LMD May 2023

TraceabilityAnimalIssue

The OFF Switch

Aword to the wise: Never bet real money on anything I ever say or do. I don’t want to be responsible for anyone’s bankruptcy.

Perhaps I should have prefaced everything I’ve written in the last 50 years with a caution sign or a word of warning. If you think I can predict the future please be advised that I’ve never won a dime on any lottery or raffle in my life. Nor have I, to the best of my memory, EVER bet on a winning race horse. I wasn’t smart enough to buy a few shares of Apple or COSTCO or to major in computer science in college. I mean, for gosh sakes, I was an animal husbandry student! In the age of processors, hard drives and motherboards I studied cows, not computers.

As for anything I say regarding economics just know that I’ve predicted 12 of the last two recessions.

Probably the prediction that has come back to haunt me the most was when I wrote about the merger of the old cashstarved NCA with the Cattlemen’s Beef Board to form the NCBA and virtually “hijacked” the beef checkoff. I wrote IN BIG PRINT and gave speeches with real long words and said that the-powers-that wanted-tobe were putting the beef checkoff at risk and could in fact, lose it entirely if they forged ahead in the direction they were headed. That was 27 years ago and as far as I know the NCBA got away

with the heist.

I’m glad I didn’t put a time limit on that prediction because I’m still naive enough to think the demise of the checkoff could still happen. It’s just taking a little longer than I thought, that’s all.

NCBA’s Cash Cow

It’s not as if the checkoff wasn’t put in jeopardy. In the years that followed the merger the legality of the gutsy stickup was taken all the way to the Supreme Court where the Supremes’ voted in a six-to-three decision that the checkoff didn’t

by LEE PITTS

Misgendered

belong to the cowboys after all but was just another government program and therefore free speech rules didn’t apply.

(Figure that one out!) Although the NCBA held on tight to their beloved cash cow it proved to be the first of many such efforts. The Livestock Marketing Association gathered up what they thought was the necessary number of names for a referendum but nothing ever happened. Even now there are several cases winding their way through the lower courts that would put the checkoff cash cow back in the field it was meant to stay in. In the years that followed the big packer-backers at the NCBA exerted their new-found power to concentrate and consolidate the beef industry until it’s become one big slush fund for aiding BIG Ag monopolies. One of the reasons the packers have enjoyed increasing margins and a bigger percentage of the beef dollar ever since the NCBA was formed is because your checkoff dollars have been paying for their research and

promotion to the detriment of the small producers. This was not just the case with the beef checkoff but nearly all of the 21 commodities that have a similar checkoff.

Sometimes it seems that the beef boys are trying to emulate their heroes over at the dairy checkoff. For instance... through contracts with Dairy Management Inc., the dairy checkoff used funds to develop extra cheese pizza at Domino’s and new dairy drinks at McDonald’s. One of my favorite illustrations relates to the dairy checkoff’s corporate sponsorships that helped support the research and marketing for a new ultra-filtered milk product at the company Fairlife that was supposed to compete with protein drinks. After the rollout of the “revolutionary” product, supported by farmers’ dollars, the dairy giant Select Milk Producers helped sell Fairlife to Coca-Cola in 2014.

“I paid for the development of that product and then Select Milk just pocketed my money and took the profit from that,”

continued on page 2

Meating of the Minds.

BY CAREN COWAN

Asmall hotel ballroom in El Paso, Texas, with tens of thousands of migrants marshaling at the Mexican border not five miles away awaiting to illegally enter the U.S., may be unlikely place for cattlemen and ranchers to gather to address the most pressing issues of the livestock community --- animal disease traceability and border security.

In fact, some might wonder what this group of less than 30 people think they might do to affect change especially since at the outset some were for, some were against. They came from hundreds of miles away because it is well past time for somebody to do something.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) was closing in on yet another comment period and animal disease traceability. They have been stumbling with this issue for over a decade.

The comment period at the time was for sexually intact cattle and bison over the age of 18 months. This description targets the dairy industry that is already deeply involved in animal identification for management purposes.

What was most disturbing was what was contained in the comment notice was the nearly four pages of “background” (aka self-justification) for the traceability as a whole. USDA freely admits their reliance on cattle and bison organizations providing “significant and ongoing input on the animal disease traceability program.”

There are some 700,000 cattle operations in the US. There are three national cattle organizations that represent much fewer than

50,000 of those cattlemen and women. How can the federal government implement a program with the reach and the cost of traceability with input from less than seven (7) percent of those impacted?

An additional concern is the fact that neither USDA nor the largest of those organizations make much of a connection between the open Mexican border and the free flow of humans, livestock and wildlife and the threat of catastrophic livestock disease outbreak.

An unfortunate Fox News interview with a newly elected volunteer leader of the largest of the three organizations tripped a switch with ranchers who live and work under the constant threat of the border invasion. The concern about the potential ramifications of that interview led to a meeting of the minds of cattlemen from Arizona, New Mexico and Texas in mid-April on traceability.

While that volunteer leader initially agreed to come to the meeting and it was scheduled to facilitate his schedule, his professional staff declined his participation. So much for the Code of the West.

A third party verifier from Arizona warned the group at the outset that beef is the only protein that doesn’t have animal disease traceability.

“There is still time for you to guide a program,” he warned, “but there isn’t a lot of time left. There are BioSecurity concerns and there are people who want to disrupt the agriculture economy by introducing diseases to shut down food production.”

John Ladd, an Arizona border rancher, reported to the group that about 15 illegals per

continued on page 4

What’s with all these people wanting to be a member of the opposite sex? This old fogy’s world has been turned upside-down and I’m having a terrible time properly using the more than 55 gender-neutral pronouns so I don’t offend anyone. I’m telling you, it’s a minefield out there and politically correct people are just waiting to pounce if you say or write something wrong so they can “cancel” you. Whatever that means.

Being curious, I wondered if other species went through sex changes and you’ll be amazed at what I discovered. There’s a fish species called the California Sheepshead that is capable of changing its sex in midlife, but it’s from California so you’d expect that. But more widely dispersed ocean dwellers like oysters and the Clown Fish can also change their gender.

You’d think that male seahorses would want to change their sex because it’s the male seahorses that get impregnated, not the females, and the males give birth to as many as 1,500 babies at a time! Whoa nelly! Talk about morning sickness! Who in their right mind would want to raise 1,500 kids? That’s why I have a hard time understanding why men want to be women. Don’t they know that women have to work twice as hard for the same pay, have to raise the kids and manage the household, while all the males do is work their eight hours, come home, sit in their Lazy Boy® and pop the top on a beer can?

Just as Venezuelan opossums can choose the sex of their baby ahead of time, there’s an old wives’ tale that says humans can select the sex of their baby by changing the orientation of their bed. Also, according to statistics, a human can influence the sex of their baby by what occupation they choose. For example, if you want to improve the chances of having a male baby you might want to become President of the United States because they have 60% sons and if you want a daughter you should become a male abalone diver, fighter pilot or anesthetist as they have more girls than boys. Or you could become an Indian like Elizabeth Warren did. A first or sec-

continued on page 4

LEE PITTS

Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.

Livestock Market Digest (1SSN 0024-5208) (USPS NO. 712320) is published monthly except semi-monthly in September in Albuquerque, N.M. 87104 by Livestock Market Digest, Inc.

Periodicals Postage Paid at Albuquerque, N.M.

POSTMASTER-Send change of address to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

Subscribe Today NAME

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

THE OFF SWITCH from page 1

said Sarah Lloyd, an independent dairy farmer in Wisconsin who sat on the state checkoff board when they voted to approve the product development at Fairlife.

The beef checkoff had a similar arrangement with Wendy’s and that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Since the pork producers initiated their checkoff they have lost 90 percent of their producers while the beef industry has lost half of their ranchers ever since the NCBA began calling the shots. During the same period the four largest meatpacking corporations were allowed to capture 80% of the beef market with two of those corporations being mostly foreign owned and one of them has been convicted of bribery. Now the NCBA is playing an ever expanding role in setting the conditions for the monopolization of agriculture. That track record is becoming a harder and harder sell for the USDA who own the checkoffs lock stock and barrel.

If you produce commodity beef I’ll make yet another prediction: In the future you’ll get ground up and spit out by the packers and their backers at the NCBA faster than a Beyond Beef® Burger at a cattlemen’s convention.

Putting The “OFF” in Checkoff

Although it has taken much, much longer than I thought, a sizable portion of producers, politicians and a coalition of 131 groups representing ranchers, farmers, and anti-monopoly advocates have now finally come to the conclusion that the entire checkoff system needs a complete overhaul. Well it’s about time!

On the last day of February of this year a bill was introduced

Too Big To Fix?

COMMENTARY BY BILL BULLARD, CEO, R-CALF USA

Earlier this year, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack responded to a congressional inquiry regarding why the federal government was still awarding meat procurement contracts to the world’s largest meatpacker, JBS, whose Brazilian parent company pleaded guilty to bribery.

The Secretary responded by stating the removal of such a firm from government-wide procurement contracts would adversely affect competitive choices for taxpayers and would potentially disrupt school lunches and food for our military.

You don’t have to be a code breaker to know this was code for “Too Big to Fix.”

Last year, when legislation was introduced to restore competition to the nation’s ailing cattle market by requiring the Big Four beef packers to purchase at least half their weekly cattle needs in the competitive cash market, the meatpacking lobby warned the sky would fall as the largest corporate feedlots couldn’t possibly stay in business if they had to begin competing for cattle sold by America’s farmers and ranchers.

That legislation, known as the spot market protection bill or 50/14 bill, quickly disappeared … It had effectively succumbed to the “Too Big to Fix” phenomenon.

This year, several congressional champions for rural America introduced the American Beef Labeling Act (S.52) that would inform consumers as to the country of origin of the beef they purchase in their grocery stores. But the meatpacking lobby cried foul, stating that the Geneva-based World Trade Organization had already summoned its global superpowers and declared it impossible for the United States government to put a simple, commonsense origin label on beef.

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

Telephone: 505-243-9515

Fax: 505-349-3060 www.aaalivestock.com

EDITORIAL and ADVERTISING STAFF

CAREN COWAN Publisher

LEE PITTS Executive Editor

CHUCK STOCKS Publisher Emeritus

RANDY SUMMERS Sales

FALL MARKETING EDITION AD SALES

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

FIELD EDITOR

DELVIN HELDERMON, 580/622-5754

1094 Koller Rd, Sulpher, OK

ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF

JESSICA DECKER Special Assistance

KRISTY HINDS Graphic Designer

“Too Big to Fix” was the meatpacking lobby’s mantra, and last year the consumer-friendly legislation died in the Senate and House agriculture committees.

And then when academic studies revealed that the Big Four’s favorite means of acquiring cattle from hard working American ranchers was a forward contract without a base price that not only defied competition but also afforded the largest packers tremendous leverage over the price they’d pay to cattlemen, the meatpacking lobby came to their rescue declaring that limiting such anticompetitive forward contracts would cause the sky to fall once again.

So, yet another rope labeled “Too Big to Fix” was thrown over rural America.

So, what’s going on here? Well, it’s actually quite simple: The dominant corporate players who benefit under the status quo do not want any meaningful reforms. They want the structure of the multi-segmented beef supply chain to remain unchanged.

The “Too Big to Fix” argument serves them well even though America recently faced meat shortages in grocery stores. Rural America has a huge problem in that just a handful of huge corporations and their lobbying arms are successfully holding Congress at bay by proclaiming there is no way to restore integrity to federal meat procurement, no way to restore the competition purged from the U.S. cattle market, no way to provide consumers their right to know where their beef was born and raised, no way to end anticompetitive contracts, and no way to make the recipients of mandatory checkoff fees more accountable to those who must pay them.

It’s been said that the corporatization of rural America’s once disaggregated and highly resilient food production system, has effectively robbed rural America of America’s conscience. Where once the economic well-being of farmers and ranchers and their communities on one end of the food supply chain and consumers on the other were king, now it’s shareholder profits, efficiency, and largeness of scale that Congress chooses to protect.” ▫

in the Senate called the “Opportunities for Fairness in Farming Act of 2023” that would fix many of the problems of all checkoffs, not just beef’s. The OFF Act, as it’s called, is a bipartisan effort that has brought together politicians from both sides of the aisles including Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

According to Mike Lee the bill would make checkoff programs more accountable to contributors and turn OFF the free flow of money.

Says Senator Lee, “Checkoff funds are frequently coopted against the interests of some or even a majority of contributors. Countless farmers, ranchers, and other producers have seen their checkoff dollars squandered or used against their interests. This bill would prohibit certain wasteful, anti-competitive, and deceptive behavior from checkoff boards.”

Lee continues, “Unfortunately, some checkoff programs have developed a reputation for unscrupulous behavior. This was highlighted by a 2012 report from the USDA’s Office of Inspector General which determined that the boards’ oversight body, the Agricultural Marketing Services, needed to improve oversight controls to detect or prevent the misuse of board checkoff funds.” Another Government Accountability Office report from 2017 raised red flags about the lack of USDA oversight of the checkoff program and recommended a number of transparency reforms.

None of those measures, by the way, have been implemented by a USDA Secretary in Tom Vilsack who, while Trump was President, became the highest paid executive at Dairy Management, Inc. with his pay totaling $999,421 in his first full year on the job. Dairy Management, is a nonprofit that promotes milk and other dairy products using mostly checkoff dollars. So, do you really think Tom is going to rock the boat when he might go back to the dairy boys after his work for Old Joe is done?

That doesn’t even begin to illustrate a laundry list of checkoff issues that have come to the forefront such as waste, conflicts of interest, misuse of funding and promoting anti-competitive behavior.

Looking For the OFF Switch

According to Senator Lee, “Clearly, checkoff programs are not operating as originally envisioned and may be unfairly supporting certain stakeholders over others.” The OFF Act “would make all agriculture checkoff programs voluntary rather than mandatory, at the very least, Congress should institute a series of oversight measures to ensure transparency and accountability for checkoff boards.”

In addition to several other constraints being put on the checkoffs the OFF Act... “Prohibits checkoff boards from entering into contracts to carry out checkoff activities with parties that also work to influence government policy; Prohibits board members and employees of checkoff programs from engaging in any act that may involve a conflict of interest; Prohibits engagement in anticompetitive activity, deceptive practices, or disparaging practices; Requires that contracts entered into by the board be recorded to describe goods and services; Requires checkoff boards to publicize a transparent budget; Requires periodic audits of checkoff boards by the Inspector General of USDA; Requires periodic audits of checkoff boards by the Comptroller General.

The OFF Act would also make it illegal for checkoff dollars from one commodity checkoff to be used to disparage, or in any way negatively portray, another agricultural commodity or product. For example, they could not be used to push generic beef while vilifying private label organic beef.

All Under The Same Roof

For a historical point of view, Luke Goldstein writing for The American Prospect says, “Checkoffs in general may have

outlived their usefulness.” According to Goldstein, checkoffs were created back in the 1980s farm crisis. “The theory was that the slump in agriculture at the time required a coordinated effort by farmers to boost overall consumer demand for meat and dairy products, which would benefit all players in the industry. At first, farmers voluntarily made payments into the fund, and were afforded some accountability on the use of these funds. If farmers didn’t approve of the allocation of funds, they could stop paying. But shortly after its inception, agricultural interests cajoled Congress into making the fees mandatory across sectors, a measure that legislators are now trying to roll back.

“The checkoff program,” continues Goldstein, “increasingly turned into a racket as the agriculture industry consolidated. The four largest meatpackers rolled up the market, forcing farmers into exploitative contracts, and horizontally expanding their own direct control of feedlots and hatcheries.”

According to Goldstein, “The OFF Act would bring more transparency to how checkoff funds are distributed. The OFF Act’s other main objective is to limit the self-dealing of checkoff board members and lobbyists. The recipients of checkoff dollars are technically not allowed to use the funds for direct lobbying. But those restrictions have eroded over time and also don’t hold up under close scrutiny.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is a prime example of how trade groups corrupt the program,” writes Goldstein. “NCBA takes in the lion’s share of the beef checkoff program, worth around $45 million, and taps the fund for most of its operating budget. It’s self-evident that by taking funding from the checkoff program, NCBA can cross-subsidize its administrative, advocacy, and lobbying arms, which all exist under the same roof.”

Out Of Control

The first two attempts at getting ranchers to vote for a

nationwide checkoff failed miserably. But promises were made and language altered to satisfy enough ranchers that they finally voted for the Beef Checkoff which eventually gave birth to the NCBA. “Without the checkoff dollars,” insists R CALF CEO Bill Bullard, “you wouldn’t have the NCBA in its current form, so it’s ridiculous to take at face value that this lobbying firewall really works.

“The OFF Act would restore integrity and transparency to an out-of-control government program,” says Bullard. “Because of a lack of transparency, information isn’t made available to farmers who pay for the program about the full extent of the contractor’s business operations. The NCBA routinely holds conferences and fly-ins attended by its own lobbyists and lawmakers, even though they don’t qualify as on-the-books lobbying. Under the OFF Act, NCBA could be cut off from receiving checkoff dollars entirely and at the very least would be forced to open its books to routine inspections. That would amount to a major overhaul of the program and victory for small farmers, if advocates can fight to include it in this year’s Farm Bill.”

Ranchers got their hackles up when the Beef Board and the NCBA continued to promote generic beef marketing with their ad campaign that homogenizes beef. But if we had to point to the one issue that ranchers took issue with the most it is the NCBA’s stance on country of origin labeling. Says Bullard, “The fight over country-of-origin labeling (COOL) became a flashpoint for the conflicts of interest at the heart of the checkoff program. While raking in funds from small farmers, NCBA lobbied to repeal COOL in 2015, one of the few protections at the time for independent ranchers. Large meatpackers prefer to go to foreign sourcing for cattle to cut costs despite the worse quality of meat and the environmental effects of transportation. Smallscale ranchers who raise cattle humanely and with better sus-

tainable practices want labels to distinguish their products.

“NCBA has also submitted public comments opposing the USDA’s proposed revamp of the Packers and Stockyards Act, a major piece of antitrust legislation that allows the department to break up the large meatpackers. NCBA is also lobbying against market reform legislation that would require meat processors to source over 50 percent of their cattle from independent producers,” wrote Bullard.

“The decades-old beef checkoff program promotes corporate control and globalization over the interests of American cattle producers,” says Bullard. “The OFF Act will meaningfully reform all checkoff programs, including the beef checkoff program, to provide the necessary enforcements to prevent producers’ checkoff dollars from being used against them.”.

HERD continued from page 1 ond-born Havasupai Indian child is 1.3 times as likely to be a boy as a girl. But a child born fifth or later is 1.3 times as likely to be a girl. Scientists say the sex of Havasupai children is NOT random. And consider that after World War II in France and Britain there was a bizarre huge increase in the proportion of boys to girls that were fathered by soldiers.

Bald eagles and some species of hawks know the sex of their eggs ahead of time without the aid of a sonogram because they lay the eggs of their female offspring first so they can be bigger than the males. And crocodiles also have this female intuition because the sex of their babies is determined by how deep their eggs are buried.

So you see, this whole sex thing is WAY more complicated than previously thought.

If I was a male Praying Mantis you can bet your daddy long legs I’d want to change my sex because the male can’t copulate while its head is still attached to its body and the female initiates sex by ripping the male’s head off. Likewise, if I was a female black widow spider there’d be no way I’d want to change my sex because the female eats the male after coupling, which doesn’t sound like anyone’s idea of fun. But I was shocked to discover that for most living things sex is supposedly NOT a pleasurable act, in fact, humans and dolphins are the only species that have sex for pleasure! (Tell that to bulls, dogs and rams.)

Humans are also unique in that the adult males and females live together while most other species live with members of their own sex and only come around the females for one reason and one reason only: a good home cooked meal.

At age 71 I’m thinking of having a sex change operation myself because male baby boomers have a life expectancy of 72 years while females live, on average, to be 76.

At my age and poor physical condition, I’d do anything to live four more years.

Perspective on Traceability from the Livestock Auction

PROVIDED BY THE LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSOCIATION

“ Sold!” cries the auctioneer. Without pause, the next group of livestock enter the ring, and he is off again, pushing up the price ladder until selling to the highest bidder.

Each year, livestock auction markets in the United States sell more than 32 million cattle, 7 million hogs, and 3 million sheep and goats at a fast pace.

The livestock auction method of selling can vary between regions, with consignors bringing in potloads of cattle in the West while some auctions in the Southeast sell animals one head at a time. Regardless of the exact business practices, auctions are a pinch point in the flow of

livestock, bringing in animals from a large number of consignors and selling to a variety of buyers.

Perhaps it is the nature of this fast-paced, volume-heavy business that makes conversations about traceability in the context of real-world commerce particularly difficult for livestock auctions. Or perhaps it is an issue with the costs of identification being borne by the auction and their sellers but not shared with other segments down the chain, like feedyards and packers.

Imagine for a moment if livestock auctions were required to tag every animal that passed through their market. The cost of tags is just one piece of the equation. Other costs include labor, shrink, risk of injury for

hour are crossing his ranch.

“These people are indentured to the cartels,” he explained. “It costs $6000 a person to cross with the help of cartels. They will never be able to pay that off.”

Ladd and his neighbors have been extremely vocal about the threats to those living and working on the Mexican border, with Fox News interviewing them many times in the past few years. These are family ranches that have been handed down for generations that are being trampled by constant foot traffic. The drug running hasn’t been as bad recently as the humans.

Ladd believes that the U.S. needs country of origin labelling (COOL).

Stirling Spencer, New Mexico, described himself as “just a cow-calf producer” who is driven, like most, by the need to provide for ranching families.

“I don’t want any government telling me how to operate my ranch,” he said. “Every time the government touches something, they ruin it. Laws do not result in regulations that are helpful.”

“Any traceability program must be driven by the producer,” he concluded.

Joe Leathers, Texas, expressed grave concern about maintaining the security of the beef supply.

“I have seen a map of the countries most affected by foot and mouth disease and plane flights from those countries to the U.S,” he stated. “It won’t take much for us to be in trouble.”

Leathers is part of the US CattleTrace group offering a voluntary, non-governmental animal identification system.

“We must prepare our indus-

both livestock and employees, facility adjustments, and slowing the speed of the sale.

Like all businesses, livestock auctions are challenged to find quality labor. The vast majority of the animals consigned for sale at most markets do not currently go through a chute while at the facility.

Logistically, if an auction had to tag every animal they sold, it would greatly increase their labor needs. Many of these animals would have to come in the day before the sale.

Auctions cannot simply pass on the charge of tags and labor, as it becomes a competitive issue between livestock auctions in the same trade area and can incentivize sellers to bypass markets and animal health surveillance entirely.

Ideally, animals would arrive at the auction already tagged. However, this is far from realistic in some areas where producers tend not to have the infrastructure or practices in place to tag at home. The volume from these smaller operations adds up. According to USDA, the average beef cow herd is 43.5 head.

Operations with 100 or less beef cows compose 90 percent of all beef operations and 44 percent of the beef cow inventory. Many of these smaller producers rely on their local livestock market to bring their animals into compliance with current movement regulations.

To further complicate matters, there is a push for more electronic identification, but disagreement in the industry over whether low frequency (LF) or ultra-high frequency

try if we have an outbreak,” he said.

Jim White, Texas, reported that there are cattle crossing the Rio Grande River in both directions every day.

Melinda Birkeland, IMI Global, a third party source verification company, reported that 400 feedyards and backgrounders now have the capacity to read eartags. She also noted that 62 auction markets have implemented readers. However, these may not now be in use.

Arizona rancher Ed Ashurst, who convened the gathering stated “First and foremost it is ludicrous that the federal government is attempting to apply traceability to livestock when there presently is no border between Mexico and the United States.

“Hundreds of thousands of humans have crossed the border in the last two years from some 163 counties around the world. It is unknown how many livestock and wildlife have traveled the same path.”

Ashurst also noted that the market hasn’t demanded traceability. He believes that free market capitalism will drive any program.

Leathers pointed out that there isn’t time to focus solely on border control.

Because of the border situation, there is real and well-founded fear that we are facing a risk of a monumental disease outbreak. We cannot ignore the traceability conversation.

The largest concern of these ranchers is not the traceability, but of who holds the database. There was no dissension on the fact that a program is necessary and that the program must be voluntary.

“Everyone agrees we ought to

(UHF) tags are best.

Overwhelming consensus exists within the Livestock Marketing Association (LMA) to advocate for a single technology to be selected for official identification. Auctions are concerned about the expense and logistical issues multiple tag readers would pose. Additionally, multiple companies should produce the tags to allow for price competition.

With its greater read distance, UHF makes possible the reading of large groups of animals as they would normally move through a market or as they are shipped. LF is the predominant technology being used today and is limited to a read distance of about a foot which dictates that animals must be run through a narrow alley or hand read in a chute.

In a survey of LMA member livestock auctions, 47 percent of participants favor UHF and just 8 percent of participants prefer LF tags. However, 45 percent of participants responded they need more information before selecting a technology, including data on read rates and tag longevity. Anything less than 100 percent read rate is not acceptable in an auction environment, particularly if the electronic identification was ever to be integrated with a market’s sale system. Paying producers for 98 percent of the cattle auctions sold on their behalf would not be acceptable.

All of these challenges are forward looking. It is also important to take stock of where we currently stand. The current federal Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) program will have

do it, but we don’t know how to do it,” said New Mexico rancher Carl Johnson.

“We need a master plan for a grassroots program,” he continued. “We need to show expenses. And, a program that doesn’t make liars and cheaters.”

Other concerns included the liability attached to animal identification and the fear of market manipulation if the database is held in government hands.

Then comes the major question, which pays for all of this?

One suggestion was to see if the Beef Check could be redirected to include traceability. However, that is a sacred cow for many.

Another suggestion is to get the federal government to pay for the tags by eliminating their mandatory program.

It is clearly understood that in the event of a disease outbreak, there needs to be access to specific information. In today’s world of technology that access can be accomplished with a few clicks on a computer. There was a difference of opinion on whether the border needs to be addressed before traceability can be tackled. In the end, the two are tied and neither can be ignored.

It might be surprising to know the number of operations who are already using electronic identification for their own management purposes.

What’s next? The group wants to identify a plan that will work without government domination at any level. There is a need to meet with the appropriate APHIS official to get on record and lay out a plan that will work in the country.

Another meeting is being planned for late June or early July. If you’d like to be notified of future actions, please email traceability. border@gmail.com.     ▫

been in effect for 10 years in March 2023. However, issues with this rule, which covers movement between states of sexually intact beef cattle 18 months of age and older, as well as dairy cattle of any age, are still being worked on. For example, USDA and states continue to improve on and test their system of databases for storing information and appropriate connections between these databases.

Tag retirements are not always happening, either at slaughter or when animals die on farms or ranches. Finally, there are not good compliance check mechanisms for ADT with country sales. Many livestock auction owners worry that nearly exclusive enforcement at auctions will drive customers to sell livestock in other ways and, at the same time, reduce the number of traceable animals.

So, what would need to change for this analysis to shift?

First, a proven, effective, and industry-accepted traceability system for currently covered animals.

Second, costs and benefits of animal identification would need to be spread throughout the chain, rather than the benefits occurring at the end of the animal’s life and costs being borne by livestock auctions and cow-calf producers.

Additionally, the logistical issues hindering speed of commerce at a livestock auction would need to be addressed before many livestock auction market owners could be sold on the idea of expanding mandatory livestock identification. ▫

NCBA Files Comments on USDA Traceability Rule

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) filed comments on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) proposed rule “Use of Electronic Identification Eartags as Official Identification in Cattle and Bison” to emphasize the importance of electronic animal identification to protect the cattle industry from the threat of a foreign animal disease. USDA’s proposed rule would apply to cattle 18-months or older only when moving interstate.

“An outbreak of a foreign animal disease in the United States, like foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), would be catastrophic to the cattle industry and our way of life,” said NCBA President Todd Wilkinson, a South Dakota cattle producer. “Traceability is about risk protection and ensuring we have the tools to quickly identify and respond to an outbreak while strengthening consumer trust in our high-quality beef. Our comments emphasize the importance of protecting the U.S. cattle herd from the threat of a foreign animal disease while also protecting producers’ private data, limiting the cost of tagging devices, and operating at the speed of commerce.”

Without a national traceability system in place, the impact of a foreign animal disease outbreak would be magnified. For example, an FMD outbreak in the United States would lead to an immediate stop of all livestock movement for at least 72 hours. Most major export markets would close to U.S. beef and the estimated economic impact could be as high as $228 billion.

A traceability system supports cattle producers quickly returning to normal operations after a disease outbreak. Traceability data would allow producers in low-risk areas to resume transporting cattle, while helping animal health officials stop the spread of disease in high-risk areas. A traceability program also helps expedite the return to an FMD-free designation, which is beneficial for trading relationships and consumer trust in beef.

View the full comments here: https://www.ncba.org/Media/ NCBAorg/Docs/final__ncba_comments_aphis_2021_0020_electronic_identification_as_official_ id_041823.pdf

Background

As a grassroots organization, NCBA’s perspective on traceability has been developed by cattle producers who serve on the NCBA Traceability Working Group and by grassroots members who voted on traceability policy at the 2023 Cattle Industry Convention. NCBA believes that any traceability system:

■ Is industry driven.

■ To serve the needs and interests of beef cattle producers.

■ In coordination with current and future federal, state, and tribal government animal disease traceability programs.

■ Is capable of being managed and overseen by private entities that address animal disease traceability needs of the beef cattle

industry in coordination with government, state, and tribal disease tracing mechanisms.

■ Maintains producer data privacy.

■ Is equitable to all industry sectors.

■ Is compatible with common industry practices.

■ Operates at the speed of commerce.

■ Is credible in domestic and international markets.

■ Uses electronic identification devices and electronic data transfer.

Over-The-Counter Livestock Antibiotics Will Require Prescription After June 11

AgriLife Extension experts answer frequently asked questions to prepare livestock owners

Don’t wait. Get to know your local veterinarian now and establish a veterinarian-client-patient relationship if you expect to treat livestock in the future, as over-the-counter livestock antibiotics will soon require a prescription.

Livestock owners who typically treat their own animals with over-the-counter antibiotics need to be aware of rule changes that begin June. 11. (Texas A&M AgriLife photo by Courtney Sacco)

That is the advice of a team of Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service experts trying to help livestock owners who are used to going to the local feed store to buy some of their antibiotics and administer treatment themselves.

All of that will change on June 11, when these medically important antimicrobial drugs will require veterinary oversight.

The following experts answer some frequently asked questions to let livestock owners know what to expect:

Tom Hairgrove, DVM, Ph.D., AgriLife Extension cattle veterinary specialist in the Texas A&M Col-

lege of Agriculture and Life Sciences Department of Animal Science, Bryan-College Station.

Joe Paschal, Ph.D., former AgriLife Extension livestock specialist, now representing industry as the executive vice president of the American Brahman Breeders Association, Corpus Christi.

Billy Zanolini, Ph.D., assistant professor and 4-H and youth development specialist, Bryan-College Station.

What is the new rule?

The Food and Drug Administration recommends manufacturers of medically important antimicrobial drugs that continue to be available over the counter and are approved for use in animals, both companion and food-producing, regardless of delivery mechanism, to voluntarily bring these products under veterinary oversight or prescription marketing status.

By June 11, labels of the remaining over-the-counter antibiotics for livestock use will be required to read: “Caution: Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian,” and the purchaser must have a prescription or drug

Wolf Depredation

Colorado received thousands of public comments about its wolf management plan. Only one came from another state government: Utah.

BY AARON ADELSON & ANNE HERBST / 9NEWS

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission met in early April to put final touches on its wolf management plan.

The state has to reintroduce wolves by the end of this year, because that’s what voters decided in 2020.

Before the plan is finalized, CPW has to review thousands of public comments.

In total, CPW received more than 4,000 comments. 9NEWS read through about 600 pages of letters from organizations

like government agencies, nonprofits, and tribes.

About half of the 4,000 comments came from people who live out of state, but only one came from another state government: Utah.

Utah’s concerns

“Gray wolf restoration will therefore likely impose considerable management burdens on Utah,” says a letter signed by Utah Department of Natural Resources Executive Director Joel Ferry.

The letter expresses concerns about a wolf moving into Utah.

“It is possible a wolf originating from Colorado’s introduction could attack livestock in Utah. Where direct financial

continued on page 8

order to buy it. How does this differ from the Veterinary Feed Directive and why are the two confused?

Over-the-counter antibiotics used in animal feed were moved to Veterinary Feed Directive, VFD, in 2017, allowing closer veterinarian oversight of antimicrobial use in animal feeds. All over-the-counter antibiotics placed in the drinking water were moved to prescription status at the same time. This new rule concerns the few antibiotics that remained available over the counter in the form of injectables, intramammary tubes and boluses.

What does medically important mean?

Medically important drugs are essential to human medicine and also used to treat animals. What antibiotics does this affect?

Prescription-only items will include injectable tylosin, injectable and intramammary penicillin, injectable and oral oxytetracycline, sulfadimethoxine and sulfamethazine, gentamicin, cephapirin and cephapirin benzathine intramammary tubes. How and where can these items be purchased after the rule goes into effect?

Individuals with veterinary-client-patient relationships, VCPR, may purchase antibiotics directly from their veterinarian or from a distribu-

's

Collecting is a hobby enjoyed by people for centuries. From jewelry and coins to art and antiques, there is a wide variety of items to collect in all price ranges. Some people consider collecting an obsession, almost like a disease, but there are actually a number of benefits which come when engaged in a hobby such as collecting. Let’s explore some of them and find out why it may be worth your while.

One of the more significant benefits of collecting is that it can reduce the stress and anxiety many people feel in their everyday lives. Putting together a collection can be a great way to take your mind off the daily grind. When you’re focused on adding new items to your collection, or organizing your existing collection, you are less likely to dwell on the negative thoughts which can plague some of us. This can lead to a greater sense of calm and relaxation, which according to many doctors, can have a positive impact on your overall health. (Just don’t let your collecting become an obsession that you stress over.)

Having a collection to work on can also give you a sense of purpose and direction. It can be a way to channel your energy and creativity into a positive project. Whether you’re collecting Americana or vintage jewelry or whatever, there is always more to learn and things to dis-

tor with the vet’s prescription. What constitutes a VCPR? Three requirements must be met:

1. The veterinarian has assumed the responsibility for making clinical judgments regarding the health of the animal and the need for medical treatment, and the client has agreed to follow the veterinarian’s instructions.

2. The veterinarian has sufficient knowledge of the animal to initiate at least a general or preliminary diagnosis of the animal’s medical condition. This means that the veterinarian has recently seen and is personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the animal by examining the animal or by medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal is kept.

3. The veterinarian is readily available or has arranged emergency coverage and follow-up evaluation in the event of adverse reactions or the failure of the treatment regimen.

What’s your advice to livestock owners without a VCPR?

Producers who already have a VCPR in place and purchase their animal health products through their veterinary office or through other distributors under an existing prescription system will likely notice little

cover. This can provide you with a sense of purpose, which psychiatrists say can be especially beneficial when you are feeling lost or uncertain about life.

Along the same lines, collecting can be a deeply personal and creative way to express oneself. It is a way to showcase your passions, values, and personality through the objects you choose to collect. For instance, someone who collects antique saddles may have a deep appreciation for the history of the Old West, or maybe a love for horses, and thus feels a special connection to the collection. Each collector has their own reason for collecting a particular item and the objects they collect can tell a story about who they are.

Many collectors enjoy connecting with others who share their interests. Joining a collector’s club or attending related events can be a great way to meet like-minded people and form lasting friendships. This can be especially beneficial for those who are feeling isolated or out of place in their everyday lives. By connecting with others who share your interests, you feel a sense of belonging and community that can have a positive impact on your overall well-being.

Building a collection may also give you a sense of accomplishment and pride, especially when you acquire special new items, or complete a set of something in particular. This can help to boost self-esteem and confidence. When you see your collection growing, you may feel a sense of accomplishment that spills over into other areas of your life. This can help you feel more confident and capable, which has a positive impact on your relationships and work life.

change. However, this may have significant impacts on how the livestock owners can access antibiotic therapy for their animals, so contact your local veterinarian as soon as possible. Why shouldn’t I go ahead and stock up on antibiotics now?

Do not stock up on these products to avoid needing a prescription once this change takes effect. Animal health products are expensive, have expiration dates and are sensitive to storage time and conditions. Are there any specific instructions that should be given to livestock show exhibitors?

Livestock exhibitors, like all producers in animal agriculture, are responsible for understanding animal treatment regulations. For junior shows, students complete the “Quality Counts” quality-assurance curriculum that stresses the importance of VCPR.

What health/medical items can livestock owners continue to purchase over the counter?

Most vaccines, dewormers, injectable and oral nutritional supplements, ionophores, pro/ prebiotics and topical nonantibiotic treatments will not require a veterinary prescription. However, there are some exceptions. Always read the label. ▫

Collecting can be a wonderful way to appreciate, not only the objects themselves, but history as well. Whether you are collecting art, antiques, or other items, it’s not just acquiring physical objects, you are also gaining a deeper appreciation for the history and cultural significance of the pieces. When collecting art, for example, you’re not only acquiring a beautiful piece to display in your home or office, but also gaining a deeper understanding of the artist’s inspiration, technique, and cultural context. By learning more about the history and cultural significance of different items, you gain a greater appreciation for what you collect and the ways in which it may have shaped our world.

While collecting should not be solely motivated by financial gain, it’s worth noting that some collections can become quite valuable. Collectors who are knowledgeable and diligent in their efforts may be able to acquire items which appreciate over time. This can provide a financial reward in the end, for you or maybe your heirs, in addition to the other benefits mentioned above. A nice little bonus, if you will.

While Collecting probably will not save your life, it can be a fun and rewarding hobby that offers a range of mental health benefits (which may extend it). However, it’s important to remember that like any hobby, it should be enjoyed in moderation and not become an obsession that interferes with other aspects of your life — otherwise it can just add more stress to an already stressful existence.

AG LAND LOANS

sets of steel pens.

■ PRICE REDUCED! DALLAM CO, TX

– 1,216.63 ac. +/- of CRP/ranchland w/ irrigation, re-development potential, wells & pipelines already in place.

■ KB RANCH - Kenney Co., TX – KB

ESTATE GUIDE

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

■ COLFAX COUNTY NM GETAWAY –

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

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

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

Classified Minerals.

521 West Second St • Porta es NM 88130 575-226-0671 or 575-226-0672 fax

■ CASTRO CO., TX – 592 ac. +/_- w/ remodeled 4 bd./4 ½ bath home, 160 ac. under pivot. Balance is dryland & native grass.

Buena Vista Realty

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

Direct 575.935.9680 Office 575.935.9680 Fax coletta@plateautel.net www.clovisrealestatesales.com

Dimmitt, TX 79027

Scott - Broker

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

OR SMALL!

Guadalupe Co., deeded & 519 ranch on both flow daily) Sumner; wildlife, buyer looking New Mexico

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

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

■ PALO DURO CREEK TREASURE – 941

TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES

521 West Second St., Portales, NM 88130

acres +/- in Randall Co. NW of Canyon, Tx.

STUNNING VIEWS OVER LOOKING PALO

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

DURO CREEK. Turn key cow/calf operation w development potential. Property includes: 3/3/3 ranch style home, 4 wells, large shop plus shed, enclosed livestock working facility w/hydraulic chute, livestock pens & shed, miles of 5 & 6 barbed wire fence & over 7000’ of pipe fence. YOU WILL NOT WANT TO MISS THIS! Canyon School District.

Rural Properties around Portales, NM

1242 NM 480 - Nice home on 59.7 acres, grass

427 S Rrd P 1/2 - Large nice home, lots of barns 24+ ac 1694 S Rrd 4, Great home, barns, cattle pens, location 2344 S Rrd K east of Dora, NM, great - Near wind farms

• 160 acre Ranger Eastland Co, $560,000

■ DEAF SMITH CO., TX. – 651 ac. +/-, 7 miles N of Dawn, Tx., 1 mile E of FM

All properties excellent homes & can have horses, etc.

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

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

listing agent

575-825-1291 www.buenavista-nm.com

980 ac. +/past, land lays side of Hwy. 54. Union Co., NM –grassland w/stateremodeled in very good on pvmt. +/- heavily livestock w/ fences etc., on the front gate. scenic ac. +/- on by Lincoln in Pines & covered meadow

Penasco. This build a legacy ac. irr., on Mexico, adjoins Potential.

POTENTIAL

Texline Special, +/- w/water & a beautiful 3 bathrooms, metal shop.

THE SAND CAMP RANCH

• 840 Immaculate, Hunt Co, TX. Ranch. Pastures, 40 tanks, and lakes. Beautiful home, barns, and other improvements. Some minerals, game galore. All for $1.35 million.

Joe Priest Real Estate

1-800/671-4548

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RANCH PROPERTY

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

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

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

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

500-600 cows YEAR ROUND. REDUCED ASKING PRICE - $5,400,000

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

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

joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com

EIGHT MILE DRAW LAND

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

No improvements & very private inside the ranch.

Now only $700 per acre - $894,600

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

ranch that has been owned and operated miles southeast of Corona, NM in Lincoln BLM Lease Acres and 2,240 NM State AUYL. Water provided by five wells and corrals. The ranch had a good summer for a brochure or view on my website.

BILL WRIGHT, SHASTA LAND SERVICES, INC.

• www.ranch-lands.com

• DRE# 00963490

530-941-8100

Scott McNally, Qualifying Broker Bar M Real Estate, LLC

P.O. Box 428, Roswell, NM 88202

Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237

Website: www.ranchesnm.com

city limits of Roswell, NM. Six total acres Improved with a 2, 200 square foot residence, room and loafing shed. Price: $400,000

+/- deeded acres, accessed off blacktop between Eagle Nest and Angel Fire. Historic headquarters. Currently used as summer grazing, pond and trees accessed

SPRINGER VIEW, 29.70 +/- deeded acres. Large house being remodeled, shop, trees, old irrigation pond. All back off highway with great southern aspect. 311 Hwy 56, Colfax County. $209,000 $205,000 MAXWELL, 408.90 +/- Deeded Acres. 143.05 Irrigable Acres/Shares with TL pivot covering approximately 80 acres, with balance dry land. Property has one water meter used for livestock, but could support a home as well. There are two troughs located in the middle of the property. Electricity for pivot is back toward the middle of the property as well. Property has highway frontage on NM 505 and Highline Rd, a County Rd. Back up to Maxwell Wildlife area. Colfax County, NM.$599,000

Cattle Mania & the Ruling Class

Iknow many of you are happy as cattle prices are soaring. The reporting I’m getting from most places is that they are bringing $4-$12 more than last week and the rally seems to be continuing.

Finally, the rancher is getting more than just a “fair” price or “low” price for his cattle. That doesn’t happen very often.

The part that I still do not understand is why aren’t the ranchers in the packing business as well? It seems to me that a cattle packing co-op between ranchers would be the way to go.

I notice that I never see the National Cattleman’s Beef Association with a program promoting that. Just guessing here, but the only thing I can see the NCBA doing is telling the cattlemen how wonderful they are for involuntarily donating to the “Beef Checkoff” and lobbying for the packers in Washington, so they can continue to screw the beef ranchers.

Last year over $74 million was raised by the Beef Checkoff and over $53 million of it went to NCBA. Just how did any of it go to help the rancher? Does it bother you when the cattle prices are down that the packers make record profits?

I have been talking about this very same problem for over ten years now. When are the cattle raisers going to wake up and quit paying a tax on their cattle to the woke NCBA?

Okay, if you don’t want to call it a tax, then just call it “union dues”. It sounds like Communism to me. Do you realize that the NCBA annual convention is known as “Cattlecon”? Someone told me that the 100 beef board members get a free trip there every year no matter the location. Is that good use for your “Beef Checkoff” dollars?

Alright, so you can go ahead and look up all the leftist policies NCBA has in store for you and maybe you can fight them. I know R-CALF does their best.

On top of that you have a United States President that is probably in the pocket of the leftists. I hope you realize what your food and fuel bill is every month compared to just a few years ago.

We are in the third year of astronomical prices caused by the very government that was designed to be fair for all the people. Not only that, but if you disagree with this leftist government and call them on it, they seem to figure out some way to arrest you.

Stop and realize how well illegal immigrants, dopers, drunks, protesters, leftist politicians, and non-earning lazy folks that can vote, are living off of your hard-earned money. How did you fare with the “alleged” COVID epidemic?

Isn’t it funny that the whole nation had to virtually shut down, but ranchers and farmers had to keep working? Is that because many of us work from home already?

Have you noticed when the country goes into recession the government doesn’t reduce taxes to help people out, they raise them because they are losing revenue.

Just checking, but does the Beef Checkoff rate ever go down to fifty cents when the cattle prices are way off? I have never heard of that happening.

Why not? Does that mean that the woke NCBA can’t live off less when the ranchers are suffering? I would guess that they still need to lobby for those big packing interests. That’s where the money is.

I saw headlines on a cattle magazine last year that the NCBA’s goal was to have “Climate Neutrality” by 2040. Why on earth would the NCBA give a damn about the climate hoax?

Sorry for all the questions folks! I’m just trying to figure out where the word “freedom” fits in the modern cattle business. ▫

Biden Threatens to Veto Lesser Prairie Chicken Resolution

BY SCOTT STREATER / E&E NEWS

President Joe Biden is threatening to veto a resolution that would overturn federal Endangered Species Act protections for the lesser prairie chicken.

The Office of Management and Budget issued a statement in early May saying it “strongly opposes” the measure sponsored by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), which is up for a Senate vote Wednesday afternoon.

The statement said the resolution would overturn “common-sense protections for the lesser prairie-chicken,” as well as “undermine America’s proud wildlife conservation traditions” and “risk the extinction of a once-abundant American bird.”

S.J. Res. 9 would undo the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision (FWS) last fall to list the lesser prairie chicken for ESA protection.

The FWS final rule listed the southern distinct lesser prairie chicken population in eastern New Mexico and the southwestern Texas Panhandle as endangered. The northern distinct population in the northeastern Texas Panhandle, southeastern Colorado, south-central Kansas and western Oklahoma was listed as a threatened.

A companion resolution, H.J. Res. 29, is pending in the House. The House Natural Resources Committee last week approved the resolution, sponsored by Rep. Tracey Mann (R-Kan.).

FWS said last fall that the protections were warranted to save the bird, which is known for its colorful mating ritual each spring. Populations have declined across its range by an estimated 90 percent since the early 20th century, when birds numbered in the hundreds of thousands, to a total of about 32,210 birds today, according to the service.

But both Marshall and Mann have argued that the ESA listing rule is unnecessary and that voluntary efforts by farmers, ranchers, the oil and gas industry, and others have helped to improve the bird’s habitat and should be allowed to continue without federal intervention. ▫

WOLF continued from page 1

impact occurs through predation on livestock, Utah requests that the Colorado compensation fund reimburse Utah livestock owners,” Ferry wrote.

Ferry wrote Utah wants gray wolves to stop being designated as an endangered species, but meanwhile, “Utah is opposed to any new wolf introduction while the species remains federally listed under the Endangered Species Act,” he wrote.

The letter expresses concerns about gray wolves moving into areas where Mexican wolves live, resulting in the two species cross-breeding.

Ferry’s office, Utah Governor Spencer Cox’s office, and a Division of Wildlife Resources spokesperson all declined on-camera interviews with

Cattle Raisers Applaud Texas Legislature

Strengthened Right to Farm Provisions for Rural TX Passes

Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) praised the passage of House Bill (HB) 2308, the Texas Rural Right to Farm Bill. The legislation protects Texas agricultural operations from unwarranted nuisance and other legal and governmental actions.

“Texas is growing at a rapid pace and bringing with it new pressures to cattle raisers across the state,” said TSCRA First Vice-President Carl Ray Polk. “The Right to Farm statute has not been updated in over a decade and does not adequately protect our members from the ever-expanding list of legal challenges used against them. The hard work and leadership of Rep. Trent Ashby and Sen. Charles Perry carried this legislation, as well as the leadership of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Speaker Dade Phelan.”

This legislation provides protections that allow agricultural operations to continue and grow, while simultaneously ensuring the food security of Texas. HB 2308 was championed by Rep. Trent Ashby and Sen. Charles Perry.

“As a private landowner and rural Texan, I was honored to play a role in helping to protect agricultural operations in rural areas from unwarranted nuisance restrictions and other legal challenges,” said Rep. Ashby. “House Bill 2308 not only strengthens protections for agriculture operations, but also reaffirms our commitment to the farmers and ranchers who play a critical role in delivering the food and fiber to our growing population.”

“Texas farmers and ranchers who provide our food, fiber, and fuel deserve protections against unnecessary actions intended to halt or restrain them,” said Sen. Perry. “HB 2308 does just that –prevents nuisance actions such as lawsuits or injunctions that could easily put them out of business. Coming from a predominantly rural district, it is my job to help garner those protections down here in Austin.”

Don’t Let Unspent COVID $$$ Become Slush Funds

BY JOEL ZINBERG / WALL STREET JOURNAL

The House has passed the Limit, Save, Grow Act, which would raise the debt limit for a year in exchange for deficit-relief measures. One of those measures—recovering billions of dollars of approved but unspent Covid-19 relief funds—shouldn’t be controversial. The official public-health emergency ends Thursday. The actual emergency has been over for a long time. But some lawmakers want to use the money as a slush fund.

Congress appropriated $4.6 trillion for pandemic response and recovery in six Covid-19 relief laws enacted between March 2020 and March 2021. More than two years later, $444 billion of the total remains unspent. More than $114 billion hasn’t even been “obligated,” or committed to pay for goods and services ordered or received. Of this amount, $90.5 billion remains available for obligation and $23.7 billion has expired, meaning that it can’t be used to incur new obligations.

Section 201 of the House bill calls for the rescission—permanent cancellation—of these unobligated balances. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, objects and has produced an eight-page list of projects she says wouldn’t be funded if the unobligated balances are rescinded.

Undoubtedly, some of these projects are worthwhile, but Ms. DeLauro’s catalog raises a big question: Why, more than two years after the money was appropriated, hasn’t it been spent on these presumably valuable projects?

Bureaucratic agencies never return unused funds. They always spend them regardless of the merits. If these unobligated funds, which agencies haven’t found worthwhile uses for in more than two years, stay with the agencies, they will be obligated and spent.

The funds should be returned to the Treasury. That would reduce the deficit and restore decision-making authority to Congress. If future projects are truly valuable, lawmakers should fund them. Cutting the deficit will require hard choices. Recovering unspent Covid funds well after the emergency has ended is an easy choice.

9NEWS.

“They feel it would be inappropriate at this time while discussions with Colorado officials are ongoing. DWR’s leadership believes it would be more appropriate a little further down the road, once discussions have concluded. I’d suggest you reach to Colorado’s wildlife division for comment seeing this a Colorado policy matter,” a Utah DNR spokesperson said.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife also would not agree to an on-camera interview with 9NEWS.

“We are currently in the process of reviewing, analyzing and cataloging the thousands of comments we’ve received. It would be inappropriate to single out a few of the thousands of comments for a response at this time,” a spokesperson said.

Tribal concerns

The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Southern Ute Tribe also wrote to express their concerns.

Compensation

Colorado’s first wolf management draft plan proposed compensating a rancher up to $8,000 if a wolf kills or injures livestock, or a guard or herding animal. It’s unclear whether or not that proposal covered animals in other states.

Many of the public comments asserted that amount was not enough. The CPW Commission reviewed a new management plan draft, which could compensate a rancher up to $30,000 total for the death or injury, plus veterinary expenses. ▫

Dr. Zinberg is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and director of the Paragon Health Institute’s Public Health and American Well-Being Initiative.     ▫

Traceability: The Chihuahua Model

BY CAREN COWAN

As the debate over animal traceability rages on in the United States, the Mexican state of Chihuahua has developed a program that provides the desired traceability while protecting the needs of ranchers, according to Jay Whetten, Safford, Arizona.

Whetten ranches in Chihuahua and Arizona. He has served on the board of the Union Ganadera Regional de Chihuahua or the Chihuahua Cattlemen’s Association (CCA); the CNG (Mexico’s national cattlemen’s association) Board; and is a past president of the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association. He also has a beef program slaughtering cattle in Mexico and selling the final product in the US.

In the mid-1990’s it became clear that to eradicate bovine tuberculosis (TB) in Mexican states to be able to sell into the US, there needed to be a better ability to trace back livestock. At that time the CCA paid for a system that tagged every animal crossing into the US. That green metal tag cost was ten cents, Whetten explained.

CNG wanted to create a national system. Whetten was against the Mexican animal identification because it put all the control in the Mexican government’s hand.

When it became clear that the federal government was moving ahead, the CCA got to work to create a state system. Under the federal program each Mexican state is issued electronic identification (EID) tags via the cattle growers associations. The individual association owns the tracking and assigns numbered EID. The tags cost about $4.00. For non-CCA members, the cost may be slightly higher.

The state cattle growers associations provide tags to their county associations. Those county associations get the tags out to ranchers.

The federal and state governments have a hand in the program, but it is the cattle growers associations who control the system. There is a link for the federal, state and county to access the program, but that link is only for designated purposes. Only the cattle growers association has access to the full system. Each rancher also has access to his full system via a link as well.

When ranchers want to transport cattle, they must go to the county cattle growers’ office to apply for transport papers. The rancher gives the tag number(s) to the county office that matches the tag numbers with the owner’s name.

There is little live inspection; however there are checkpoints where haulers must pull over. The inspectors at those points will match the paperwork to the cattle on the truck. It is the state department of agriculture that provides the inspectors and tracks the tags. The federal government issues electronic health papers.

Cattle going to slaughter are checked individually and must match the rancher or seller. Tags are collected and cancelled.

Ranchers can report dead cattle and have those tags cancelled.

There are few glitches because the ranchers via cattle growers associations own and operate the traceability system. The system works because Mexican cattle bring bigger dollars if they are sold into the US.

“ID-ed cattle are worth more money,” Whetten says. “The key to the program is having credible cattle associations, or an entity that ranchers can trust.”

This system is exactly the same system that is being used by some producers and third party verification groups in the US.

Unfortunately all of this traceability arrives at the US border, but it moves no further because there is no compatible system in the US. Tags are often cut out once cattle cross the border and turned over to US buyers with all data lost.

(Chart)

How the Chihuahua System Works

■ Mexican federal government issues tags to state cattle growers associations and issues electronic health papers

■ State cattle growers associations control all data forward, owning the computer system and the operating program

■ State cattle growers associations issues tags to county cattle growers associations for distribution to ranchers, cost is about $4.00 per tag for members, non-members pay slightly higher price

■ When ranchers want to transport cattle, they apply to the county cattle growers association for transport papers

■ The state department of agriculture verifies animal ownership. There is little visual inspection in this process, however, the state department of agriculture has checkpoints where haulers pull over and the tag numbers on the load are verified.

■ All information is delivered to the border crossing electronically, where it is lost because there is no compatible system in the US ▫

U.S. CattleTrace Offers Traceability with Security

BY LIVESTOCK MARKET DIGEST STAFF

Recognizing the need for a secure animal disease traceability system, a group of collaborators organized a pilot study in early 2018. The CattleTrace Inc. Pilot Project was a collaborative partnership between Kansas State University, the Kansas Livestock Association, the Kansas Department of Agriculture, USDA, and individual producer stakeholders. It was jointly funded by public and private resources.

Partners worked to develop a purpose-built infrastructure to track cattle movement through the supply chain. CattleTrace utilized ultra-high frequency technologies to collect the minimal data necessary, including an individual animal identification number, a GPS location, and date and time, to track animals in the event of a disease outbreak. Tag readers were be located at producers’ operations, livestock markets, feed yards and beef processors.

GOAL: The goal for the CattleTrace Pilot Project for Animal Disease Traceability in Kansas was to:

Develop a purpose-built infrastructure for an animal disease traceability system, Evaluate the infrastructure, Determine the value proposition of the system at each production segment and across the industry.

In August 2018, CattleTrace, Inc., was formally established as a private, not-for-profit corporation to securely maintain and manage the data collected for disease traceability. In addition, a Board of Directors was named to lead CattleTrace, Inc. with representation from the cow-calf, livestock market and feedyard sectors stretching from Oregon to Florida.

In 2020, that successful pilot evolved into an organization U.S. CattleTrace that represents cow/calf operators, dairy producers, auction houses, feedyards, allied industry and multiple state cattlemen’s organizations from major beef producing regions. This new initia-

tive builds on the success of the original pilot program, as well as ones in Florida and Texas, while incorporating partner organizations such as the Kansas Livestock Association, Florida Cattlemen’s Association, Texas Cattle Feeders Association, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association and Kentucky Cattlemen’s Association. The goal is to develop a national infrastructure for disease traceability and encourage private industry’s use of the infrastructure for individualized management practices.

U.S. CattleTrace is led by Executive Director Callahan Grund who runs a small herd near Wamego, Kansas with his wife Emily and son Coy. He grew up on his family’s seedstock and commercial cow-calf operation in western Kansas located an hour northwest of feedyard country. Grund previously worked in policy engagement, business development and animal disease traceability preparedness at the Kansas Department of Agriculture. Grund has also served as the Director of Producer Relations with Farm Strategy, LLC, an agricultural start-up business in the grains sector.

While the concept of traceability is not new, there has been a mindset shift in recent years. Historically, concerns about technology, privacy and economic costs have challenged the development of a cattle disease traceability system. Today, industry stakeholders across the United States recognize the need for a viable end-to-end cattle disease traceability system, which provides critical tools to manage a disease outbreak and may provide opportunities to add value to the industry.

When asked how U.S. CattleTrace differs from similar companies Grund says “We are the only organization in the cattle industry focused on providing a voluntary, speed of commerce contact tracing system. We are solely focused on creating an animal disease contact tracing solution for the cattle industry

through a non-profit, producer-led organization.”

Cattle disease traceability is an important component in the overall biosecurity of the U.S. beef cattle industry, playing a significant role in resuming and maintaining commerce in the event of a disease outbreak. The development of a cattle disease traceability system has risen to one of the top priorities in the industry throughout multiple segments of the beef value chain.

The goal of U.S. CattleTrace is to build a system that is recognized as nationally significant to all domestic and foreign markets. The U.S. CattleTrace disease traceability system strives to be equitable to all industry segments and must be industry-driven and managed by a producer board of directors to ensure data privacy and protection.

For those who have concerns about privacy, Gund replies “Data privacy is paramount to the organization. U.S. CattleTrace has a variety of security protocols in place to protect the contact tracing database and make sure the data within it is securely locked away only to be utilized in case of a disease outbreak.”

Membership ranges from $25 for cow/calf and dairy producers to $1,000 for producer association representation. Member benefits include voting rights for board leadership, access to educational webinars and networking opportunities at events such as the U.S. CattleTrace Annual Symposium. Proactive participation in U.S. CattleTrace enables members to be at the forefront of this industry-driven initiative and influence the future of an expanded traceability system in the U.S. beef cattle industry.

“As a membership organization, we are led by a producer board of directors that is elected by the U.S. CattleTrace producer members that can only be made up of cow-calf, auction market, and feedyard members,” says Gund. “The board of directors helps direct the organization’s direction and has the final decision-making process on who, when and how the data can be accessed.” ▫

New Public Lands Rule

The Department of Interior has issued a new Public Lands Rule which, according to a statement, gives the Bureau of Land Management the tools “to improve the resilience of public lands in the face of a changing climate; conserve important wildlife habitat and intact landscapes; plan for development; and better recognize unique cultural and natural resources on public lands.”

Interior also says their proposal is “a tool authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).”

To start with, I did a search of the pdf version of FLPMA for resilience and resiliency. In both cases, pdf reported that “no matches were found.” I did a similar search for intact landscapes, and even for the word landscape. Both came back with “no matches were found.”

I’ve learned to be suspicious of any elected or appointed official who uses words to describe legislation that aren’t even present in the statute. That usually means they are using their own preferences in administering the law rather than Congressional intent in passing the law.

Interior states, “The proposed rule directly responds to the growing need to better manage public lands, waters, and wildlife in the face of devastating wildfires, historic droughts, and severe storms.”

Devastating wildfires! The feds mismanagement leads to more, larger and hotter fires and this is justification for us to grant more authority and more dollars to BLM? I don’t think so.

The Interior statement says the proposal will authorize conservation leasing and defines those leases as “a time-limited lease of public land that allows interested organizations to conduct specific restoration or mit-

Conservation Leases for Enviros and Diminished Water Rights for Ag

igation activities” and combine that with, “It will also be utilized during the existing land management planning processes to identify public lands…or intact landscapes that may be best managed for their contributions to healthy, functioning ecosystems or water quality.” Sounds like lands with wilderness characteristics to me. They could very well be planning to contract with “interested organizations” to identify those intact landscapes. The Interior Secretary says the proposal can be utilized to “conserve the most important places for the benefit of the generations to come.” We all know what those “important places” will be.

I have often written of BLM’s jealousy towards the Forest Service and other land management agencies, and that shows up here also. The statement says the “rule includes a road map to align the BLM with other land management agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service, in ensuring the agency is inventorying and assessing the health of public lands, including watersheds, forests and wildlife habitat.” Sec. 201 of FLPMA directs the Secretary to “prepare and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their resource and other values” and that “This inventory shall be kept current so as to reflect changes in conditions and to identify new and emerging resource and other values.”

So no, this proposal is not about inventories. It is about giving BLM more dollars and more personnel to place them on an “equal footing” with other agencies.

Water and the Drought

The feds have issued a draft EIS to “address the continued potential for low run-off conditions and unprecedented water shortages in the Colorado River Basin.”

The draft presents two options to address needed cuts in water allocations.

The first option would have the feds make the cuts based upon the existing priority system for water rights. Under this traditional system, there would be small cuts or no cuts for entities that hold older senior rights such as the California’s Imperial Irrigation District. That district uses the single largest share of Colorado River water to provide for 500,000 acres of farmland in the Imperial Valley. However, those entities with junior water rights would undergo large cuts. An example would be the Salt River Project which supplies water to Phoenix and Tucson.

The second option presented says cuts would be made on an equal percentage basis. This across-the-board approach would apply to all water users, including those with senior water rights. The deputy secretary of Interior said this could be accomplished by using the Interior secretary’s authorities to “provide for human health and safety” in emergency conditions.

It appears the legal beagles at Interior believe the Secretary can overturn years of established water rights by using his authority to “provide for human health and safety”, and thereby transfer water from rural residents and agricultural use to city residents and municipal use.

It also appears the second alternative is the preferred alternative of the feds, if for no other reason than to use it as a threat against the ag producers to bring about “voluntary” reductions.

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. ▫

Texas Ranchers Share

Brutal Reality of Living Near Southern Border

BY PATRICIA TOLSON / EPOCH TIMES

With U.S. Code Title 42 set to expire on May 11, ranchers in South Texas are bracing for what they expect will be a massive surge of illegal immigrants.

Title 42 evolved from a federal health order enacted in 1944 and prohibits people from entering the United States during a pandemic to mitigate the spread of disease. On March 20, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) amended the order to expel illegal immigrants without allowing them a chance to apply for asylum.

On July 16, 2021, the CDC issued an exception for unaccompanied noncitizen children.

‘It’s Getting Worse’

Dr. Michael L. Vickers—the owner and president of Las Palmas Veterinary Hospital in Falfurrias, Texas—is a member of the Texas Veterinary Medical Association, the Texas Farm Bureau, and the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association.

He’s also chairman of the Texas Border Volunteers, a 300-strong volunteer force that assists the Texas Rangers, local law enforcement, and agents of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol in monitoring over a million acres of private property in counties along the 1,254 miles of continuous Texas/Mexico border.

The border consists of 28 international bridges, two dams, one hand-drawn ferry, and 25 other crossings for commercial, vehicular, and foot traffic, according to the Texas Department of Transportation. As a livestock veterinarian, Vickers has over 300 ranch accounts in 16 counties along the border.

“All of them have been impacted by all of the lawlessness and smuggling that’s been going on at the border,” Vickers told The Epoch Times, “and it’s getting worse.”

Vickers said he has clients in the cattle business who live in South Texas.

“They’ve had to build high fences around the compounds where their houses are. A lot have simply left. They’ve moved off to get the hell away from the danger on their property.”

Vickers said that in 2022, his neighbor found 19 bodies on his property. It’s something Vickers is all too familiar with. Three months ago, he said he found the body of a dead woman just 30 yards from his front door.

A May 2020 report by the Strauss Center for International Security and Law said more than 3,253 people had died trying to enter the United States in South Texas over the previous 22 years.

In October 2022, CBS News reported that over 850 people had died trying to illegally cross the border in the previous 12 months, making it the deadliest year on record.

Vickers said ranchers started having real problems in the 1980s. By 2005 things were so bad that the Texas Border Volunteers was born. Since then, the group has identified over

600 smuggling trails from Laredo to the coast.

“That’s what we do,” he said. “We go out on these drills and wait for the action to show up then we help get them apprehended.” Vickers said his wife pitches in as well and has a pack of highly trained German shepherd dogs that help to find and catch illegal immigrants.

As Vickers explained, a typical operation consists of sending out scouts to look for signs of foot traffic. They provide this information to Border Patrol and assist them in tracking, locating, and apprehending illegal immigrants along the South Texas border.

“They don’t have the resources to go out and watch all of these trails. They also provide us with information on where traffic has activated draw bridge cameras.”

Vickers and the Texas Border Volunteers ran the Drawbridge Camera Project as a pilot program years ago. He recalled how Texas Department of Public Safety Director Col. Steven McCraw and retired Marine sergeant and former Texas Ranger and film producer Hank Whitman accompanied them on a patrol of some properties.

“They couldn’t believe the amount of traffic that was coming around these checkpoints,” Vickers said. “So they sent us a bunch of glorified game cameras that we put on the trails. These cameras snap pictures and send images to our cell phones and to Border Patrol checkpoints. We got over 900 hits the first week.”

Now the project consists of more than 10,000 cameras.

Worse Under Biden

While President Donald Trump was in office, Vickers said traffic went down to a trickle and no large groups were passing through.

“After Biden took office, traffic really started escalating,” Vickers said. “We tracked and caught more illegals during our first operation in 2021 under Biden than we did the whole year of 2020 under Trump, and it’s been that way ever since.”

“Where we found 32 dead

bodies in Brooks County in 2020, the last year Trump was in office, we found 119 in 2021 under Biden and 91 in 2022. We already have a stack of them for 2023 and it hasn’t even gotten hot yet.”

According to an October 2019 report from the Washington Examiner, the remains of over 650 dead migrants have been found in Brooks County, Texas, since 2009. As of February, that number has increased to 917, The Center Square reported. Another 12 bodies were found in the first months of 2023.

Vickers said to bear in mind that they “find less than 20 percent of these bodies. The rest are consumed by wild animals, like wild hogs and mountain lions.”

Vickers said he’s seen mountain lions following these groups. Like lions stalking herds in Africa, the mountain lions follow caravans of people, waiting for the weak or the dying to fall.

Vickers was one of the speakers at the “How Many More” rally at the Texas Capitol in Austin in late April to raise awareness of the brutal reality taking place along the southern border. Other speakers included rock musician and political activist Ted Nugent and journalist Lara Logan. Mark Meckler, president of Convention of States Action, served as master of ceremonies.

‘A Constant Battle’

Whit Jones was born and raised in South Texas. His family has been ranching there since 1890, and while they have dealt with illegal immigrants for over a century, Jones says “the environment of it has changed through the years,” especially during his lifetime.

“Whether its gun trafficking or human trafficking or people traversing the property,” he said there’s always something to deal with.

However, Jones doesn’t believe that telling his story will make much of a difference because he has shared his stories “a thousand times and it continues to fall on deaf ears, and it never gets a serious reaction.”

As chairman of the South Texas Property Rights Association, Jones represents a large number of landowners in South Texas, and border security is their biggest concern.

“We work tirelessly to secure our property and our ranches. We’re passing legislation on a state level because it goes nowhere on a national level, and at this point, you have to scratch your head wondering if the energy you spend fighting is going to result in any results, especially with this administration.”

“It’s a constant battle and a handicap in the business,” he said, adding that geographic location dictates how badly the problem affects one person versus someone else, and that this changes as trafficking routes change, along with what the illegal immigrants are trafficking.

“There are parts of south Texas in which you can’t live and raise a family because it’s too dangerous,” he said, adding that when traffic slows down on his property, he knows it isn’t gone. The illegal immigrants are simply moving through someplace else.

“Dr. Vickers has it worse than me specifically because he’s located closer to an interior checkpoint,” Jones said.

What may be a foreign concept to ranchers in other parts of America has become a way of life for those in South Texas.

“You have to be cautious about whom you might see on the ranch and cautious of whom might walk up while your children are playing outside,” Jones said. “Whatever you can think of, I’ve seen it --- women, children, rape victims, murders. I’ve seen it all.”

While Jones said “it would be nice to live in the kind of America the majority gets to live in,” he has little faith that it will ever be resolved no matter which political party is in office.

“At least with previous administrations you saw a pathway,” Jones asserted. “You had hope that something would happen. But what’s happening on the border right now is exactly what this administration wants to happen on the border.”

‘Not My Problem’

Selene Rodriguez agrees with Jones.

Born and raised along the border in Del Rio, Texas, Rodriguez has witnessed firsthand what the Texas ranchers suffer each day. Now living in Austin, she serves as the assistant director of federal affairs at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Rodriguez believes the lack of solutions to the escalating border crisis is a combination of selective apathy among American citizens and an active effort by the Biden administration and immigration activists to encourage and facilitate illegal immigration.

“It’s a ‘Not my house, not my problem,’ ‘Not my border, not my problem,’ and a ‘Not my state, not my problem,’ problem,” Rodriguez told The Epoch Times.

While Democrats and immigration activists charge that refusing asylum to illegal immigrants is inhumane, Rodriguez disagrees.

“When you adopt policies that say ‘come on over,’ you have millions of people putting their lives and those of their children at the mercy of criminal cartels and coyotes to whom they become indebted for the entire time they are in the United States.”

An April survey conducted by the Trafalgar Group for Convention of States Action shows that 53.4 percent of respondents said they are “not confident at all” that the federal government is focused or even has a plan to address the widespread drug and human trafficking occurring at the U.S.-Mexico border. Because of this, 74.3 percent of voters believe individual states have the right to take action to protect their citizens and state borders.

Meckler told The Epoch Times this proves “there is massive public support for HB 20.”

House Bill 20, also known as the Border Protection Unit Act, was introduced on March 10. The proposed legislation, which has no Democrat support, would empower Texas to create a state-based Border Protection Unit and take control of its own border security.

U.S. Border Patrol did not respond to a request for comment.

Traceability – Third Party Verification Groups

BY HEATHER SMITH THOMAS

Cattle in the U.S. are marketed in many ways. In the past three decades a number of “value-added” marketing programs have sprung up to facilitate various goals. Some of these are aimed toward export markets (producing cattle acceptable to markets in other countries) and some are domestic, aimed toward U.S. consumers and what they want to buy. To make these programs work, producers must follow certain regulations and/or standards of care to satisfy the buyers of their product. To keep everything transparent and trustworthy, third-party verification came into existence. There are many marketing platforms today that require third-party verification; some are to satisfy requirements for export and many more have been created to satisfy domestic markets.

The Non-Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC) Program has been in effect since 1999, when

the European Union (EU) and the U.S. agreed on control measures to facilitate the trade of non-hormone treated beef, including veal. There are three components of this Program.

First, the cattle are to be grown at approved farms/feedlots and delivered to the slaughter establishment with shipping documentation that includes the statement “Cattle Meet Export Verification Program Requirements for the EU” and clearly identifies the animals and the quantity.

Secondly, NHTC (Non-Hormone treated cattle) and beef are segregated at the slaughter establishment and handled in a fashion that ensures they are not commingled with other animals or meat.

Third, tissue samples from non-hormone treated cattle are collected at slaughter and analyzed in order for FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection Service) to provide export certification for this product.

The FSIS designated USDA’s AMS (Agricultural Marketing Service) as the competent au-

IMI GLOBAL – This is a division of Where Food Comes From, the largest provider of certification and third-party verification services to the food industry— auditing and facilitating programs between producers and branded programs. John and Leann Saunders, founders of IMI Global, were instrumental in changing the way the industry authenticates livestock-raising claims to meet the demands of consumers world-wide.

In 1996, Leann worked for PM Beef Group, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, and John launched Integrated Management Information (now known as IMI Global). John worked diligently to build custom cattle information, sharing databases for groups such as the Farmland Beef Alliance, which was comprised of National Beef, Agri-Beef, Supreme Feeders and Angus breeders. While John was building these systems and working with the initial infrastructure for animal identification and traceability in the beef industry, Leann was working with USDA developing the first USDA Process Verified Standard. PM Beef Group was the first beef company to verify production practices and claims from the cow/calf producer all the way through the supply chain to retail outlets.

Then when BSE shut down the US beef export markets in December 2003, Leann decided to join John at IMI Global to provide animal identification, traceability and verification solutions to the industry. John’s first product was called Chuteside, a system allowing feed-yards to tie individual animal data to an individual animal identifier. He was promoting this product in the market abd Leann was working with major packers to create the first USDA QSA Programs for Japan and meet export verification instruction requirements.

It soon became evident that the industry needed a way to ensure buyers through the supply chain that cattle met source and age specified product requirements for Japan on live cattle. The IMI Global team created an infrastructure to audit and verify this data for cow/ calf producers, stocker operations and feedlots. As an “umbrella” program under the USDA Process Verified Program Standard, their third-party system allowed packers to buy “verified” cattle without having to audit/ verify the locations themselves. This revolutionized the way cattle are marketed for verified and value-added programs.

In 2006 IMI Global became a division of Where Food Comes From, Inc. (WFCF), which is a name John and Leann chose to better describe what they were doing and where they believed the future of their business was headed. Today IMI Global verifies cattle for a number of programs, standards and claims including source, traceability, age, NHTC, Verified Natural Beef, WFCF CARE and more. They also provide an infrastructure that authenticates claims made on packages at retail. WFCF now has 6 divisions - IMI Global, Sterling Solutions, WFCF Organic, Validus Verification Services, SureHarvest and Postelsia.

BeeFCARE – Two years ago IMI Global launched BeefCARE, a program to address sustainability. BeefCARE is a third-party sustainability verification program that uses third-party audits to verify that farmers and ranchers are using best practices in caring for animals, the environment, the people and communities who support them. BeefCARE standards include prac-

thority for providing verification that cattle meet the specified product requirements outlined in QAD (Quality Assessment Division) 1013 Procedure. The specified product requirements must be met through an approved USDA Quality System Assessment (QSA) Program.

The QSA Program ensures that the specified product requirements are supported by a documented quality management system and is verified through independent, third-party audits conducted by QAD in accordance with QAD 1000 Procedure.

Traceability for export cattle became even more important to the U.S. beef industry after the BSE scare in 2003. The industry started source and age verification after getting locked out of the Japanese market due to BSE concerns. The source was ranch of origin, and at that time the cattle had to be under 20 months of age. Today the age requirement is 30 months. Outside of a handful of animals, we don’t harvest cattle in the U.S. that are older than 30 months

so the age requirement is generally not a critical piece. But the source—ranch of origin—is critical in many programs and not just export.

To age and source verify cattle, producers must work with a third party, USDA-approved verification provider. For verification purposes, a provider requires calving records. There are two Source and Age Verification programs: the Process Verified Program (PVP) and the Quality System Assessment (QSA). Companies using these USDA-approved programs can also make marketing claims regarding how the cattle were raised. These two programs have some differences, but they are both routes to enable producers to certify the age and origins of their cattle.

QSAs are smaller in scope than PVPs and require animal identification tags; these can be either visual or electronic. QSA programs are frequently utilized by cow/calf operations that feed out their own cattle or use a specific packer.

The PVP Source and Age program is implemented by a beef verification company experienced in meeting the requirements for certain customers. The claims and processes authenticated by PVPs can be

tices such as having a cattle grazing management plan to help promote vegetative growth and diversity, water availability and quality, prevent/reduce soil erosion, and support carbon sequestration. Several hundred ranches are currently enrolled with plans to expand the program over the next few years. The program is recognized by the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

BeefCARE was created by beef producers, to tell our story on how we raise cattle, versus a retailer (like Whole Foods) telling producers how to raise our cattle. It gives producers flexibility (unlike GAP, which requires cattle to be natural and meet all the other criteria). Beef Care allows producers to have cattle that are natural, cattle that are GAP, cattle that are NHTC only, or cattle that are all of the above or none of the above. BeefCARE cattle can be conventionally fed and there can be a few calves on the load that had to be doctored as babies or had Bovatec in their feed ration, or were implanted, but they are still BeefCARE cattle because they comply with the protocols of that program, which meets the social, environmental and humane handling criteria.

FACTA (Farm Animal Care Training and Auditing) – This organization designs cutting-edge and practical Animal Welfare (AW) training, verification, and certification tools along with Third-Party Verification Programs for the cattle industry. FACTA’s goal is to increase producers’ opportunities through value-added services. FACTA offers USDA-approved process verified programs for cow/calf producers, as well as FACTA cow and calf programs.

These include Age and Source Verification (ASV). Requirements: Group or individual birth dates are acceptable. A written birth record documenting the first-born date must be provided and kept on file for three years. Only calves born on your ranch are eligible. Calves must be tagged with a Program Complaint Tag (PCT) prior to leaving the ranch of origin.

Another program is Non-Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC). Requirements: Calves must be Age and Source verified. No hormonal growth promotants (HGP) may be used. No Beta Agonists may be used. If HGP’s and/or Beta Agonists are present, inventory records must be kept showing purchases, uses and inventory. If inventory records are not kept, the calves will automatically be disqualified. Feed records (including supplements), cattle movement records and processing records are required to be maintained.

The Natural Program includes Age and Source Verified, plus no hormonal growth promotants (HGP) and no Beta Agonists. No antibiotics may be administered in the feed, water or injection. Treated animals must be removed from the program. If HGP’s and/or Beta Agonists or antibiotics are present, inventory records must be kept showing purchases, uses and inventory. If inventory records are not kept, the calves/cattle will automatically be disqualified. Feed records (including supplements), cattle movement records (receiving records) and processing records must be maintained.

Grass Fed cattle must be Age and Source Verified and this program keeps track of forages that are to be grazed or harvested for feeding. No prohibited feeds may be used (on a list in the FACTA Grass-Fed Program). Feed records (including supplements), cattle

broader than QSAs, including information regarding cattle breed and animal handling. Because of the higher level of required auditing for PVPs, packers and feedlots that only participate in QSAs will often accept cattle from PVP producers without any extra auditing required. PVP-approved products can also use the “USDA Process Verified” shield for marketing purposes.

Third-party verification programs and audits are increasingly valued in the beef industry. These programs allow participating animals to be eligible for buyers and brands seeking specialty marketing requirements, which can increase the value and marketability of those cattle.

These programs also establish premiums for their supply chain, including the producers. Programs that utilize third-party verification include verified natural beef (VNB), non-hormone-treated cattle (NHTC), verified grass-fed and the Global Animal Partnership (GAP) 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating. Farms enrolled in various programs follow certain management requirements and are audited annually for compliance.

movement records and processing records are required to be maintained.

The FACTA Vaccine Verification Program (FVV) is a 3-level program. A) Cattle are given 1 round of approved vaccines. B) Cattle are Age and Source Verified.

FVV 30: A) Cattle are given 2 rounds of approved vaccines. B) Cattle are weaned a minimum of 30 days. C) Cattle are Age and Source Verified.

FVV 45: A) Cattle are given 2 rounds of approved vaccines. B) Cattle are weaned a minimum of 45 days. C) Cattle are Age and Source Verified.

Jacquelyn Babcock, Director of Farm Animal Care Training and Auditing says FACTA does animal welfare and third party verification for a variety of clients—both external third party, UEP (United Egg Producers), American Humane, etc. as well as California Crop 12, Colorado Cage Free, etc. “Arizona has Cage Free laws as well, for laying hens. We also offer our own audit for broilers, and specialty audits for quail, rabbits, turkeys, etc. We pride ourselves on offering science-based third-party animal welfare audits for many species,” Babcock says.

“We have USDA certified programs for grass-fed, all natural, antibiotic verified, and no antibiotics ever. We also offer a database for RFID tracking of animals. With any of those programs, those animals have to be verified for their entire lifetime and we have an RFID tracking system those animals can be entered into,” she says. If producers want to be part of the grass-fed program they contact FACTA and tell about their operation. “Then we’d figure out a good time to read those RFID tags to enroll the animals in the program. From there we would verify the grazing program to make sure those animals are not fed any grain products, corn, etc. If you have to feed dry matter over winter, we’d be verifying those programs as well, so that you’d be sourcing your hay through an acceptable source,” she says.

“Once that animal leaves the facilities we would again verify the RFID tag and create a shipping label when it goes to the next stage of production. If it’s going from a cow-calf operation to a backgrounder or from a backgrounder to a feedlot, we would do verification at each of those steps, to verify that those animals were in the program the entire time. When the animal goes from the feedlot to the processor we verify those animals again. Then the processor has the capability to look up those RFID tags through their system and verify that those animals were certified for the entire time that they needed to be, for grass-fed.”

SAMSON PVP (Process Verified Program) –The Samson PVP is a USDA-approved program that verifies production activities for value added markets. Samson Inc. started as a family farm/feed-yard that blended traditional agriculture production with agricultural services, with a goal of increasing opportunities through value-added services and networks; they soon transitioned into the PVP sector to verify programs that include Source and Age Verification, Non-Hormone Treated Cattle (NHTC), Samson Verified Natural (SVN) Braunvieh Verified Genetics, Wagyu Breed Verification, Angus Plus Verification, Beef Quality Assurance (BQA), High Quality Feeding Claims, and GAP Certification. ▫