34 minute read
UNR Cooperative Extension
Nevada’s Best Kept Secret: Conservation Districts History & Functions | Part 2 of 2 by Gary McCuin, Eureka County Extension Educator Second VP Nevada Association of Conservation Districts
The first article about Conservation Districts outlined the history and philosophy of CD development and the purpose and structure of CD’s at the national and state level in Nevada.
The concept of conservation can be traced back to 1662 with John Evelyn’s Sylva – A Discourse of Forest Trees and the propagation of Timber. Later in the 19th century European concerns over depletion of Teak trees used for ship building further advanced forestry conservation and set the foundations of Forestry and conservation in the United States. Since its inception, conservation has focused on the sustainable use of natural resources expressly for their continued use by humans. When Congress, and subsequently the states, created and empowered CD’s, they believed that conservation decisions should be made at the local level and that CD’s should have positive influence and involvement on natural resource issues. CD’s could significantly multiply funding and subsequent local benefits through “on-the-ground” conservation projects and management that is beneficial to both the local community and natural resources. Towards those ends CD’s operate under the following general policies:
• That conservation should be led by local citizens; • That the final responsibility for conservation lies with the landowner; • That landowners have legitimate operating goals; • That conservation districts are responsive to landowners, operators, and the community as a whole; and • That the best agricultural land should be maintained for agriculture.
This article attempts to define Community Based Conservation and some of its sociological underpinnings. Given this background, I will describe what I believe are fortuitous and significant events that provide opportunities for local communities and industry to affect policy and management of natural resource conservation at the local level on both private and federal lands. Involvement through your local Conservation Districts provides the authority, power and potential for local citizens to manage or comanage local natural resources for sustainable multiple use for the benefit of the community and their natural resources, i.e. real Community Based Conservation. Wikipedia defines Community Based Conservation “as a conservation movement that emerged in the 1980s through escalating protests and subsequent dialogue with local communities affected by international attempts to protect the biodiversity of the earth. The object of community-based conservation is to incorporate improvement to the lives of local people”. Federal wildlife and land management agencies philosophy of management has developed very differently. These agencies were created and authorized by Congress to manage and protect natural resources through law and regulation. Generally speaking, their management begins at the national level and devolves to the local level.
“People don’t have horse problems, horses have people problems.” - Ray Hunt The same can be said for natural resources
Particularly in Nevada, this philosophy of “top down, command and control” management has created significant controversy and conflict between the federal agencies, local citizens and communities. Resource management professionals have long recognized that social factors and communication are increasingly essential in resolving conflict and achieving meaningful conservation and application of constructive management. Many of our environmental problems, including those related to conservation; do not lend themselves to analysis by the conventional, rational approach of defining the problem, collecting and analyzing data as the basis for making decisions and crafting regulations. There is too much variability which creates uncertainty; goals keep shifting and objectives are often not defined and are difficult to achieve in the timeframe we desire. Issues must be constantly redefined and regulatory constraints/gridlock often obstructs the ability of users and managers to achieve timely management adaptations. All of these factors combined create a class of problems that social scientists have termed “wicked problems” (Rittel, 1973). They have “no definitive formulation, there is incomplete or contradictory knowledge, there are a large number of people and opinions involved, there can be large economic burdens, and any one problem or issue is interconnected with other problems. There is no template to follow when tackling a “wicked problem” and teams that approach wicked problems must literally make things up as they go along. There is no definitive right or wrong answer and it is very difficult to measure success because “wicked problems” bleed into other “wicked problems” (think about Sage-grouse planning and the Wild Horse and Burro controversy). Thus, a new approach to natural resource science and management is evolving through a process by which researchers, managers and stakeholders interact, often with professional facilitation, to define important questions, objectives of study, relevant evidence and incorporate local knowledge and needs to develop a course of action. To deal with these complex systems, working partnerships can be built between managers and resource users, i.e. Community Based
Conservation.
Adaptive management, or as social scientists term “Adaptive co-management” is often crucial to the success of these partnerships and ultimately a workable solution, which recognizes, as a starting point, that information will never be perfect. The use of imperfect information for management necessitates a close cooperation and risk-sharing between the management agency and local people. Such a process requires cooperation, transparency, and accountability so that a learning environment can be created and practice can build on experience over time. Adaptive co-management captures two key elements to making community-based conservation work: sharing of management power and responsibility - as opposed to token consultation and passive participation - and creating a context that encourages learning and stewardship and builds mutual trust (Berkes, 2004). This approach, bringing the community actively into the management process, is fundamentally different from the top down command-and-control style that has historically defined federal wildlife and land management. Incentives to Community Based Conservation and management are multidimensional. Equity –fairness in the distribution of benefits-and empowerment are often more important than monetary incentives (Chambers, 1983). Workable Community Based Conservation helps inform and implement decision making processes that are legitimate, accountable, and inclusive and that take into account multiple stakeholders and interests. Knowledge is power, and
The terms cooperate, coordinate and consult denote a desire by Congress that federal, state and local governments work together for the general welfare of all citizens with special emphasis on localized needs.
the use of local and traditional ecological knowledge is a mechanism for co-management and empowerment. Local indigenous knowledge is utilized in the cooperative process of creating conservation projects and management strategies. Two key processes: (1) sharing of management power and responsibility through multiple institutional partnerships that involve government agencies, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s), and communities and (2) feedback learning and building of mutual trust among the partners are necessary for sustained successful Community Based Conservation. Given the background just provided, we can review the statutory authorities of CD’s, legislative factors and events that I feel has poised and empowered CD’s to have real positive impact and power through Community Based Conservation. In Nevada and other states where federal government administers and manages significant portions of the land within the state, CD’s serve a vital role connecting private and public interests. NRS Chapter 548 grants CD’s specific duties and powers to develop and carry out the District policies or Conservation Plans for the conservation and management of renewable natural resources across both private and federal land. NRS 548.113, recently passed by the State Legislature, officially recognizes that CD’s “may be recognized
as having special expertise regarding local conditions, conservation of renewable resources and the coordination of local programs which make conservation districts uniquely suitable to serve as cooperating agencies for the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq., and any other federal laws regarding land management, and to provide local government coordination for the purposes of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., and any other federal laws regarding land management”.
As a “cooperating agency,” CD’s get a seat at the table with the proposing agency and other cooperating agencies to provide comments, offer suggestions and assist in the development of the management action being drafted. This provides the opportunity to ensure that local natural resource plans and policy of the CD and county is considered at the very beginning of the NEPA process, not merely as a member of the public commenting on the proposed action after the action is drafted. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLMPA) provides explicit directives for the BLM to coordinate federal land use planning with county governments (including CD’s), and to ensure that federal land use plans are consistent with local plans to the maximum extent possible. Federal agencies are required to coordinate with state and local agencies 43 CFR 46.155 (DOI). In 2008 the Farm Bill provided an allowance to expend EQIP funds on federal lands where resource issues and impacts extend across ownership and management boundaries creating new opportunity. It is essential to recognize, understand, and utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the authorities granted by state and federal statute to CD’s in the planning, development, and implementation of resource management plans and policies at the local level. A general lack of recognition of these duties and powers of CD’s by federal land and wildlife management agencies, and more significantly, by CD’s themselves may be one of the reasons that CD’s, in general, across Nevada are not functioning at their full potential. When dealing with federal agencies locally developed natural resource conservation plans are crucial to local guidance, acceptance, and management of natural resources on federally administered lands. On July 16, 2013 the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) and the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) providing for a cooperative working relationship between the NACD and the BLM. The MOU provides for similar arrangements between State BLM offices and State Conservation District Associations such as the Nevada Association of Conservation Districts (NvACD) The intent is to “form a framework for cooperation that supports common goals and interests in managing, developing, and protecting federal and private land and water resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner, consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements”. This MOU recognizes and supports the role of Conservation Districts taking the leading role in administering locally led conservation practices and provides for national and local sharing of technical, fiscal and administrative support to local conservation districts. This relationship will help to develop and implement specific plans of action for cooperative conservation activities on private land that can benefit neighboring public land resources and vice versa. The Nevada Collaboration Conservation Network (NVCCN) began in 2016 when more than 80 participants from across Nevada came together to learn collaborative processes and develop relationships among the people who will implement the sage-grouse plan amendments and the people who will be affected by them. During this training, trainees identified that there was a lack of cross-agency, cross-partner conservation and communication in sagebrush management to promote this collaborative network. Participants identified an overall desire for this network to achieve Sagebrush ecosystem enhancement in addition to implementation of the sage-grouse plan amendments. The NVCCN workshop recognized and identified that Nevada is a unique and diverse state where implementation of federal land use plan amendments is best understood and accomplished by incorporating local science and knowledge provided by those closest to the land. In order for federal land management agencies like the BLM and U.S. Forest Service to successfully implement the actions described in the sage-grouse plan amendments for Nevada, collaboration between state, federal, and local partners operating in an adaptive management environment is essential. Community Based Conservation, which is initiated and developed at the local level and is beneficial to both the community and natural resources is imperative in order to regain local trust, input and acceptance for implementation of any meaningful land management actions going forward. NVCCN continues to build its network to enhance meaningful communication and provide structure to support local, diverse stakeholder groups working to achieve conservation that incorporates best science with local knowledge through a collaborative planning and implementation approach. It serves as a bridge between various groups that are already operating at the local, state and federal levels as a way to enhance and expand conservation efforts across the state. The Network includes ranchers, individuals involved with existing collaborative conservation efforts, conservation districts and local area working groups, non-government organizations and representatives from state and federal land management agencies.” See their website at www.nvccn.org. Conservation Districts across the nation continue to identify, prioritize, plan and implement community based local conservation programs on vast acreages; across ownership boundaries; utilizing private and federal partnerships and leveraging private and federal funds on projects and resource management that is beneficial to the local community and society at large.
Conservation Districts in Nevada are accomplishing great things within their Districts.
However, due to a general lack of funding and recognition in Nevada of the potential CD’s have to identify, implement and manage natural resources within local communities keeps Nevada
CD’s from realizing and accomplishing what has been accomplished in other states.
History bears out that there is a pervasive independent spirit of the citizens of the
“Battle Born” state to demand local governance particularly in regards to management of land and natural resources. Utilizing the full potential and authority of the Conservation Districts Program and Conservation Districts offers a very real and legal means to accomplish that desire.
There is more opportunity for involvement and real beneficial impact at the local level than ever before.
But in order to realize the benefits, local people must become involved at the local level with their
Conservation Districts and the NVCCN to make opportunity become the reality. Contact your local
CD and become involved, attend meetings, ask questions, offer solutions, help identify and plan projects, volunteer to help accomplish what you want to see happen in your area. Then Nevada’s best kept Secret may become her best Success Story.
Works Cited: Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology, 18: 621–630. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: putting the last first. London: Longman. Holling, C. S. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Rittel, H. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 155-169.
More than 200 sheep were sold in auction to buyers from western U.S.
Many sheep were sold individually, some were sold by pen.
The annual auction attracted almost 100 buyers, some from distant states via telephone. Annual sheep sale held for new agricultural research and extension center UNR completes their first sale in Eureka County
More than 200 sheep were auctioned off at the annual sale of the nationally famous Rafter 7 sheep herd held recently at the Eureka County
Fairgrounds, and the first auction that will help fund the University of Nevada, Reno’s new Great Basin
Research & Extension Center located in Eureka.
Buyers came from all states adjoining Nevada plus nine others from around the country. There were 85 buyers at the fairgrounds and many buyers from distant states via telephone for the Sept. 12 event that brought in $137,000. “Overall the auction went well,” Gary McCuin, director of the Great Basin Research & Extension Center, said. “We were about a hundred dollars less than last year’s average of $750 a head. However, given the state of the nation and sheep industry due to COVID, drought and politics, this sale went pretty well.” The highest price paid for one sheep was $3,100, for a two-year old purebred Merino ram, and the lowest was $500. In all, 183 rams and 30 purebred Merino yearling ewes were sold. The rams were both purebred Merino and the popular Rambouillet/Merino crossbreeds developed in the 1990s by the University. They are not show sheep, and are grown out under harsh range conditions in the high-desert mountain ranges of Nevada.
Herd Comes Full Circle
The herd of 1,800 head of sheep, famous for their fine wool and heartiness on marginal grazing lands, was purchased by the University’s College of Agriculture, Biotechnology & Natural Resources in July, coming full circle after having sold the herd to Rick Powers in 2013. Bill Payne was hired as dean of the College in 2014. A few years later and with a better economic picture for the College, he showed an interest in reaquiring the herd. A couple of years ago he also began planning for an agriculture center based in Eureka that would focus on research to support the agriculture and livestock industry that would have a statewide, national and international impact. The two ideas merged into what is now the Great Basin Research & Extension Center operated by the Experiment Station and Extension. “I was very pleased with the auction,” Payne said. “The level of support from the industry and ranchers despite COVID-19, commodity prices, wildfires, and other sources of uncertainty was quite gratifying.” Payne added that the College had recently hired a sheep geneticist, who will join the College next July, and is currently recruiting a ranch manager to work in Eureka alongside Tom Filbin, the current manager. Other capital improvements and equipment purchases for the Center are underway. In an article in Sheep Industry News following this year’s sale, Rick Powers said, “I’m excited about the transition. I think that the interest the University has in this flock is historical. It was their baby and their property and I’m very happy that they are interested in bringing this flock home to the University. I believe that this flock has and will continue to have a tremendous impact on the sheep and wool industry in the United States.”
The sheep are both purebred Merinos and Rambouillet/ Merino crossbreeds that were initially developed about 30 years ago under the direction of Hudson Glimp, professor emeritus of animal biotechnology at the University’s Experiment Station. Observing that the efficiency and production of the sheep industry was less than ideal, Glimp sought to improve the sheep industry in the state and nationally, and made it part of his research. Working with Skip Avansino, and with generous support from the E.L. Wiegand Foundation of which Avansino was chairman, they began building a purebred Merino sheep flock at Rafter 7 Ranch in the Walker River Basin area of northern Nevada. Before 1989, Nevada had primarily Rambouillet sheep. The animals chosen to establish this new Merino flock were originally based or developed at the Dubois, Idaho U.S. Sheep Experiment Station, then under the management of Glimp. Glimp and Avansino then purchased 400 yearling purebred ewes that were used to develop the Merino stock in Nevada. Two hundred ewes came from Montana and 200 ewes came from South Dakota, both from ranches considered to be among the best in the Western U.S. Combining genetics from Australian sheep and the Rambouillet, they developed two breeding lines, Merino and the Merino-Rambouillet cross. These two lines have made significant progress over the foundation ewe flock during the crossbreeding and upgrading phase, and came to be recognized as the flagship Merino flock in the Western states. In 2013, the Wiegand Foundation wanted to leave the sheep industry, and Rafter 7 was sold to Powers. Soon after, because of the 2014 federal buyout of land in the Walker River Basin to maintain Walker Lake water levels, Powers relocated the Merino stock to Eureka County from the Rafter 7 Ranch in Yerington, Nevada. In Eureka, Powers continued the annual auction, attracting buyers from around the world and continuing the extensive and detailed record keeping, which includes a compilation of records that are used in the sale catalog with details on sire and dam history, as well as the birthing, weaning and wool records on the animals. Estimated breeding
values, or EBVs – heritable traits that can be tracked and measured – are calculated based on the Western Range Index as well as Rafter 7 EBVs for wool value, lamb value and combined value.
Wool quality improves with Rafter 7 genetics
Each of rams and ewes sold this year had wool samples taken in August analyzed through an Optical Fiber Diameter Analyzer that measures wool fiber thickness. and Overall wool and production numbers were then computed and analyzed to determine salability. This information was provided to interested buyers. “One of the unsolicited statements I heard from three or four buyers from Nevada and other states was how much the Rafter 7 Merino sheep program has helped improve wool quality and economics for the range sheep industry, and how appreciative they are that the University has stepped in to carry this breeding program forward,” McCuin said. “That makes it all worthwhile to me and is a direct and positive impact from the University in its land-grant mission,” he said. “From that standpoint credit must also go to Rick Powers, who the sheep were purchased from, and manager Tom Filbin for their expertise in breeding and managing this herd and for organizing and implementing an efficient and profitable event.” McCuin, who is also the University’s longtime Eureka County Extension educator, has gradually increased his involvement over the last two years to acquire the permits and land base for the College’s new initiative for rural Nevada, and significantly more time in the last year with herd manager Tom Filbin in assistance with determining how the University would accomplish the logistical operation of the sheep. But, the Center isn’t just about selling sheep. It will also address the related agricultural and naturalresource issues of sustainable grazing management of dryland rangelands, livestock, crop production under water-limited environments, and alternative water and irrigation strategies for crop production. Research will draw upon expertise from the College’s Experiment Station and Extension faculty and staff located across the state. Extension programming and additional projects will adapt to the needs of the community. “Extension has made a significant financial investment in the Great Basin Research & Extension Center, mainly because the research generated at the Center will be immediately available to producers through Extension,” Ivory Lyles, director of Extension and associate dean for engagement in the College, said. The College, one of the land-grant University’s founding colleges, is spearheading the enterprise on a 644-acre ranch in Diamond Valley near the town of Eureka, along with several grazing permits on Bureau of Land Management lands in the Diamond and Fish Creek Mountains surrounding Diamond Valley. The College, the Experiment Station and Extension offices have had a statewide presence for more than 100 years, including research happening around the state, seven field stations and Extension offices serving every county in Nevada.
Nevada researchers study cattle microRNA effects on meat quality, human health Team combines agriculture and nutrition programs with bioinformatics and molecular medicine
Media Contact | Mike Wolterbeek, UNR Communications Officer | 775-784-4547 | mwolterbeek@unr.edu A team of scientists at the University of Nevada, Reno for the animals. The 900-acre Field Lab in east Reno is are investigating how cattle microRNAs and the genes part of the College’s Experiment Station. Among other they influence affect the human body and health. things, it is home to 520 cattle, of which 24 are being MicroRNAs are small RNA molecules involved in the used in this study. All 24 cattle were pasture fed, and then regulation of gene expression that convert DNA code as their 110-day finishing diet, 12 were grass fed and 12 into proteins that carry out cellular functions, such as were corn fed. development, differentiation, growth and metabolism. “First, we want to know if feeding corn or grass will The interdisciplinary team of researchers is seeking to increase the expression of microRNAs that silence genes understand how feeding cattle different diets will affect that are antagonists to tenderness and fat deposition, the microRNA profile in beef; how microRNAs may be affecting meat quality,” de Mello said. “Second, we will used as biomarkers for meat quality; and how these small identify the microRNAs from each type of beef – corn molecules may affect human health, specifically chronic fed or grass fed – that are in high quantities after being diseases. digested. This will allow us to also then compare the beef In cooked and digested beef, the team will identify microRNAs that may be absorbed by the intestines and further regulate pathways associated to cancer, coronary artery disease, apoptosis of cardiac cells, repression of breast cancer, inflammatory diseases and diabetes. microRNA profiles to other diets that do not contain animal protein. Our goal is to first understand what beefderived microRNAs can promote at the small intestine level and then compare that with plant-based protein diets, for example.” “This nutritional value relationship to elements of meat has never before done in Nevada,” Amilton de Mello, a veterinarian and assistant professor of meat science and food safety in the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology & Natural Resources, said. “We’re looking at grass fed versus grain fed – and their nutritional values. We’re not The three-pronged research – animal growth performance, meat quality and the functional role of beef microRNAs in humans – will focus on identifying microRNAs in both fresh and digested beef. The microRNA profile in fresh beef will allow the team to identify biomarkers associated with the expression of genes relevant to their research. looking at vitamins and minerals, but at a molecular level, While Fonseca is responsible for conducting the animal small nucleotides, part of our DNA and how much from feeding trials at the Main Station Field Lab and for the animal goes to our genes.” calculations for statistical and mathematical modelling, The team, including three graduate students, will also look for biomarkers for meat tenderness when comparing grain-fed versus grass-fed cattle and map all the variables. “We’re also looking for what modulates sensory traits like flavor and tenderness,” de Mello said. “So we’re looking for microRNAs for tenderness and will silence the gene so it doesn’t let the meat get tough.” de Mello and Bradley Ferguson, in the College’s nutrition department, will identify the microRNAs in digested beef that may be associated with human diseases and possibly absorbed by the human intestines after cooking and digestion. De Mello is also responsible for evaluating quality parameters of the meat and identifying the microRNAs and genes of interest that modulate genes affecting tenderness and intramuscular fat deposition. The team is led by de Mello. He said this work, evaluating Tong Zhou, from the University’s School of Medicine, the interactions between genomics and nutrition, is will develop models evaluating which microRNAs can part of a new branch of science called nutrigenomics. silence specific genes. Nutritional values of foods are commonly related to carbohydrate, fat, protein, mineral and vitamin content. But in this approach, they are looking at how microRNAs of cattle may affect human health. Ultimately, their project will identify what animal diet affects the expression or suppression of desirable microRNAs from a human nutrition standpoint, and hypothesize nutrigenomic effects on human health. “This is the first project done here in Nevada where we’ve fed animals and analyzed growth performance, meat quality and nutritional values at a molecular level,” he said. “We’re marrying our agriculture and nutrition The work began in January 2020 and will run through the end of 2021, and is funded by the College’s Experiment Station and Hatch Act funds. programs, and bringing in bioinformatics and molecular medicine, looking at the nutritional value relationship to the elements of meat.” Cattle at UNR's 900acre Main Station As part of the project led by animal scientist and Field Lab at the east Assistant Professor of Agriculture Mozart Fonseca, the team remodeled the Main Station Field Laboratory feedlot to meet the needs of the research, adding gates, electronic water troughs, a weather station, new fences, end of Reno are being used for microRNA research to determine attributes such as meat quality and human panels on fences to minimize wind and a shade structure health effect
DECEMBER 2020 NEWS UPDATE Media Contact | Doug Busselman | doug@nvfb.org
More Fees Sought By Nevada Department of Agriculture Another change in regulations operating within the realm of the Nevada Department of Agriculture has been
noticed. This time it is from the Department’s Plant Pathology Lab and comes in the form of seeking to implement a fee schedule for diagnostic testing, analytical or other services. As we read the proposal (read here: https://files. constantcontact.com/ce74815a701/239065ff-1be84739-9637-a7897a7e4848.pdf) the new sections that the agency is wanting to insert (at the bottom of page 6 when you read the link above) into current Nevada Administrative Code is a proposal to create this fee rate, starting at $30 per sample for plant disease diagnosis. If that were to involve an on-site plant disease inspection and diagnosis you would be looking at $60 per hour – plus mileage. Another level for additional testing samples would be assessed on the basis of whatever the Department decides. This fee schedule would apply to samples or services requested by customers and state inspectors submitting samples on behalf of businesses or programs including, but not limited to, nursery stock inspections, export certificates, seed and plant health certificates, quarantine inspections, pesticide misuse and the hemp program. In order to move forward with the proposed fees, the check-the-box requirement for the Department is to ask those who might be impacted or interested to complete this online survey: www.surveymonkey.com/r/PB8PSYD They have determined that the survey is due from those who would complete this perfunctory requirement by January 1, 2021.
IN THIS ARTICLE
• Another set of proposed fee increases from Department of Ag • Department of Ag proposes legislation to change Board of Ag members • Congress passes massive funding bill for COVID and 2021 federal funding • AFBF 2021 Annual Meeting Details • Possible actions for agriculture to take in the zero greenhouse gas emission plans being made by governments • Regulation workshop: January 13 at 9 am
Nevada Department Of Ag Proposes
Bill To Change Governing Board Nevada Farm Bureau policy takes the view that the Nevada Board of Agriculture is responsible for the
direction taken by the Department of Agriculture. This view has also advocated for the Board of Agriculture to maintain strong connection with the state’s agricultural organizations, providing Nevada agricultural producers with the opportunity to give input and influence into services or programs which are needed to benefit farmers and ranchers. It would appear that the Nevada Department of Agriculture would prefer to have a different make-up to the Board of Agriculture than what current law outlines. The agency has proposed a bill draft that it is part of the pre-filed bills that lawmakers will be able to get started on right away (even if we don’t know what that format and process might turn out to be). • SB 54 (read here: www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/81st2021/ Bills/SB/SB54.pdf) restructures the current membership structure and qualifications for membership, downgrading the number of livestock producers from the current number of four to two and replacing these with new categories. One of the new members the Department seeks to include is a member who is working in the field of supplemental nutrition distribution. The other new member would be someone who is actively engaged in food manufacturing or animal processing. Nevada Farm Bureau policy (#127 – Board of Agriculture – Composition) does seek changes in the section of state law pertaining to the Nevada Board of Agriculture (NRS 561.055). Although there hasn’t been any discussion with the Department of Agriculture regarding their bill draft, the matter was raised with the Board of Agriculture during their December Board Meeting. Nevada Farm Bureau’s policy promotes a composition that offers a better representation regarding the state’s agricultural industry. The proposed changes by the Department of Agriculture are more geared to connecting with their programs (especially the significantly huge program with major funding that has been added to deal with distribution of food – Food and Nutrition: read information here: https://agri.nv.gov/Food/Food/) than considerations for agricultural production concepts that Farm Bureau’s policy would possibly contemplate. During the December Board of Ag meeting there was no actionable provision on the agenda which would allow the Board of Ag or the public to give input. It was basically a mention made in passing during the Director’s Board report. The legislation (SB 54) will be going to the Senate Natural Resources Committee when things get rolling in the 2021 Legislature. These are the Senators who serve on this committee and who could be interested in hearing from you in reaction to your view on the changes that the Department of Agriculture has for the Board that they are supposed to be reporting to:
Chairwoman Senator Yvanna Cancela
Yvanna.Cancela@sen.state.nv.us
Vice Chair Senator Melanie Scheible
Melanie.Scheible@sen.state.nv.us
Senator Chris Brooks
Chris.Brooks@sen.state.nv.us
Senator Pete Goicoechea
Pete.Goicoechea@sen.state.nv.us
Senator Ira Hansen
Ira.Hansen@sen.state.nv.us
Latest Congressional COVID Relief
Package Being Sorted Through The briefing that state Farm Bureaus received from the American Farm Bureau Federation’s (AFBF) staff on Monday, December 21st was that there was plenty to be grateful about in the massive 5,593 page bill that was
concluded over the weekend. The legislation includes not only the next round of the COVID Relief package, but also the $1.4 trillion fiscal year 2021 funding bill. Not every detail has been discovered in the over-stuffed legislation, but the highlights include $13 billion more in total policies and programs for support of farmers, ranchers and the ag. sector, read that information here: https://www.fb.org/market-intel/whats-in-the-newcovid-19-relief-package-for-agriculture Broadband, the spending opportunity that keeps taking and taking, is getting another $7 billion from the legislation with $300 million in specific earmarked dollars for more buildout of rural broadband. The measures also included a number of tax extenders, which Farm Bureau has been working to fit into some type of legislation to pass before this session of Congress ended. Also included in the category of necessary tax language were the provisions to make certain that there is deductibility of expenses paid out for forgiven Paycheck Protection Program loans.
The funding for federal government spending for fiscal year 2021 included provisions that deal with another priority for Farm Bureau, approval of the every two-year water projects legislation under the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) umbrella. This time around approval was granted for 46 new projects and the ability to start study of another 27 additional projects. Extension was again granted for the exemption that livestock haulers have in using electronic logging device mandates.
American Farm Bureau Federation
Virtual Annual Meeting Provides
All Members With Ability To Attend Over the past several weeks there has been an effort to provide the opportunity for those who are interested to register for the American Farm Bureau Federation
2021 annual meeting. This year’s event will be virtual and open to all members who wish to register and connect up on the Internet. The AFB Virtual Convention will be held Jan. 10-13, 2021, and for the first time ever, registration fees are being waived to give all Farm Bureau members and anyone interested in agriculture the opportunity to experience one of agriculture’s premier events from the comfort and safety of home. “We are excited to open up the doors of this event and to bring home the high-quality content our attendees have come to expect from our events,” AFBF President Zippy Duvall said. “Our featured speakers this year are no strangers to Farm Bureau. We are honored to have Mike Rowe, Rorke Denver and Beth Ford join us as we reflect on this unique year and press on, stronger together, for agriculture and our rural communities.” Best known for his hit TV series Dirty Jobs and most recently his show Returning the Favor featuring people making a difference in their communities, Mike Rowe will join the AFB Virtual Convention as our special guest for a fireside chat in the closing general session. As the country’s leading advocate for skilled labor and the CEO of the mikeroweWORKS Foundation, Rowe seeks to debunk myths and misperceptions about blue-collar jobs. His foundation has granted millions of dollars in scholarships to help close the skills gap. Land O’ Lakes President and CEO Beth Ford will join AFBF President Zippy Duvall to discuss hot topics and issues facing agriculture today. A native of Sioux City, Iowa, Ford is a passionate advocate for farmers and rural America and is committed to connecting consumers to the farmers and rural communities who grow their food. Ford was recently recognized by Fortune Magazine as one of the World’s 50 Greatest Leaders and Most Powerful Women. Under her leadership, Land O’Lakes, Inc. will soon join AFBF in the century club in 2021, when it celebrates 100 years as a farmer-owned cooperative. Workshop topics range from the future of the livestock industry to financial planning for disasters and from standing up for agriculture with effective advocacy to sustainability in 2021 and what it will mean for farmers and ranchers. The following link offers a detailed look at the workshops to be held as well as the scheduled times: https://annualconvention.fb.org/educational-workshops The schedule of the events is located at this link: https:// annualconvention.fb.org/schedule-of-events Registration is required for everyone attending and members can use this link to take care of getting registered: https://registration.experientevent.com/ShowAFB211/ Individuals should use the top box at the top of the registration site. It is titled: “Virtual Annual Convention Registration – For Use by Farm Bureau Members and NonMembers.” There is also new information that has been released on the American Farm Bureau Foundation and the “Ag Foundation Night In.” Read that information here: https://annualconvention.fb.org/news/singers-saraevans-and-phil-vassar-headline-foundation-night-in Register to participate and enjoy headline entertainment featuring Sara Evans and Phil Vassar!
What Nevada Division Of
Environmental Protection (NDEP) Might Have In Mind For Agriculture’s
Fit For Addressing Climate Change This past weekend there was a radio program which included Bradley Crowell the Director of the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources discussing the recently released Nevada Climate Strategy.
One of the sub-agencies in the Department, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), has included their thoughts on possible ways that various sectors, might need to do to bring about the State’s goal of greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. (Read the information here: https://climateaction.nv.gov/ policies/ndep-policies/
At this point the full weight of state government mandating specific actions have not been started, but it would seem likely that the gears are being greased to get the game started. The first areas of focus are thought to be electrical generation and transportation.
Agriculture is way down the list (at this point) and, depending on what the incoming Biden Administration might do from the federal government level, the activities for agriculture could take more of an incentive-based approach.
Carbon sequestration appears to be the most likely firststeps. From the list that NDEP has assembled they appear to be considering theoretical concepts as opposed to whether they have any applied relevance for what happens in the real world of Nevada agriculture.
• Promote and provide incentives for the adoption of silvopasture practices. • Promote manure and nitrogen fertilizer management practices that reduce GHG emissions. • Promote practices to reduce emissions from enteric fermentation.
Carbon Sequestration
• Provide incentives to sequester carbon through land restoration and retirement, thereby removing highly erodible or environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production. • Promote “no-till” and “low-till” farmland management practices to protect soil from erosion. • Promote hedgerow, windbreaks, and shelterbelts best practices to protect soil from erosion. • Explore opportunities and incentives to increase carbon sequestration on agricultural and range lands. Given the political priority that national and state governments are putting their emphasis, whether real or otherwise, climate change and government actions to accomplish their agendas will be made something that is going to need attention. As we’ve had explained clearly in the past, “elections have consequences.”
Nevada Water Resources
Announces Regulation Workshop Circle January 13 on your calendars! At 9:00 a.m., a virtual workshop will be held on the proposed regulations for the extension of time.
As we reported in last week’s newsletter, after a rather contentious workshop that took place this past summer, covering an expansive regulation package for language changed in law (AB62) for extension of time, there were changes made to divide the one large package into three regulations. (Read AB 62 pdf here: www.leg.state.nv.us/ Session/80th2019/Bills/AB/AB62_EN.pdf) At this point, the review that Farm Bureau has made for the rewrite of the regulation, there has been major improvements coming from this latest version. (Read rewrite here: https://files.constantcontact. com/ce74815a701/a426b3c1-8db0-45e8-b492f2e7d906fd18.pdf) We welcome feedback from members who have more extensive experience on how the outline for this process fits from a practical point of view. For the remaining two proposals for regulations, one of the rewrites (covering water surveyors) has been released, but Nevada Farm Bureau has not made a point to work on that set of regulations. One other proposal is anticipated, but has not come out for review. When we arrive closer to the scheduled workshop (ahead of January 13), Farm Bureau will provide the necessary details for providing links to join the virtual meeting.
