Highway 281 North, Stephenville, TX
*
2018 SALE DATES January 4 February 1 March 1
Cowboys & Grassmen BY DAVE PRATT RANCHMANAGEMENT.COM
I
once heard Bud Williams say, “Ranchers love their cows and hate their grass.” Bud thought they had it backwards. They should love their grass and hate their cattle. I know that Bud didn’t really hate cattle or think that anyone else ought to hate them, but his point was that for a livestock business to be profitable, it must be a grass business first. Ranchers often talk about utilization. I’ve even seen phrases like “…to make efficient use of our forage resource” incorporated into mission statements describing the purpose of ranch businesses. That’s fine, but doesn’t it seem like we ought to place at least as much emphasis on efficiently growing grass as we do on using it? It’s almost as though we don’t care how much we grow as long as it gets used efficiently. Tactics that increase the efficient use of forages include shortening graze periods, increasing stock density and matching the number and type of animals to the resource. But these tactics are unlikely to significantly affect the amount of grass we grow. Providing adequate recovery for plants after grazing is the single biggest factor affecting pasture and range productivity. Not providing enough recovery is the single biggest problem in grazing management. A second factor reducing productivity is grazing pastures too severely during the growing season. Leaving plenty of leaves on plants reduces the recovery period plants need and maximizes plant growth after grazing. Leaving plenty of cover on the soil improves water penetration and increases the soil’s moisture holding capacity, which extends the growing season and increases productivity. Unfortunately, when we focus on “efficient utilization” a lot of us graze pastures too severely, taking too many leaves and removing too much cover, reducing our overall productivity. It is understandable that our focus tends to be more on the animals than the grass. After all, we call ourselves cattlemen and cowboys, not grassguys and foragefolks. But we’d be much healthier economically and ecologically if we would focus on growing abundant forage before we worry about how efficiently our animals will use that forage. If you want to separate the men from the boys in the ranching business, you’ll find that the most profitable ranchers are grassmen first and cowboys second.
July 15, 2018
Livestock Market Digest
Page 11
Evaluating the Most Economic Way to Improve Range BY MYRIAH JOHNSON, PH.D., ECONOMICS PROGRAM LEAD AND AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS CONSULTANT / NOBLE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
O
n many agricultural operations, there are always projects to work on. Some are pertinent and necessary for the operation to continue functioning, while others are “get to it when you can” or “would be nice to do” types of projects. Often, range management or improvement projects fall in the nonessential category until they reach a critical point. Along the way, these projects may be continually pushed to the back burner for many reasons, such as shortages in time, labor or capital. However, it is best to consider whether there is a financial incentive (or penalty) for waiting until there is a critical mass to address this type of project.
Increased Brush Reduces Revenue For this article, we will focus on what would happen to a range pasture if mesquite was not managed over a 30-year time period. The article “Economics of Managing Mesquite in North Texas: A Sensitivity Analysis”, written by W.R. Teague, R.J. Ansley, U.P. Kreuter, W.E. Pinchak and J.M. McGrann and published by the Journal of Range Management in 2001, lends itself to this idea. Figure 1, which is from their paper, depicts the tradeoff between carrying capacity and acres per animal unit (AU) with percent mesquite coverage. An area completely clear of mesquite is assumed to start with. This clear land will support slightly less than 0.12 animal unit years (AUYs) per hectare (or slightly more than 21 acres per AUY). For the first 15 years or so, mesquite coverage slowly increases to about 15 percent and only a minimal decrease in AUYs per hectare occurs (or a minimal increase in the number of acres per AUY). However, in years 15 to 30, as mesquite coverage increases from approximately 15 percent to 30 percent, we observe a steady decline in carrying capacity to less than 0.04 AUYs per hectare (or more than 62 acres per AUY). During these 30 years, there is a reduction in grazeable acres and carrying capacity. Because fewer head of livestock can be supported, fewer pounds of livestock production per acre are sold. In addition, this creates a loss in revenue, leaving a producer with fewer dollars to pay for this type of range management. Further, there is an increase in the production cost per unit of livestock.
Consider Loss of Revenue When Evaluating Practices None of the aforementioned consequences are desired, but how
does one justify implementing the management practices needed to avoid this situation? One way to look at this is to think of the potential lost revenue from not managing the rangeland. We will assume there are 1,000 acres in the operation and that 500-pound calves are weaned and sold each October. If the cows weigh 1,100 pounds, on average the 1,000 acres will support 41 cows total (24 acres per cow). With an 85 percent weaning rate, there would be 35 calves to market each fall. As discussed previously, this herd size could be supported for the first 15 years or so. At year 18, we assume the operation can support 33 cows with 28 calves to market; at year 23, 22 cows and 18 calves; at year 28, 16 cows and 13 calves; and finally, at year 30, 14 cows and 11 calves. To calculate the loss in revenue, we compare the pounds that would have been marketed if the land was clear to the pounds marketed when the carrying capacity is decreased. For example, take the 18 calves, instead of 35, marketed at year 23. Assume a calf crop of 50 percent steers and 50 percent heifers. Using Oklahoma City market prices from 2000 to 2017 for 500- to 600-pound steers and heifers, it is estimated that approximately $165,000 in revenue would be lost.
Calculating Costs for Management Options So, what options are available for mesquite control that would be less costly than losing out on $165,000 in revenue? We estimated the costs of several management methods to answer this question. The methods included prescribed fire, aerial treatment, individual plant treatment (IPT) and grubbing as well as the combination of aerial treatment and prescribed fire or IPT and the combination of grubbing and prescribed fire or IPT. We assumed these management practices were started in year 13, just before destocking would begin. By implementing these practices, destocking would not be needed. The following calculations are rough estimates based on the Noble agricultural consultants’ knowledge.
Prescribed Fire Initial startup cost of $10,960 for a sprayer, fire guards and other
supplies. We assumed 200 acres would be burned each year with an annual cost of $39. Total cost over 30-year period: $10,960 + ($39 x 18 years) = $11,662 One consideration for prescribed fire is that mature trees at high densities could lead to less-than-desirable suppression levels and not result in an increase in carrying capacity.
Individual Plant Treatment (IPT) $20,000 every five years, four treatments in 18-year time frame. Total cost over 30 years: $20,000 x 4 = $80,000 IPT can be cheaper at lower canopy and density levels but may be less feasible at higher density levels and with more mature trees. Also, cut and spray may be the only IPT option when trees are larger.
Aerial Treatment $32,500 every five years with four treatments in an 18-year time frame. Total cost over 30 years: $32,500 x 4 = $130,000
Treatment Followed by Prescribed Fire Each Year Add one-time cost for aerial treatment ($32,500), plus pre-
scribed fire startup cost ($10,960) and annual burn cost ($39) for 200 acres. Total cost over 30 years: $32,500 + $10,960 + ($39 x 17 years) = $44,123
Aerial Treatment Followed by IPT Each Year IPT annual cost: $20 per acre x 200 acres per year = $4,000 Total cost over 30 years: $32,500 + ($4,000 x 17 years) = $100,500
Grubbing $175,000 every five years, four treatments in an 18-year time frame. Total cost over 30 years: $175,000 x 4 = $700,000
Grubbing Followed By Prescribed Fire Each Year Add one-time grubbing cost ($175,000), plus prescribed fire startup cost ($10,960) and annual burn cost ($39) for 200 acres. Total cost over 30 years: $175,000 + $10.960 + ($39 x 17 years) = $186,623
Grubbing Followed by IPT Each Year Add one-time grubbing cost ($175,000), plus IPT annual cost ($4,000) for 200 acres. Total cost over 30 years: $175, 000 + ($4,000 x 17 years) = $243,000
In total, there are eight different management options ranging in cost from about $11,662 to $700,000. In Table 1, the bolded values represent the options that cost less than the lost revenue value of $165,000. Five options meet the threshold. Prescribed fire is the cheapest at $11,662. It is followed by the combination of aerial treatment and prescribed fire, then IPT, then aerial treatment and IPT, and finally aerial treatment, with an approximate cost of $130,000. Some producers have suggested the prescribed fire cost is double what is assumed here. Even at double the cost, prescribed fire remains the most economical option.
Four Economic Considerations First and foremost, you must have the cash on hand to implement the management practices discussed in this article. Just because you stand to lose revenue does not necessarily mean you have the cash on hand to implement the practices. So, you should consider setting cash aside for range management practices. You should also consider the fact that the costs to implement any of these practices may increase with deferment. As always, the pencil and paper must come together to determine the implementation costs for any of these practices on your operation. Also, check with your local Natural Resources Conservation Service office to determine whether any funding assistance is available. Last, consider whether you can afford to defer implementing management practices or suffer the loss in your future income stream. Rob Cook, pasture and range consultant; Will Moseley, wildlife and fisheries consultant; Steven Smith, wildlife and fisheries consultant; and Brian Hays contributed information to this article.
Page 12
Livestock Market Digest
Bison, Wolves, Vacant Allotments and a Straw Man Bison Blues Recall the Obama administration was supporting a proposal to transfer management of the National Bison Range to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Secretary Zinke put the kibosh to that, as it looked too much like a land transfer. “As Secretary, my job is to look 100 years forward at all of Interior’s resources. I recognize the Bison Range as a critical part of our past, present and future, which is why I have changed course.” It turns out this was not a land divestiture at all. Management was to be delegated to the tribes, but the land was to be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, remaining in federal ownership. As Zinke gazes off into the future, how has the National Bison Range faired under his “changed course”? Not well, according to recent reports. The visitors center is no longer open every day, the bookstore has been closed, a volunteers program has been shut down as has a visitors service program for schools. “Closing a visitor center on days when hundreds of people are visiting is unprecedented. Denying them access to even basic visitor amenities, like the public bathrooms, is inexplicable,” says one group in a letter to Zinke. Instead of peering off into the future, perhaps the Secretary should open his eyes to the possibility that state and tribal management for some of these lands is a preferred alternative.
Wolf Review On June 13 the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service announced they were undertaking a review of the status of gray wolves. “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has begun reviewing the status of the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Working closely with our federal, state, tribal and local partners, we will assess the currently listed gray wolf entities in the lower 48 states using the best available scientific information. If appropriate, the Service will publish a proposal to revise the wolf’s status in the Federal Register by the end of the calendar year.” Good news, but does it include the Mexican gray wolf? I’m afraid not. In response to an inquiry from me, their spokesman wrote, “It will not. We consider that a separate subspecies.” So it’s Gringo Wolves Sí, Mexican Wolves No. Congratulations to the rest of America, condolences to the Southwest.
Farm Bill There are an unusual amount of provisions in the House farm bill that deal with federal lands. One of the most interesting was an amendment offered by Rep. Liz Cheney concerning vacant allotments. Her amendment requires the Secretary concerned to make available vacant allotments “to the maximum extent practicable” whenever an allotment owner is prevented from grazing his allotment due to a natural disaster, such as drought or fire, a court-issued injunction, or a conflict with wildlife. Making those allotments available would be categorically excluded from NEPA and would
be protected from any court order. Rep. Cheney stated on the House floor that, “livestock producers in Wyoming and across the West have been battling for years against a Federal government that has attempted systematically to reduce grazing allotments on public lands.” “My amendment,” explained Rep. Cheney, “would simply make available vacant grazing allotments for our producers should their existing allotment become unavailable due to unforeseen circumstances such as wildfire, drought, other natural disasters, or litigation.”
It will be interesting to see what the Senate does with this language. There are other provisions in the farm bill dealing with categorical exclusions. In fact, there are a dozen or more instances where Congress is proposing to exempt certain forest management activities from requirements under NEPA to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. It is pleasant to see these proposals, but I have to wonder why they only go half way. Instead of going through the legislative process of targeting specific agency actions that are exempt from NEPA, why not amend NEPA so that it is a more flexible program that doesn’t hamstring agency action? Exempting specific agency actions is a haphazard process, with some passing and some not passing depending on the year. The fact you have to exempt so many agency actions is proof enough NEPA needs a thorough overhaul. The same goes for vacant allotments. Why are we only making them available for livestock graz-
July 15, 2018 ing during an emergency? There should be an inventory of vacant allotments so that we know the number and acreage they represent. The agencies should be directed to make these allotments available again unless they have a powerful reason to not make a certain allotment available.
The straw man Five-time Super Bowl champion Tom Brady has recently joined the bogus environmental cause to ban plastic straws. Brady recently made a video for the Be Straw Free campaign, in which he brandishes two plastic straws, declaring, “the effect of these little guys is posing a huge health risk to our planet.” I have never cared for straws myself; they just slow me down. Will banning plastic straws in the U.S. solve the plastic pollution problem? No, it will not. Based on coastal cleanups in Canada, the U.S. and the U.K., only 2 percent to 4 percent of beach litter consists of plastic straws. On a worldwide basis, banning plastic straws in the U.S. and other developed countries would accomplish
even less. The majority of plastic waste entering the ocean comes from East Asia. China heads the list, accounting for 28 percent of plastic pollution, followed by Indonesia that contributes 10 percent. By comparison, the U.S. is responsible for less than 1 percent of global plastic marine waste. It would appear that Tom Brady has been suckered. He should concentrate on scoring in football, rather than whoring for the enviros.
Curtis Fort Curtis Fort has been honored by Governor Susana Martinez and the New Mexico Arts Commission, as a recipient of the 2018 Governor’s Award for Excellence in the Arts. Congratulations Curtis, an honor well deserved. Until next time, be a nuisance to the devil and don’t forget to check that cinch. Frank DuBois was the NM Secretary of Agriculture from 1988 to 2003, is the author of a blog: The Westerner (www.thewesterner.blogspot. com) and is the founder of The DuBois Rodeo Scholarship and The DuBois Western Heritage Foundation