The Progressive Rancher - MARCH 2025 by The Progressive Rancher

IN THIS ISSUE

WORKING IN THE SHADOWS

It’s come to my attention lately that a lot of folks really don’t know just what NCA does. I have had quite a few neighbors, friends, or even family ask me to enlighten them on the activities of our organization and when I start enlightening them, they are always surprised. Not only slightly surprised, very surprised! The level, frequency, and intensity that we work catch most people off guard. The common theme of “I didn’t know you had that much impact” is most frequently the reply.

As this conversation is continuing to happen I feel compelled to touch on it in this month’s article. We’ve been accused of being the “good ol boys club” sitting around drinking martinis. In all my time with NCA I still haven’t been invited to a martini lunch! Ranchers typically have an introvert personality compiled with

a recluse mentality. Self-promoting just isn’t in their nature. A sale yard owner that likes to throw rocks from 100 miles away recently went on a rant about a past president of NCA tearing him down saying he just works for a big pharma company insinuating that he doesn’t care about the livestock business in Nevada. If you don’t think Jon Griggs has done more good for the ranching industry in Nevada you need your head examined!!! The problem is he quietly does it in the shadows.

A hallway conversation with an Agency person, a quiet lunch with a Senator, or a vote at the NCBA convention that may or may not have went the way we would have liked it to go are just a part of what NCA does for its membership but no one ever sees. Our work in the shadows will probably never change but that doesn’t mean we

aren’t doing it. Don’t believe the rock throwers. If you have questions about what we do, ask us or better yet come to the meetings. Come to the Convention and get involved. Enough rant from me this morning. I’m off to try to get something done in the shadows!

Cheers, Hanes Holman

Hanes Holman | President, NCA

Martin Paris | NCA Executive Director | O: 775-738-9214

Happy March everyone! March is one of my favorite times of year with lots of good college basketball and of course, the beginning of calving season for most. It’s been a pretty warm winter thus far, but my fingers are still crossed for decent calving weather.

NCA leadership recently attended the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Convention in San Antonio, Texas. As always, many issues were discussed. The new Administration has thus far taken the phrase “hit the ground running” to a whole different level. As the Executive Orders and policy changes continue to roll out at a breakneck speed, it’s yet to be determined as what it means for livestock producers. Soon cabinet level and other key leadership positions will be filled, tasked with implementing the Administration’s vision so as they get settled in, we should start to see things take shape. Soon there should be opportunity to address issues and NCA is eager to engage on building a strong future for ag policy.

The things we do know at this point in time - the Bureau of Land Management’s Public Lands Rule has been put on hold indefinitely. As a refresher, the Public Land

Rule was made effective in the summer of last year and allowed third party entities to lease public land for up to 10 years for the purpose of restoration activities. The issue at heart is whether or not the BLM and the Rule considered livestock grazing to be compatible with these restoration efforts. Since the rule became effective, there has not been a restoration lease established on federal lands. NCA worked hard to secure representation on the BLM Public Lands Rule Advisory Committee in the event the Rule were to continue forward, however, the committee’s work has been indefinitely postponed along with the implementation of the Rule at this point in time. NCA stands at the ready to ensure livestock grazing is protected should the Rule be considered at a later point in time.

Also in the midst of the transition, NCA filed a protest against the latest edition of Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments. NCA’s protest cited a lack of coordination, rushed timeline, lack of consistency with the state’s plan, inconsistencies with mapping and other data, amongst several other concerns. At the end of the day, the Record of Decision for the proposal was not

Fish Creek Ranch in Eureka Co.

Offering a 50% interest in the Deeded Fish Creek Ranch with all the Ag use to the buyer. Lots of irrigation water from springs that arise on the ranch. Mine owner wants to reserve some water rights and Sage Grouse Credits. 2957 deeded with approx. 2000 water righted out of the springs, 5 homes plus multiple other barns, shops and outbuildings. $3,000,000

This farm in Railroad Valley 320 acres with 240 acres of Certificated Water rights. Custom home 55% complete. Not far off Hwy 6 and in the same valley as the farm above. $900,000 Call Paul on this one 775-752-0592

signed for the Nevada/California plan amendments. This means that for now, Nevada is currently operating under the guidance of the 2015 Sage Grouse Plans. Newly appointed Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, has released several Secretarial Orders in his first few weeks on the job. One of which dubbed “Unleashing American Energy”, provides some much-needed regulatory relief. While the Order is primarily geared toward expanding domestic energy production, livestock grazers may find some solace in that the Order calls for revising all relevant drafts and finalized resource management plans involving sage grouse. This may provide the opportunity to provide some much-needed edits to the plan that will actually recognize the positive impact livestock grazing can have in sage grouse habitat.

On another front, the 83rd Session of the Nevada Legislature began on in the first part of February. NCA has been hard at work reviewing each piece of legislation and its potential impact on agriculture throughout the state. Be sure to stay tuned for updates on the happenings at our State Legislature.

MACBETH MEADOW BROME GRASS UP TO YOUR SHOULDERS

We run out of creek water about June 1, and Macbeth still kicked out the tons. We had to raise the swather to get through it!

Of the five meadow bromes on the market, Macbeth is the only one that excels on dryland or low water. A meadow brome will always be your highest yielding grass! Macbeth will have leaves about as wide as barley.

TESTIMONIAL

The Macbeth did extremely well! We take only one cutting and graze the rest, but it always cuts 31/2 ton which is excellent for 6200 ft-elev. We normally put 2 windrows together for bailing, but could only bale one windrow on the Macbeth.

James Willis: Willis Ranch Cokeville, WY

*Jerry Hoagland, Seven High Ranch, Reynolds Creek, Owyhee Co, Idaho

RANGELAND MONITORING WORKSHOP

March 18, 2025 • 10am - 3pm

(Coffee ready at 9:30)

Western Folklife Center • Elko, NV

Lunch available, $20 suggested donation

Hosted by the Northeastern Nevada Stewardship Group

TOPICS

Overview of rangeland monitoring

Overview of Rancher’s Monitoring Guide and smartphone monitoring app Agency perspectives about cooperative monitoring

Descriptions and hands-on demonstrations of monitoring methods

Demonstrations of the NDA Rangeland Monitoring App “Stay after class” for practice and discussion

PRESENTERS

Paul Meiman, Extension Range Specialist, UNR Cooperative Extension

Brad Schultz, Extension Natural Resources Specialist, UNR Cooperative Extension

Dave Voth, Rangeland/Ranch Consultant, Integrated Grazing Management

Gerry Miller, Retired Natural Resources Specialist, NDCNR

Bill Wells, Rangeland Management Specialist, USDA Forest Service

Lorrin Peters, Rangeland Management Specialist, USDI BLM

Jeff Moore, Rangeland Management Specialist, USDI BLM

March is Nutrition Month: Showcasing the Value of Beef

by Nevada Beef Council | Courtesy of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board

March marks National Nutrition Month, a time dedicated to highlighting the importance of making informed food choices and developing healthy eating patterns. For Nevada’s cattle ranchers, this month is a perfect opportunity to see how your Beef Checkoff investments are making a difference in promoting beef as a nutritious part of a balanced diet.

The Nevada Beef Council (NBC) is proud to represent the hard work and dedication of our state’s producers by ensuring that beef’s nutritional value is recognized when presented to Nevada consumers and supported by research. Through strategic initiatives, the NBC works to promote beef’s nutritional benefits to consumers, health professionals, and thought leaders.

Investing in Nutrition Research

One of the primary ways your Beef Checkoff investments are put to work is through ongoing nutrition research. Recent studies funded by the Beef Checkoff, including the Beef WISE study conducted by the University of Colorado Anschutz Health and Wellness Center, show that lean beef can support heart health and help maintain muscle mass, both of which are vital components of a healthy lifestyle.1 These findings are shared with dietitians, physicians, and fitness professionals, positioning beef as a trusted source of high-quality protein, iron, zinc, and B vitamins.

“The research supported by the Beef Checkoff emphasizes what ranchers have known for generations: beef is a nutrient powerhouse,” said Nevada Beef Council Executive Director Bill Dale. “By sharing these findings with health professionals and the public, we’re helping to ensure beef remains a trusted choice at the dinner table.”

Reaching Health Professionals Across the State

Kicking off 2025, the NBC is expanding its outreach to medical offices across the state to share the latest research on beef’s nutritional benefits. By providing physicians and healthcare professionals with credible, research-backed information through beef toolkits, the NBC helps ensure beef remains a trusted source of protein for patients looking to maintain a balanced, nutrient-rich diet.

The NBC’s efforts focus on key areas such as nutrition for infants, toddlers, and teens, as well as the role of lean beef in supporting heart health. By addressing these specific life stages and health priorities, the NBC highlights beef’s versatility and importance in promoting overall well-being.

Celebrating Producers’ Impact

As a Nevada cattle rancher, you play an essential role in producing the high-quality beef that fuels these efforts. Your dedication to raising cattle is the foundation of every checkoff-funded initiative.

Together, we are ensuring that beef’s nutritional benefits are recognized and celebrated, not just in March, but year-round.

1. Sayer DR, et al. Equivalent reductions in body weight during the Beef WISE Study: Beef’s Role in Weight Improvement, Satisfaction, and Energy. Obesity Science & Practice. 2017; 298-310.

About Nevada Beef Council

Our Mission: Engage Nevada beef producers and stakeholders with consumer outreach and education to increase beef demand.

Our Values: We provide factual information to consumers and beef producers. We use checkoff dollars efficiently and effectively. We represent the entire Nevada beef industry. www.nevadabeef.org

Garlic & Herb Steak Salad

The key to this protein-packed salad is coating lean Top Sirloin with a seasoned herb blend before grilling. Serve steak slices over spinach tossed in dressing with grilled onions, tomatoes and eggs.

Ingredients:

1 beef Top Sirloin Steak Boneless, cut 3/4” thick (about 1 pound)

1 tablespoon garlic & herb or onion & herb no-salt seasoning

1 medium red onion, cut into 1/2” thick slices

6 cups fresh baby spinach

1 medium tomato, cut into wedges

2 hard-boiled eggs, peeled and sliced

Dressing:

2 tablespoons honey mustard

2 tablespoons olive oil

1 tablespoon water

2 teaspoons garlic & herb or onion & herb no-salt seasoning

2 teaspoons fresh lemon juice

Directions:

1. Combine Dressing ingredients in small bowl. Reserve 1/4 cup dressing for salad. Brush remaining dressing on onion slices.

2. Press 1 tablespoon seasoning blend evenly onto beef Top Sirloin Steak Boneless. Place steak in center of grid over medium, ash-covered coals; arrange onion slices around steak. Grill steak, covered, 7 to 11 minutes (over medium heat on preheated gas grill, covered, 8 to 13 minutes) for medium rare (145°F) to medium (160°F) doneness, turning occasionally. Grill onion 10 to 12 minutes (gas grill times remain the same) or until tender, turning occasionally.

3. Carve beef into slices. Divide spinach evenly among four plates. Top with steak slices, tomatoes, onions and eggs. Drizzle evenly with reserved 1/4 cup dressing.

Cook’s Tip: To hard-boil eggs, place eggs in pan and fill with enough water to cover eggs by one inch. Heat just to boiling; cover pan, turn off heat and let eggs stand for 15 minutes. Immediately run cold water over eggs or place them in ice water until completely cooled. Peel and serve.

Nutrition information per serving: 302 Calories; 126 Calories from fat; 14g Total Fat (4 g Saturated Fat; 8 g Monounsaturated Fat;) 163 mg Cholesterol; 180 mg Sodium; 10 g Total Carbohydrate; 2.4 g Dietary Fiber; 31 g Protein; 3.4 mg Iron; 11 mg NE Niacin; 0.6 mg Vitamin B6; 1.7 mcg Vitamin B12; 5.2 mg Zinc; 38.3 mcg Selenium; 157.1 mg Choline. This recipe is an excellent source of Protein, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12, Zinc, Selenium, and Choline; and a good source of Iron.

NCBA Convention Musings

You have heard it from me before that the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Convention is a great experience. Earlier in the month of February I attended the most recent convention in San Antonio, Texas. Every cattle rancher in this country should attend a convention at least once.

The reasons are varied. Cattlemen’s College provides educational opportunities on subjects as varied as animal nutrition, estate planning, including management transition, and soil health. There are policy development meetings because at NCBA the grass roots really does initiate and create the policies that the paid staff implements and this is particularly true about the staff lobbying in Washington D.C.

The entertainment and social get togethers are like none I’ve never experienced anywhere else. Over the years I have made some of the best friends I have ever known. Furthermore, it seems every time I attend a convention. I come home having made a new friend. The highlight for me is seeing old friends, making new friends and learning from every conversation I have.

Another highlight of any of these conventions is attending the trade show. I have been told by people who have been to other agricultural trade shows that NCBA’s stands head and shoulders above other show there is.

This show had displays and information scattered over six acres inside the San Antonio convention center. There were close to 400 exhibitors. The categories of exhibitors ran the agricultural gamut. Here’s a list: Animal Health, Animal ID, Associations and Organizations, Breeders, Computers and Software, Consultants, Equipment, Fencing, Finance and Insurance, Genetics, Haying, Herd Management, Education, Processing, Publications, Retail (Clothes, Jewelry, etc.), Seed, Structures, Veterinary and Others.

It would take a week to see and experience everything the trade show has to offer, but if you are looking for information about a few specific things that make your operation better, you could not find a better place to obtain that information in a one-stop shop. In my experience most ranchers have a thirst for knowledge and new innovative ways to make their operations more efficient and their techniques more effective.

One subject matter caught my eye as I wandered through the trade show this year. We all know by now the nation’s cowherd is the smallest in six or seven decades. And yet, we are raising more pounds of beef-high quality tasty and healthy protein- than we ever have. For critics of the beef industry, I am sure they would rather not be discussing this at all.

Think about this; next time a friend or neighbor not in the beef business asks about the so-called negative environmental impacts of beef cattle, just say this. We are using fewer acres and raising fewer cattle than we did 50-60 years ago, but producing the same number of pounds of beef. This is the very essence of sustainability, efficiency and innovation that few industries can boast of, but the cattle industry can.

Where does this progressiveness come from?

First it comes from the producers themselves who are always looking to improve their operations, through better cattle genetics, better land and soil management, better tools in the software and computer systems they use, review of academic research in all the relevant factors dealing with their operations, among other things. Where do these innovators get answers to their questions? Many times I have had answers to my questions by doing a little research at places like the NCBA trade show and engaging in a conversation with an exhibitor.

I believe it is producers who have driven academic research by asking questions and having conversations with county extension agents. This dialogue has helped create the most effective agriculture and animal husbandry in the history of the world. Let’s continue to be curious and act on that curiosity.

By the way, be vigilant because the legislature is working in Carson City.

I‘ll see you soon.

Nevada Water Solutions LLC

Water Rights / Resource Permitting Expertise

Thomas K. Gallagher, PE

775 • 825 • 1653 / FAX 775 • 825 • 1683

333 Flint Street / Reno, NV 89501

tomg@nevadawatersolutions.com

ANNUAL PRODUCTION SALE / FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 2025

1:00 PM / AT THE RANCH NEAR BANCROFT, IDAHO

OFFERING

Livestock and backyard poultry biosecurity measures necessary during disease outbreaks

By Tracy Shane, Extension state livestock specialist; and Gary McCuin, Extension agriculture and natural resources educator

As many of the readers of this publication are fully aware, the U.S. has been facing another outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) since 2022. The last major HPAI outbreak in U.S. domestic poultry occurred in 2014-2015. What has characterized this recent outbreak compared to previous time periods has been: 1) the geographic spread and increased number of affected flocks in domestic poultry, 2) the infections of H5N1 detected in novel mammalian species, and 3) the identification of H5N1 in dairy cattle.

The Nevada Department of Agriculture has responded to these threats by increasing testing availability for domestic poultry and dairy cattle. They have also responded by implementation of a Nevada-specific silo testing program within the USDA National Milk Testing strategy; provision of personal protective equipment to affected premises; communication with the general public and the farmers/ranchers about the virus; and shared information about H5N1 at the Nevada Cattlemen’s Update, Nevada Small Farms Conference and numerous other stakeholder events. The Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health has responded with educational information for farm workers and health care providers. University of Nevada, Reno Extension has responded by creating a livestock biosecurity website for sharing information regarding everyday biosecurity, enhanced biosecurity, and resources for teaching biosecurity to youth livestock exhibitors. Extension has also provided biosecurity information through workshop presentations at the Nevada Cattlemen’s Update, the Small Farms Conference and the Beginning Farmer-Rancher Program.

While there is no current public health risk to eating properly cooked poultry products, beef products or pasteurized milk products, it is important for our Nevada agriculture community to understand the risks and heightened biosecurity concerns at this time. Everyday biosecurity efforts can and do make a difference in protecting the health of the livestock you raise. Everyday biosecurity efforts include but are not limited to the following:

• Quarantine of new animals to the farm for 30 days

• Testing breeding animals for common diseases of concern before purchase or at start of quarantine (Johne’s disease, ovine progressive pneumonia, BVD)

• Separating animals into age-group pens whenever possible to reduce transmission of disease between older and younger groups of animals

• Establishing and maintaining veterinary-client-patient relationships

• Diligently washing hands after handling livestock and poultry

• Washing and disinfecting all livestock and poultry equipment between travel events

• Disinfecting shared equipment between each animal and/or farm unit (shearing/clipping equipment, trailers, etc.) each time it is used

• Reducing and working toward prevention of rodent and wild bird access to livestock and poultry feed and water

• Controlling insects as much as practical during outbreaks of insect-borne diseases (West Nile virus, vesicular stomatitis, pigeon fever)

H5N1 in wild birds and domestic poultry

Domestic poultry species (ducks, geese, chickens, turkeys, etc.) are at risk of contracting various genotypes of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). Waterfowl species such as ducks and geese may not show signs of illness and can spread the low-pathogenic and high-pathogenic forms of the virus to other birds. The H5N1 virus has been circulating widely across many different species of wild birds, not just waterfowl, as we have seen in past outbreaks. In Nevada, USDA-APHIS reports H5N1 infections between 2022 and 2024 in the following species of waterfowl: mallard, green-winged teal, Northern shoveler, American wigeon, Northern pintail, Canada goose, gadwall, cinnamon teal and American white pelican. Other bird species affected in Nevada include: greater sage grouse, Cooper’s hawk, red-tailed hawk, great horned owl and California quail. Nevada counties with positive detections include: Carson City, Churchill, Clark, Douglas, Elko, Humboldt, Lyon, Mineral, Pershing and Washoe. Just because there hasn’t been a report of detection in wild birds in your county, it doesn’t mean the virus isn’t there. There have been four backyard flock detections of HPAI H5N1 in Nevada since 2022, the most recent being in Churchill County in February 2025.

TABLE 1. List of additional wild bird and mammalian species with reported H5N1 detections in neighboring states to Nevada:

Bird species (neighboring states (Idaho, Utah) and neighboring counties (Arizona, California, Oregon):

American crow, bald eagle, barn owl, black-billed magpie, bufflehead, common goldeneye, common raven, eared grebe, Eastern screech owl, European starling, golden eagle, great blue heron, gull, Harris hawk, house sparrow and other sparrow species, mourning dove, mute swan, peregrine falcon, rock pigeon, snow goose, Swainson’s hawk, trumpeter swan, turkey vulture, Western grebe, Western screech owl, white-winged dove, wood duck

Mammalian species:

Albert’s squirrel, American martin, black rat, bobcat, domestic cat, fisher, house mouse, mountain lion, raccoon, red fox, skunk

For those concerned about your backyard poultry flocks, there are several clinical signs to look for. Domestic chickens and turkeys can have mortality rates as high as 90-100%, and often infected birds experience mortality within 48 hours of onset of clinical signs. Clinical signs you might detect before death could include: decreased activity and going off feed; purple discolorations and swelling of comb, wattle or other parts of the bird; reduced egg production or malformed eggs; nasal discharge, coughing and sneezing; reduced coordination; and diarrhea (AVMA).

HPAI is passed from bird to bird through contact with feces, bedding materials, and feed and/or water sources with infected birds. Humans can spread HPAI from outdoor environments accessed by wild birds to their domestic poultry through fomites. Fomites are objects that can carry viruses and other pathogens from one place to another place. Here are some recommendations to consider for your chickens and turkeys:

• If domestic poultry housing allows direct contact between poultry and wild birds, make modifications to the housing to prevent current and future contact.

• If domestic poultry housing currently allows wild birds to access feed, water or other areas also accessible to poultry, modify the housing and feeding/watering systems to prevent contact of feed and water systems with wild birds, including water buckets and hoses.

• Shoes and clothing in contact with areas frequented by wild birds can carry the HPAI virus to housing of domestic poultry. Devise a method for changing shoes to dedicated footwear before entering your poultry houses/pens.

• Conduct a biosecurity assessment of the poultry housing area. Evaluate the risks fairly and work toward reducing exposure risks. Some improvements could take time and financial resources to complete. Plan and prioritize those projects that have the greatest impact on reduction of risk.

• Refrain from visiting other domestic poultry housing at other properties. If this is not possible, clean and disinfect shoes before and after visiting other properties, such as when collecting eggs for friends and neighbors. Clean footwear and clothing between visits to these other properties.

• Don’t pick up or handle dead birds without nitrile or latex gloves. Dispose of the dead bird(s) and gloves where household cats and domestic poultry cannot come in contact with them. If more than three dead wild birds are found in one location, please contact the Nevada Department of Wildlife regarding possible testing for HPAI at 775-688-1500 or nate.lahue@ndow.org.

• To every extent possible, do not allow household cats to consume dead birds.

• If HPAI is suspected in domestic poultry, please contact the Nevada Department of Agriculture regarding possible testing for HPAI at diseasereporting@agri.nv.gov.

H5N1 in dairy cattle

Since March 2024, there have been over 970 dairy herds affected in 17 states by H5N1 infections in dairy cattle. Dairy cattle mortality is low with most cows fully recovering to pre-infection milk production within four weeks. The number of affected cows per dairy was 3-20% in the first nine farms studied by Cornell researchers in 2024. High levels of virus have been detected in milk samples from infected dairy cows. Transmission routes have been hypothesized to include transmission through the milking process and through respiratory/oral routes. To date, there have been no detections of H5N1 in beef cattle.

Clinical signs of H5N1 infection in dairy cows include: reduced milk production, abnormal texture and more yellow-colored milk, reduced feed intake, changes to feces, fever and intermittent nasal discharge. There are not conclusive studies demonstrating all the routes of H5N1 transmission possible from dairy to dairy. In addition to the everyday biosecurity recommendations provided above, dairy producers are encouraged to test and isolate sick cattle; sanitize milking equipment, if possible, between each animal; keep a closed herd or conduct testing before transporting cattle onto the dairy; and increase biosecurity efforts for vehicles and people coming on and off the dairy. Purchasing feed from mills that practice heightened biosecurity efforts is also recommended.

Extension has put together a website on livestock biosecurity and is keeping it up to date (https://extension.unr.edu/livestock-biosecurity/). The website shares information and resources for biosecurity practices, assessments and youth programs that have been developed over the years by several land-grant institutions. Extension is also hosting a workshop in Elko and virtually on June 5 that will show how to write enhanced biosecurity plans for continuity of business for livestock and poultry producers who would like to plan for heighted biosecurity risks of HPAI or other foreign animal diseases. The workshop will feature instruction from a national-level expert in enhanced biosecurity planning, provide information on the secure food supply plans, and provide all the tools necessary for livestock producers to write an enhanced biosecurity plan for submission to the state veterinarian. If you have questions about how to evaluate or improve your biosecurity practices for your farm/ranch, contact your veterinarian, or your Extension biosecurity trainers Gary McCuin, agriculture educator in Eureka County, and Tracy Shane, state livestock specialist.

WVM Headquarters Cottonwood, CA March 21

Consignment Deadline: March 13

Consignment Deadline: March 24

WVM Headquarters or Harris Ranch Cottonwood or Coalinga, CA April 10

www.wvmcattle.com

Working To Stop A Bad Ag Labor Bill

By Doug Busselman | NFB Executive Vice

What it means to measure work by acres instead of hours…

This understanding of the work that farming and ranching requires goes beyond a catchy phrase or an appeal in an advertisement which recognizes the hard work and the number of hours it takes for farming and ranching accomplished.

Farming and ranching is not based on punching a time clock and putting in 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. timelines. It’s about doing what it takes to get things done that needs doing.

One of the proposals pending consideration in the 2025 Session of the Nevada Legislature is a bill seeking to remove the current exemption in Nevada Law for agricultural work regarding overtime hours. Other portions of the bill also makes substantial other changes for what is required for agricultural workers to receive.

Senate Bill 172 calls for the inclusion of the “Agricultural Workers’ Bill of Rights” in state law. It removes the current exemption for agriculture in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 608.018) which covers agricultural workers from over-time requirements. If the bill were to become law it would require agricultural employees to be paid one-and-a-half of their regular hourly compensation rates for overtime for any working time beyond 8 hours per day or beyond 40 hours per week.

Agricultural employees are defined in SB 172 as employees who perform a service or activity described by federal law, 29 U.S.C. 203 (f) - “Agriculture” includes farming in all its branches and among other things includes the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities (including commodities defined as agricultural commodities in section 1141j(g) of title 12), the raising of livestock, bees, fur-bearing animals, or poultry, and any practices (including any forestry or lumbering operations) performed by a farmer or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market.”

The bill establishes that an agricultural employer shall not employ an employee for a continuous period of 5 hours without permitting the employee to have a meal period of at least 30 minutes. All other employers, under Nevada law are required to provide such a half-hour meal break for 8 hours of continuous employment.

President

Most of the bill delves into setting up the framework of what is being termed the “Agricultural Workers’ Bill of Rights.”

An example of what the “Agricultural Workers’ Bill of Rights” includes is covered in Section 10 of the bill where “key service providers” must be available to an agricultural worker. Section 12 of the bill spells out when the key service provider access would be made available and also directs the Nevada Labor Commissioner to adopt regulations requiring periods of time when an agricultural worker is entitled to have access to “key service providers.”

The “key service providers” who must be made available to ag workers, dictated in SB 172, include:

• A provider of health care, as defined in NRS 629.081

• A community health worker, as defined in NRS 449.0027

• A teacher

• An attorney licensed to practice in this State

• A public official

• A member of the clergy

It seems somewhat unique for such prescriptive requirements of services mandated in state law for anyone else who works in Nevada, but then there are additional points included in the “Agricultural Workers’ Bill of Rights” which have little to no relevance to our state’s agriculture.

Various ideas, such as the amount of attention that is given to short-handed hoes, offers the understanding that the legislation is based on a model for workers like those who are migrant workers in other states, versus the nature of those who work in Nevada agriculture.

Another telling element of what the real nature of the legislative intentions are can be found in Section 19 of SB 172 where it provides the right for agricultural workers to self-organization and to bargain for themselves and to form and join or assist labor organizations to bargain for the purpose of collective bargaining.

If SB 172 were to become law, the Nevada Labor Commission would become far more engaged in regulating Nevada agriculture than is now currently the case. Section 18 of the bill requires the Labor Commissioner to adopt regulations to apply the minimum hourly wage published pursuant to Section 16 of Article 15 of the Nevada Constitution to agricultural workers and ensure that the requirements prescribed in NRS – Chapter 608 apply to agricultural workers.

Under the bill the Labor Commissioner is directed to establish an Advisory Committee on Agricultural Work, within the Office of the Labor Commissioner. This advisory committee would have nine members.

• Two members who are agricultural workers, appointed by the Labor Commissioner

• Two members who are advocates of agricultural workers, appointed by the Labor Commissioner

• Three members who are representatives of agricultural employers, appointed by the Director of the State Department of Agriculture

• Two members from the Farmworker Law Program of Nevada Legal Services (or its successor organization)

The Advisory Committee on Agricultural Work is assigned the responsibilities of analyzing data and information regarding working conditions for agricultural workers and presenting reports to the Nevada Legislature.

Members of the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee will be given the first official opportunity to discuss SB 172 when they have a hearing on the bill.

The Senate Commerce and Labor Committee Members:

Senator Julie Pazina, Chair Julie.Pazina@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Skip Daly, Vice Chair Skip.Daly@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Melanie Scheible Melanie.Scheible@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Roberta Lange

Roberta.Lange@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Edgar Flores Edgar.Flores@sen.state.nv.us

Senator John Ellison

John.Ellison@sen.state.nv.us

Senator Lori Rogich Lori.Rogich@sen.state.nv.us

Nevada farm and ranch families need to share their perspectives on how SB 172 will impact their businesses as well as how agricultural workers will be impacted by the proposal. Respectful emails or other contacts which communicate the ramifications with legislators are key.

MILLION DOLLAR PRICE REDUCTION

Farms

$5,300,000 | 875 ± Acres | Washoe County, NV

Antelope Valley Farm

$2,095,000 | 640 ± Acres | Lander County, NV

$4,200,000 | 142.98 ± Acres | Douglas County, NV

Contact Todd Renfrew 707.455.4444

Weber Ranch

$2,480,000 | 63.96 ± Acres | Pershing County, NV

120 deeded acres | 140-acre feet of water rights | Year-round Clover Creek runs the length of the property | Fish your own private pond Solar power with backup generators in place | Garden year-round in the 30’ x 100’ greenhouses | Great small livestock or equestrian property | Contact Ellie Perkins 775.761.0451

Todd Renfrew | Owner/Broker

NV# B.1001686.CORP

Palomino

Gardnerville Grandview Ranch

The NDA is accepting applications to grow native seeds

The NDA Division of Plant Health and Compliance is accepting applications from producers to grow native seed and enhance Nevada’s seed supply for restoration efforts.

Through the Foundation Seed Program, the NDA provides free quality native seeds to producers to cultivate and support seed production. In return, participants agree to return a portion of their yield to sustain the program, and may keep or sell the remainder of the seed. The goal of this program is to provide source-verified seeds that are in high demand across different markets and to help growers transition or diversify cultivation by providing free seed.

Dairy/poultry exhibitions canceled until further notice

The NDA is banning all poultry (birds and eggs) and dairy cattle exhibitions at fairs and shows until further notice due to the ongoing HPAI outbreak This precautionary measure aims to protect all dairy, poultry producers, and backyard birds in the state. We will continue to monitor the disease spread in hopes to quickly identify an appropriate time to end this ban. For any questions, please reach out to the NDA State Veterinarian’s office: (775) 353-3755

PLOWDOWN ALFALFA

Brand

MIX 25%

“Plowdown” alfalfa with your regular alfalfa seed. Expect a hearty yield increase your “new seeding” first year!

“Plowdown” is #9 fall dormancy. It is supposed to winterkill, but has often been known to overwinter for a second growing season!

You could plant “Plowdown” as a one year only crop. Great for a bean crop, for example, next growing season.

Cattle Inventory Continues Contraction

By Bernt Nelson, Economist

www.fb.org/market-intel/cattle-inventory-continues-contraction

PLEASE SEE CHARTS AT RIGHT

USDA’s January Cattle Inventory report shed some much-needed light on the state of the cattle industry in the United States. USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) previously published two semiannual reports on the total inventory of cattle and calves in the United States. In 2024, NASS canceled the July report, removing critical transparency from the cattle markets. Market analysts, farmers and other stakeholders have been awaiting this report and the overdue information it contains.

According to the report, all cattle and calves in the US on Jan. 1, 2025, totaled 86.7 million head, down about 1% from 87.2 million in 2024. The inventory, along with nearly all other estimates in the report, fell within the range of analyst estimates. The decrease, while smaller than last year, indicates continued contraction in the U.S. cattle herd.

Beef cows that have calved totaled 27.9 million, down 1% from 2024 and a new record low (since 1965). Heifers for beef cow replacement were 4.67 million, down 1% from 2024. Heifers for beef cow replacement expected to calve were 2.92 million, down 2%. Lower numbers for both beef cows that have calved and beef cows expected to calve provide additional evidence of continued herd contraction.

The cattle cycle is the waves of expansion and contraction of the total number of U.S. beef cattle in consecutive years. The cattle cycle is a response to farmers’ and ranchers’ perceived profitability of the beef cattle industry over roughly a 10year period. Now in year 12 of the contraction phase, analysts and stakeholders have been waiting for indicators of the beginning of the expansion phase.

The 2024 calf crop was estimated at 33.5 million calves, unchanged from 2023. Ranchers’ decisions on whether to place this calf crop on feed or

hold back greater numbers for future breeding will dictate whether the U.S. cattle herd turns toward expansion or continues contraction. Prices for fed steers have already set records in 2025. When combined with lower feed costs, this makes placing cattle on feed, including the calves from 2024, a profitable decision. Calf prices are also strong, presenting an opportunity for cow-calf producers. If these calves are retained or sold for breeding, it will remove more cattle from the beef market and tighten supplies further before possible expansion with the 2026 generation of calves. If more cattle are held back, prices for fed cattle, and eventually beef prices, will almost certainly move even higher. If the change is more gradual, prices could be a little steadier. Tariff-induced trade wars are sowing uncertainty for both ranchers and consumers. This has the potential to impact demand for beef, and even small changes in demand with such tight supplies could have a big impact on prices.

This was a neutral-to-slightly positive report. The overall rate of contraction of the cattle inventory has slowed. However, factors such as demand, beef prices and trade, among others, will influence producers’ decisions about what to do with their animals. Cash prices for fed steers have recently hit record highs. While high prices help profitability for sellers, it’s important to remember they create obstacles for buyers and can even become a barrier for farmers wanting to expand. This is not a typical cattle cycle where high prices lead to growth in the cattle herd. Prices now are good and uncertainty abounds. High cattle prices combined with the unpredictability of future prices and profitability could compel farmers to continue marketing a higher percentage of females for beef rather than breeding. If this happens, contraction in the cattle industry will continue along with the current cattle cycle.

Let’s Talk Ag

By Staci Emm | Editorial

As the growing season kicks off and the spring calving season is in full force, there is uncertainty in markets, weather conditions, prices and what impacts these will have on farmer/rancher income.

When risk management is discussed in agriculture, there is one thing that affects production, markets, and farmer’s income overall: weather. The middle of February Drought Monitor is to the right. We are beginning to see the effects of drought on Nevada. While the monitor is specifically designed to trigger drought warnings and drought designations, two major factors are uncertain for our Nevada producers. The first uncertainty is whether the USDA programs in place, like the Livestock Feed Program (LFP), are going to stay in place to assist producers in drought. The second question is if there will be enough USDA federal staff still standing to assist producers in accessing the programs and to hit the payment button?

The new administration is reviewing all program areas. A new Secretary of Agriculture has been appointed. The large layoffs of federal employees will have an impact on US agricultural support systems. We will see changes to Nevada agriculture as a result of the Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service and Rural Development staffing losses, and the hiring freeze on Farm Service Agency and other federal agencies. Our systems are set up to have USDA staff provide assistance to access programs and hit the payment buttons. Our AUM permits are based on having the staff to approve and make recommendations on permits. The reduction in workforce is going to have a direct impact on program access, program payments, and utilization of federal lands.

The other risk management topic for agriculture is geopolitical. Geopolitical tensions can influence Nevada’s agricultural trade. Tarriff’s are of concern and will impact international trade that directly affects Nevada. The uncertainty is not only how this affects markets, but also what it does to consumer confidence in purchasing products and food. There is a mountain of uncertainty on how tariffs will influence markets. We may see the old USDA price support programs return from the first Trump Administration, but how quickly these types of programs can be accessed by producers will be affected by staffing levels.

To the right is a graph from USDA, Economic Research Services, on Consumer Price Index data. It shows that food-at-home prices increased 1.2% from 2023 to 2024. If you look, the largest price increase was in eggs, followed by beef and veal. The second chart is the percentage of their income that consumers spend on food, based on income level. It is not surprising to see that the lowest income families spend more of their available income on food purchases. In the highest of incomes, there is still about 8% of the income that is spent on food. The question we all need to ask ourselves is: what happens when food becomes more expensive, and consumer confidence is impacted? This is an additional uncertainty that we all will face in the months to come.

Nevada agriculture, like agriculture in other states, is facing change. With this change comes several uncertainties. This is not new to Nevada agriculture. We face weather challenges every year. This year we are facing change in our geopolitical environment, and we do not know what the impacts of this are going to be, but we need to plan the best we can. Expect higher input costs, and dynamic market prices.

Bird Flu Spreads as Musk’s DOGE Cuts Public Health Funding

By Justin Perkins & Joel Bleifuss February 24, 2025 https://barnraisingmedia.com/bird-flu-spreads-as-musks-doge-cuts-public-health-funding

In March 2024, the USDA announced that the highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) had been identified in dairy cattle for the first time in the United States. This “spillover” event (when a virus jumps from one species to another) represented a common, if troubling, development. The resulting outbreak, driven by the B3.13 genotype, led to nearly 1,000 confirmed cases in dairy cattle in 17 states.

This month, public health officials were alarmed at spillover events in dairy herds in Nevada and Arizona, which tested positive for a second genotype of the H5N1 virus. The second version, D1.1 has been circulating widely in wild birds in North America that has fueled a surge of poultry outbreaks, affecting both commercial and backyard flocks, and raised concerns that H5N1 might become endemic in North America.

According to the latest data from the USDA, since 2022, bird flu outbreaks have led to the loss of more than 162 million birds in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, including 20 million birds in the last 30 days.

Public health officials continue to maintain that the current risk to humans remains low. While there have been no reported cases of human-to-human transmission, there have been 70 confirmed cases nationally, the majority resulting from farmworkers exposed to the virus from dairy cattle. In January, Louisiana reported the first bird flu death in the U.S., which was linked to the D1.1 genotype. These developments are taking place amid the background of the Biden administration’s bungled response and the Trump administration’s mass layoffs and funding cuts targeting the agencies handling the federal response to infectious diseases.

On her first day in office on February 14 as Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins claimed to have held “several” briefings on bird flu. “Avian flu is a massive issue right now,” Rollins said on Fox and Friends that Saturday. She added that USDA will be “rolling out more tools in the toolkit” for the federal bird flu response this week.

Yet, in cooperation with billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Rollins’s USDA moved immediately to cut USDA contracts, including 25% of the personnel at the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, which coordinates 58 laboratories across the nation responding to the spread of the bird flu and other animal disease outbreaks like African swine fever or footand-mouth disease.

(On February 18, the USDA said that it had “accidentally” fired “several” agency employees working on the federal government’s response to the bird flu, and was trying to reverse the firings.)

Massive layoffs also followed Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s approval as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human services. An estimated 700 staff members at the Food and Drug Administration, 1,200 employees at the National Institutes of Health and about 700 employees at the CDC, are reported to have been eliminated, including positions designed to protect lab safety and recruit top talent. We caught up with Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, to learn about the latest developments and the need for public health officials to stand up for scientific integrity.

How has the situation with H5N1 virus evolved since we last talked in May 2024?

A lot is happening. First of all, several different situations are unfolding at the same time.

The situation with the virus in dairy cattle, was until recently a very specific genotype, the B3.13. That particular genotype was a challenge in that it continued to spread in dairy cattle, particularly in California. But we hadn’t seen it outside of dairy cattle; we were not picking it up in wild birds or in other mammals. And at that point, the thought was, “Well, it’ll burn itself out in the dairy cattle.” That hasn’t happened yet.

We continue to see transmission. Now almost 75% of the herds in California have been infected. Is this a continued risk to humans in terms of transmission to humans who work with these dairy cattle? Yes.

Is it possible that this could evolve into a pandemic strain of the virus, meaning through the process of reassortment or mutation? Yes. But at this point, it hasn’t presented itself as such.

In the past two weeks, a new spillover containing a second variant, the D1.1 genotype, has been detected in dairy cattle in Nevada. This is the genotype that’s been prominent in wild birds, migratory waterfowl specifically, that has caused basically almost all of the outbreaks in poultry, and has now introduced itself into cattle.

We don’t know what’s going to happen with it at this point. But each time one of these spillovers occur from one animal species to another, and that spillover starts to cause infections in the second animal species, it increases the potential likelihood of seeing a reassorted virus that could be really dangerous.

The thing that’s most amazing, though, is what’s happening right now with waterfowl.

There are an estimated 40 million ducks and geese in North America. And we are seeing widespread infection there. This is in birds across all of the continent, from the West Coast to the East Coast, from the northern states to the southern states. The idea of the migratory bird associated with seasonal migration patterns has changed when it comes to waterfowl. We now have so many warm bodies of water that humans have made, from heating plants and electric generation plants to sewage lagoons for large metropolitan areas or even small communities.

The same is true for dairy operations, which have large lagoons for cattle where the water stays open throughout the winter. Here I am in Minnesota, where we’re expecting to see 10-to-15 degrees below zero weather this week, and we have all kinds of ducks and geese still here. That’s a big challenge right now.

It’s been remarkable, over 100 commercial poultry units have gone down in the last six weeks. And this is largely coming from viruses from migratory waterfowl that are getting into barns and then causing these huge outbreaks. Every time you have the virus replicate in any animal, there are more chances for mutations, there are more chances for reassortment.

Right now, we don’t know where we’re at. When California declares itself in a state of emergency over this issue, that’s real. But the emergency was about trying to move resources into the agriculture area; it was more like a FEMA-signed document. That’s different than human risk.

But it’s kind of like walking across the Great Plains until you get to the Grand Canyon, and that last step you take, oh my, is that a doozy. It’s flat till you get there, and then, well, it’s a few miles straight down. That’s what would happen

potentially with another pandemic. We could see low risk, low risk, low risk, then suddenly high risk and very high risk. We just don’t know where we’re at on that journey.

As this crisis developed, there’s been a considerable disconnect between farmers and government agencies in rolling out things like testing and monitoring. Are there any successful examples or ways that disconnect has been bridged?

I think we have a huge challenge ahead of us on the poultry side. And in particularly, as you’ve seen, egg prices haven’t been coming down. Why? Because we’ve been euthanizing so many birds.

Why are we euthanizing them? Well, once the virus gets into a poultry production facility, it will sweep through like wildfire. I’ve heard people ask, why are we killing all these birds? Farmers are basically euthanizing—and culling is the term that is applied—all of these production animals, because they’re going to die anyway.

Once this virus is in a barn it’s virtually 100% fatal, and it’s fast. If you’ve ever watched birds die from influenza, it’s a hard thing to watch. It’s not an easy illness for them.

So the culling is very humane. That’s different from what we see with wild birds where we don’t have the opportunity to cull them. We don’t know who’s going to be infected.

[Update: After our interview on Feb. 14, the USDA announced plans for a “new strategy” to fight bird flu, and says it plans to make more details available over the coming week. Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, told CBS’s Face the Nation that this shift could include moving away from the standard practice of mass culling to seek “better ways, with biosecurity and medication and so on,” and “better, smarter perimeters” around poultry farms. Dr. Carol Cardona, a bird flu expert at the University of Minnesota, told The Associated Press that this “requires an incredible amount of work on the ground.” Among the many logistical barriers are the fact that current vaccines are all injectables, and “precision depopulation,” she said, requires “effective barriers to transmission between barns, such as ensuring that farm workers don’t carry the virus on their boots or clothes.”]

Take what’s happening here in Minnesota right now. We’ll see 100 dead Canadian geese on the ice on the edge of open, and then there’ll still be birds floating on the water itself. At this point, the challenge is around airborne transmission of the bird flu virus.

Many people don’t believe that considering the virus as airborne is important. But geese will be on an old cornfield that was harvested in the fall, eating the residual corn, defecating, and then the wind blows across the field and picks up that dust and the dried bird feces with it. I think these chickens and turkeys are so sensitive to this virus that it doesn’t take much to cause an infection to start in a poultry barn.

Once that happens, it spreads like wildfire. I think many of these units are getting infected from airborne transmission into barns that are not airtight. Until the industry comes to grips with that and develops a building construction program where they have airtight buildings with HEPA filter fans, we’re going to continue to see this happen. What about people swimming in lakes and ponds that have waterfowl that are infected?

I don’t know of any examples where that’s happened. Most bodies of water right now in the United States are cold enough that most people aren’t swimming. However, that’s theoretically possible. We surely know that ingestion is an issue with a number of mammals, like cats and so forth.

What should farmers know about how to keep their cattle safe?

Once a spillover occurs, meaning it goes from the birds to the cattle, then the transmission is within the cattle. And that is where the milking equipment becomes important. Now, it may be that milking itself is a significant risk factor because we haven’t yet seen outbreaks that I’m aware of where meat production cattle are infected and spread that way. So it may be that somehow the milking process enhances transmission within barns where every cow is hooked up twice a day to the equipment that may be contaminated.

It’s possible we could see beef cattle also becoming infected eventually, but so far that’s not happened. There’s not a lot that farmers can do at this point, other than to limit bird contact with their feed sources. We could potentially develop vaccines that will hopefully protect cattle, whether they’re dairy or meat production cattle.

If you’ve ever been to a farm, a dairy farm or a beef farm, you see the mixing. Where the feed troughs are there are going to be wild birds. And that kind of contact surely could enhance transmission.

With the news of this new bird flu variant, what should people know about the potential risks to human health?

Well, there’s not a new variant. This D1.1 genotype is one that was in birds and has been in birds, but now it’s gone over into the cattle and a few humans. But that’s still a significant issue, so your point is a good one: we want to minimize transmission.

Anytime you can avoid influenza, that’s great. Is it possible that the current surge of the flu in the United States might interact with the bird flu that circulating in animals?

As we’re recording this, the country right now is in a heck of a mess with seasonal flu, both H1N1 and H3N2. We’re seeing significant levels of hospitalizations, serious illness and another condition called acute necrotizing encephalitis, which is occurring particularly in kids who get influenza. We’re seeing the number of deaths go up very quickly. We’re seeing unprecedented pressure on emergency rooms around the country right now.

Now you put those flu viruses together with H5N1 circulating in animal species, and you don’t know what you’re going to get out of it. Maybe nothing. Maybe a new re-assorted virus that could have us all going, “Oh no, here it comes.” That’s the challenge we have right now. I tell people: flu work is not rocket science—it’s more complicated.

March 11 will mark the five-year anniversary of the World Health Organization declaring Covid-19 a pandemic. A lot of public distrust of scientists and public health institutions remains. What resources or media sources should people be paying attention to, whether that’s related to the seasonal flu or the bird flu? What can people do to better inform themselves on public health issues?

I can tell you right now that I’m a very biased individual. CIDRAP news [Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota] is a really good source of information. We try to be very scientifically sound. We don’t get in front of our headlights. At the same time, we’re not afraid to look to tomorrow and ask, “What might this look like?”

In general, there are reporters out there who do a great job. One of the challenges we have right now is trying to do a review of what happened with our response to the

Covid pandemic. After 9/11, the 9/11 Commission did an exhaustive review of what should have been the lessons learned.

It didn’t point fingers, it didn’t blame, it just took an analytical look and said, “Boy, we should learn this, this, this, and this.” We’ve not done that with Covid. We’ve not done that with pandemic preparedness and pandemic response in general. And I’m afraid we’re going to be relegated to redoing all these things we failed to learn again in the next pandemic. I have a book coming out in September The Big One: Why Future Pandemics Will Be Worse—And How We Must Prepare where I try to do that as a layperson, meaning not part of the official government.

Right now we’re caught up on whether there was a lab leak in Wuhan or was it a spillover from bats? Get over it. We will never know whether it was a lab leak or a spillover. It could have been either one. My point is that we have to prepare for both.

What are we doing to prepare for a potential spillover event in the future, such as what we’re seeing potentially with H5N1? What are we doing in laboratories that are working with these viruses to make sure they don’t leak out or become more dangerous? What didn’t we do well? How can we do it better next time? And what did we do well?

You’ve spent 50 years of your career in the public health arena serving under every administration since Ronald Reagan. What are your thoughts on our state of our preparedness for responding to major public health threats given the current changes in the second Trump administration?

It’s no secret that we’re watching the public health system in the United States be very rapidly eliminated.

Mr. Kennedy was sworn in as the secretary of HHS, an avowed anti-vaccine individual, who has espoused a lot of scientific untruths, and who has, in a sense, come to the conclusion that he and only he can determine when things are safe.

This is a real challenge. It’s beyond painful. But that’s not good enough. It’s not enough for us to sit by on the sidelines and complain. We’ve got to figure out how are we going to respond to this.

How are we going to be out there providing the right messages on, on vaccines? How do we deal with the issues of scientific disinformation and misinformation? I have to say that I wouldn’t have expected after 50 years of being in the business and seeing all the progress we made, that we could see it so quickly disintegrate in front of our eyes.

I worry very much that CDC will be highly limited in what they can do. The workforce will be greatly reduced. I just shared with you the situation on influenza in the US right now. Where are the health alerts from CDC? We should be notifying parents around this country: If your child has this symptom, this symptom and this symptom, get them into the hospital or the emergency room right now. They are likely experiencing what could be a fatal case of influenza and acute necrotizing encephalitis. We’re not seeing that. CIDRAP is working on several major projects that we hope will come to fruition that will help of us who are in the front lines of public health to respond and to address these issues. They’re not going to go away.

What are some of the projects you’re working on in response?

One of the things we’re trying to do right now is a major information center where we deal with mis- and disinformation on a daily basis.

We’re working on bringing together all links out there for surveillance data. Right now, unless you knew where to go, you’d have to search and search and search. We want this to be a one-stop resource where if it’s not on that particular page, you probably don’t need to know about it.

It sounds like in some sense you’re trying to replicate what the CDC used to be responsible for.

We are, and we’re trying to go one step beyond that. So, for example, one of the things we’re working on right now is with the group FactCheck.org from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. We’re working with them to figure out how can we do an even better job, in a timely way, in a comprehensive way, of dealing with misinformation and disinformation so that policymakers, public health officials, medical care providers have factual and correct information in their hands when somebody comes to them with one of these mis- or disinformed statements.

What is the role of states in responding to national public health events? The state health departments of Minnesota and New York have both put out advisories to doctors to test flu patients with certain symptoms for H5N1.

The states are trying to do what they can within their state. It helps if you can have a coordinated national approach, too. States are where the work of public health gets done on a day-to-day basis. The states are singularly responsible for public health, and I think some readers may not be aware of it.

Anything that’s not described in the U.S. Constitution is by itself what’s called a states’ rights issue, meaning that they are responsible for it. And there’s nothing in the Constitution about public health. So the states are responsible for disease surveillance, for follow-up, for outbreak investigation. And CDC, for example, can only go into a state upon an invitation from that state to come and participate. At this point, states are very important. And we’re very concerned about that because of the fact that funding for state health departments and public health has eroded over the years.

In most states today, more than 90% of the funding they get comes from the federal government for public health activities, even though it’s a states’ rights issue. We’re quite convinced a lot of that 90% is going to evaporate over the next few months. So the states are going to be in even deeper trouble.

Does the political makeup of a state reflect how that state has responded to the threat of bird flu?

It does. And I mean this as a purely analytical statement. It has no politics to associate with it.

If you look at the red states, we see much less activity around public health and support for public health than in blue states. We’re seeing health departments in red states that are not promoting vaccines. They’re not putting out information that indicates they have a disease problem in their state that’s exacerbated because people are not getting vaccinated—information that can be helpful to the public. It’s a challenge.

We’re all trying to come together and say, we shouldn’t be red or blue states. We’re all one country. And however we can make that work, we’ve got to do that. We could have another pandemic today. For all I know, it started last night somewhere in the world.

As I’ve said many times, the pandemic clock is ticking. We just don’t know what time it is.

Predation of Seeded Species by Feral Horses and Burros

By Charlie D. Clements and Dan N. Harmon

Grazing by domestic livestock is often referenced as a culprit when describing degraded rangelands. Lands extensively grazed by domestic animals are widespread worldwide, which include several vegetation types such as natural grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and deserts. These vegetation types are important in producing forage for domestic animals to produce food for humans around the world. Many grazing lands are reported to be degraded through overgrazing practices and trampling leading to a reduction in vegetation cover, species composition, exposure to soil erosion and ultimately desertification. In arid and semi-arid regions, the problem is exacerbated by drought. Grazing by livestock, primarily cattle, is widespread on federally owned rangelands, which comprise about 70% of the 11 western states. Conservationists claim that many grazing practices result in ecological costs that include loss of biodiversity, reduction of plant and animal population densities, disruption of ecosystem functions, change in habitat characteristics and degradation of riparian ecosystems. Over 20 years ago, retired range scientist, Jerry Holechek, stated that these claims were based on emotions rather than sound scientific evidence and that after extensively evaluating grazing studies in the western United States, concluded that grazing in arid and semi-arid areas

resulted in positive impacts on grazing land ecosystems, provided that no more than 40% of the plant growth was utilized.For the restoration of degraded grazing lands, land managers attempt the application of large reseeding efforts to improve species composition and richness of desirable species to combat invasive weeds and provide perennial forage for livestock and wildlife. It is well documented that following these reseeding efforts, land managers restrict livestock grazing for a 2-year period to allow for seedlings of seeded species to establish on the site. Although domestic livestock are restricted from use in these treated habitats, other herbivores including rabbits, wild ungulates and feral burros and horses all can impact the survivability of seedlings of seeded species (Fig. 1).

Feral horses and burros are currently a significant management issue on rangelands throughout the Intermountain west and elsewhere. In the western United States, feral horses and burros lack effective predators to control populations resulting in periodic gatherings to control feral horse and burro populations and their associated impact on plant and soil resources. Unlike domestic livestock, feral horse and burro grazing is difficult to manage and results in near continuous or

continuous use of rangeland plant communities. Over the years, we’ve recorded the mortality and survivability of thousands of seedlings of seeded species. We have experienced mortality of seedlings through extreme variable conditions such as droughts, flooding/erosion, periods of high temperature, insects, rodents, wild ungulates, domestic livestock, and feral horses and burros.

In the fall of 2020, we implemented and experiment in the Buffalo Meadows area of northern Nevada to test the efficacy of the pre-emergent herbicides imazapic (Plateau), sulfometuron methyl chlorosulfuron (Landmark), and rimsulfuron (Matrix) on cheatgrass and medusahead control to aide in the germination, emergence and establishment of perennial grasses to increase sustainable perennial forage in this arid region. All three of these preemergent herbicides did a very good job of controlling the targeted annual grasses, with the Matrix application leaving concerns as this pre-emergent herbicide resulted in a significant increase in broadleaf weeds, which also take up limited soil moisture and nutrients which reduces the survivability of seedlings of seeded species. The soil activity of these pre-emergent herbicides are about 1215 months, which effectively controls germination and emergence of seeds in the seedbank whereas when the seed germinates the embryonic root makes contact with the herbicide residue and results in heavy mortality. We fallowed each plot for 1-year and seeded each plot in October 2021 with Siberian wheatgrass @ 8 lbs/acre rate and Sandberg’s bluegrass @ 2 lbs/acre rate. We used these two species as past plant material testing in this area revealed that these are the two species that have the highest potential to germinate, emerge, establish and persist in this arid degraded habitat. Initial monitoring in March and April of 2022 of seedlings of seeded species was very encouraging with an average of 7.2 perennial grass seedlings/ft² (Fig. 2). Even though cheatgrass densities, 9/ft², were higher than we had anticipated (germination and emergence occurred after the preemergent herbicide residue had subsided), the growth of the perennial grasses was significant and gave us optimism that the perennial grass seedlings that emerged in late February had good root development to take advantage of deeper soil moisture and could withstand the added competition from cheatgrass seedlings that had started development in mid to late March. In early May we again went out to record perennial grass densities and found that we did have some mortality of seedlings that appeared to be due to herbivory activity, mainly from feral burros and to a lesser extent feral horses. Our average perennial grass seedling density had dropped to less than 6/ft², yet the health of these perennial grass seedlings that were in the 3-4 leaf stage showed no signs of seedling desiccation (Fig. 3). What we did

Feral horses and burros continue to be an environmental management challenge on rangelands.

notice is that a portion of these healthy perennial grass seedlings were actually pulled from the ground from herbivory activity (Fig. 4), therefore we scheduled another perennial grass seedling count for mid-May. During our mid-May perennial grass seedling counts we recorded an additional mortality rate of perennial grass seedlings that went from 5.8 perennial grass seedlings/ft² down to 0.9 perennial grass seedlings/ ft², an 86% reduction in just 2 weeks. Although feral burros were the main culprit to the heavy mortality of seeded species, it should be noted that feral horses and pronghorn antelope were also present on these treated plots. Also, the heavy mortality on seedlings of seeded species exhibited a preference for these perennial grasses compared to the dominant annual grass, cheatgrass.

In 1971, the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burros Act became law, placing the animals under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Interior. This legislation was to protect and manage feral horses and burros to achieve and maintain healthy populations in balance with healthy ecological conditions on rangelands. The management of feral horse and burros continues to be a contentious environmental management issue as many ecologist and resource managers view the existing populations of feral horses and burros to be significantly above appropriate management levels resulting in further damage to native ecosystems. Resource managers tasked with improving rangeland ecosystems are faced with an uphill battle when discussing the reduction and management of feral horses and burros to aid in the recovery of arid and semi-arid rangelands. Furthermore, the restoration or rehabilitation of rangelands through reseeding efforts also face significant challenges if feral horses and burros are not managed at levels that significantly reduce mortality of seeded species.

Figure 2. No-till drill seedling emergence of Siberian wheatgrass and Sandberg’s bluegrass following chemical control and fallow methodologies. Densities were excellent in mid-March of the seedling phase.

Figure 3. Siberian wheatgrass seedlings in the 3-4 leaf stage of development suggesting an excellent opportunity for desirable establishment of this perennial grass species.

Figure 4. Herbivory mortality of perennial grass seedlings resulted in an 86% reduction in perennial grass seedling density in just a twoweek period. This level of predation, mainly by feral burros significantly contributed to the failure of this rehabilitation effort. 4 3 2

SHORT ON WATER ?

Two Alfalfas in One

Plant On Dryland Plant If Your Pivot Only Pumps 400gal/

On the Market since 1979 (and still unbeatable)

We are a non-GMO seed house! Never a positive hit for GMO

Greenway Alfalfa

Never a Report of Winter Kill

This Alfalfa has been called a tetraploid anomaly by alfalfa breeders. On the market since 1979, and being improved twice, It remains the highest yielding, low water alfalfa on the market!

HERE’S WHAT GROWERS ARE SAYING: (More testimonials available on our website)

When Planting Dryland Alfalfa always use coated seed! (Let us prove it!)

"We run out of water often times by June 1, but the 360-D yielded 6-3/4 tons! We’ve ordered another ton of 360-D"

Jordan Dillon - Rivers Edge Dairy - Hesperus, CO

“In our extremely tough and pure dryland conditions, 360-D has become our only ‘fall-back-mainstay’ variety.”

Max Wilson - Camas Prairie (elev 5060ft) - Fairfiled, ID

"360-D yielded 7 ton under a pivot that only pumped 375 gal./min."

Everett Messner - Salmon Track - Hollister, ID

“We planted 360-D in an irrigated pivot that was very short on water. Side by side was a pivot with normal water. The 360-D yielded with the well irrigated adjacent field! No difference in yield!

Ryan Telford - Richfield, ID

Alan Greenway Seedsman Over 50 Years Experience

Greenway Seeds Caldwell, ID

Alan Greenway 208-250-0159 (cell) 208-454-8342 (message)

√ Will produce AT LEAST 80% of crop with 50% of water

√ Will produce a subsequent cutting after water is gone

√ Plant on dryland/ guaranteed to out yield Ranger or Ladak

√ Plant under pivots that only pump 400 gal/

√ Plant on elds that have only early season creek water

√ Plant under end guns on pivots

√ Plant in the late fall with your dormant seeded grasses

* *Plant in your pivot corners. Two ton bonus per acre per year.

“Modern Forages Sold Nationwide and Canada”

Warehouses in Caldwell, ID and Deer eld, WI

THE ROUNDUP

An analysis of western ranching politics.

IN THE NEWS

President Trump notes EPA plans to cut 65% of spending, not staff.

White House says Trump meant EPA will cut 65 percent of spending, not staff, Politico- At Wednesday morning’s Cabinet meeting, President Donald Trump praised Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin for a plan to make aggressive cuts at the agency and lay off 65 percent of its workforce. Hours later, the White House walked back the president’s comments, saying that EPA intends to cut 65 percent of its spending, not 65 percent of the agency’s staff — pulling back a statement that rattled employees at the agency charged with protecting the nation’s air and water. The rapid turn of events was the latest evidence of confusion that has swept across the federal government as the Trump administration seeks to reshape the federal bureaucracy by cutting spending and paring back the federal workforce. A White House spokesperson later clarified that Trump was referring a planned 65 percent cut to EPA’s budget, not its workforce.

Hearing held to lay foundation for reconstruction of ESA and MMPA.

Lawmakers ponder ESA in world with Musk, without Chevron, E&E News- A House panel on Wednesday laid the foundation for reconstructing both the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, while leaving the exact blueprints for another day. In a hearing that veered from Supreme Court dictates to billionaire Elon Musk and back again, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries promoted the conservatives’ case for updating the two laws. Hageman added that the ESA has gone “off the rails” since Congress passed it in 1973, citing the ongoing listing of the Yellowstonearea grizzly bear population as threatened despite its population rebound. As one of its last acts, the Biden administration’s Fish and Wildlife Service reaffirmed the bear’s threatened status. The full committee’s ranking Democrat, California Rep. Jared Huffman, defended the environmental laws and cited success stories such as the recovery of species including the bald eagle and the humpback whale.

USFS: Chief Randy Moore announces retirement.

A note of reflection, US Forest Service- I write to you today for two reasons. One, to let you know effective March 3, I am retiring after 45 years with the Forest Service and two, to address our current situation. Our agency’s work supports the nation’s wellbeing and its economy by providing community protection, jobs, goods and services, and a place to retreat and enjoy nature’s beauty. Many small businesses generate their livelihoods through permits to operate on national forests and grasslands. We provide drinking water to over 80 million Americans. We also help provide energy independence to the nation, issuing nearly 3,000 oil and gas leases. I say that to say this: You and the work you do are vital to the American way of life, and you are a valued employee who has performed admirably.

Gray Wolves: CPW recommends $340k settlement in two wolf depredation claims.

CPW recommends commission pay $340,000+ to 2 ranchers for wolf related losses, 9 News- The agenda for next week’s Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission meeting includes a recommendation to approve two wolf depredation claims totaling $343,416.37. Before the end of the year, the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association submitted claims from three producers totaling more than $575,000. The claims on the agenda come from two of those producers. CPW staff recommends the commission approve a $287,407.63 claim from Farrell Livestock. The owner submitted a claim for more. He and CPW have agreed on this portion of the claim with the rest unresolved, the owner told 9NEWS.

Industry: NCBA President, Buck Wehrbein, testifies before the Senate Ag Committee.

NCBA President testifies before Congress on state of the cattle industry, Beef Magazine- Nebraska cattle producer and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) President Buck Wehrbein testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to share an update on policy priorities for the American cattle industry. “The cattle industry is seeing better market conditions, strong consumer demand for beef, and optimism for the future of our industry yet challenges still remain,” said Wehrbein. “Congress must always remember that food security is national security and the policy decisions they make will impact the hardworking cattlemen and women who produce our nation’s food. Passing a Farm Bill, axing the Death Tax, protecting beef in the Dietary Guidelines, rolling back excessive regulations, holding our trade partners accountable, combatting the New World screwworm, and protecting the Beef Checkoff are all tangible steps Congress can take to support American farmers and ranchers and protect our food security.”

USFS: Tom Schultz appointed new Chief of the Forest Service.

Newly confirmed Secretary of Ag Brooke Rollins appointed Tom Schultz as the 21st Chief of the Forest Service. Rollins expressed her certainty with this pick: “Tom is the right person to lead the Forest Service right now, and I know he will fight every day to restore America’s national forest.” Schultz is taking the helm from Chief Randy Moore, who recently announced his retirement. Schultz expressed his gratitude for the role: “I’m incredibly grateful for the opportunity to be the next Chief of the Forest Service. I will work tirelessly to further support and protect our rural communities.” Schultz previously served as VP of Resource and Government Affairs at Idaho Forest Group. He is also a former U.S. Air Force Officer and was Director of the Idaho Department of Lands.

USDA works to prevent New World Screwworm outbreak.

APHIS establishing New World Screwworm sterile fly barrier zone in Mexico, Beef Magazine- The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced that it is adjusting its New World screwworm (NWS) sterile fly dispersal strategy to push this devastating pest away from the U.S. and back toward the previously established biological barrier in Panama. APHIS is shifting its dispersal efforts to Mexico, the northernmost point of the outbreak, using a scientifically proven eradication model. The agency said it successfully implemented this approach in previous eradication efforts, and it remains the most effective strategy.

BLM: ND files lawsuit over amendment to state’s RMP.

North Dakota sues Bureau of Land Management over changes to state resource plan, KX News- North Dakota Attorney General Wrigley said today the state is suing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over changes it made to the state’s Resource Management Plan that severely restrict the development of oil and gas resources across the state. Resource Management Plans, or RMPs, are comprehensive land use plans that dictate how federally-owned lands and minerals in a state will be developed.

Secretary Rollins reveals $1B investment to combat HPAI.

Ag Secretary Rollins announces USDA’s $1 billion HPAI plan, Brownfield Ag News- The US Secretary of Agriculture says the USDA plans to invest $1 billion to combat highly pathogenic avian influenza. Brooke Rollins announced her five-step plan this morning during the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Winter Meeting. “We are devoting up to $500 million in helping U.S. poultry producers to implement gold standard biosecurity measures,” she said. “USDA will provide free audits and wildlife biosecurity assessments.” The USDA will also pay up to 75% of the cost of biosecurity repairs.

The 3rd annual Great Basin Bull Sale was by all accounts a rousing success. The event started off on Thursday the 13th with sifting and grading of the range bulls followed by the kickoff of the ranch rodeo. Friday dawned with the second day of ranch rodeo events followed by bulls and broncs during dinner. After dinner attendees enjoyed music and dancing by the Bellamy Brothers, all who attended reported having a great time. Saturday kicked off with bull previews followed by a snappy sale managed by M3 Marketing, the auctioneer was Jake Parnell. The sale committee would like to thank the City of Fallon, Jim Barbee Churchill County Manager, Jesse Segura and the crew at the Rafter 3C Arena, The Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, and especially all the buyers and attendees.

170 All Breeds Bulls Average: 6881

144 Angus Average: 6984

10 Charolais Average: 8125

7 Sim-Angus Average: 4850

7 Hereford Average: 5471

Top Sellers

Lot 91, Sired By Basin Jameson 1076. 17500

Consigned By Diablo Valley Angus

Buyer: Hart Cattle, Frederick, South Dakota

Lot 156, Sired By Ftj Silver Bullet 2258. 16500

Buyer: Select Sires, Amherst Nebraska

Consigned By Fred Jorgenson Charolais

Lot 223, Sired By Sitz Resilient 10208. 10500

Buyer: Kyle Wemple, Susanville, California Consigned By Gem State Angus

Lot 15, Sired By Sg Salvation. 10000

Buyer: Bill Ariola, Angels Camp, California Consigned By Dixie Valley Angus

Lot 29, Sired By Sf Father. 10000

Buyer: Alta Genetics, Balzac, Alberta, Canada Consigned By Dixie Valley Angus

Awards

Supreme Champion & Champion Performance Tested Angus LOT 13 • DIXIE VALLEY

Champion Performance Tested Bull LOT 76 • RIVERBEND MEADOW RANCH

Champion Calving Ease Angus Lot 121 • STEVE SMITH ANGUS

Champion Performance Tested

All Other Breeds

Lot 142 • ONE EQUAL ONE

Champion Range Ready & Champion Range Ready Angus LOT 200 • AMADOR ANGUS

Champion Range Ready

All Other Breeds

Lot 257 • KELLY KEEP

Lot 121

Lot 13

Lot 76

Lot 257

Lot 142

The Central Nevada Regional Water Authority was established in 2005 to proactively address water issues in the Central Region, the largest of Nevada's 14 hydrographic regions. CNRWA formulates and presents a united position on water-related issues; monitors, assesses and responds to water projects that may adversely impact a member county; implements a groundwater monitoring program and encourages citizen participation in water-related issues. CNRWA’s nine member counties are: Churchill, Elko, Esmeralda, Eureka, Humboldt, Lander, Nye, Pershing, and White Pine.

Lifetime Pipe for Agriculture

The February 2025 report and forecast tables are available on the Nevada Snow Survey Webpage:

www.nrcs.usda.gov/nevada/snow-survey

Watch this overview video about how the Nevada NRCS snow program can serve you:

Nevada Water Supply Outlook February 1, 2025 | Summary

Full Report: www.nrcs.usda.gov/nevada/snow-survey

Too many blue-sky days in January followed by too much rain in early February raises concern about where this winter’s snowpack will end up on April 1. February 1 marks the half-way point of the snow accumulation season and conditions have trended in the wrong direction since new year’s. Snow projection charts currently show about a 30% chance of reaching a normal peak snowpack in the Eastern Sierra and Humboldt basins by early April. Projection charts for other basins are also available. The bottom line is our mountains have been experiencing two kinds of “snow drought” so far this winter.

First, “dry snow drought” which is caused by below normal winter precipitation. This is what we saw in January. The lack of storms resulted in 12-63% of normal precipitation for the month, which in turn resulted in snowpack percentages declining across the Sierra basins and northern Nevada from 106-164% on January 1 to 58-103% on February 1. The snowpack section found later in this report explains the reason for this decline. The Spring Mountains in southern Nevada have been dry all winter and have just a 1% of median snowpack.

Second, “warm snow drought” which is a lack of snow accumulation despite nearnormal precipitation, caused by warm temperatures and precipitation falling as rain rather than snow. Most of the storms we’ve had this winter including the ones in early February haven’t been cold enough. Storms have often brought rain instead of snow to valleys and up to the middle elevations in the mountains. The snow and precipitation update report reveals water year precipitation percentages are closer to normal than those for snowpack, especially in the Sierra basins. Looking closer, it is also evident that the lower elevation SNOTELs in many basins have the smallest snowpack percentages or are snow free. SNOTEL sites are installed in locations that typically have reliable snow mid-winter so snow free sites on February 1 is a cause for concern. We’ve seen the lack of snow at lower elevations before, as recently as February 1, 2018. The lack of low and mid-elevation snow means the geographic extent of the snowpack is less than 1991-2020 medians which could lead to reduced streamflow this spring. This year contrasts with the 2023 which saw cold storms produce record April 1 snowpacks. That year the lowest elevation stations had the highest snow percentages, and the snowpack extended to elevations far below the SNOTEL network. The 2023 scenario led to record breaking April-July streamflow.

Storms since February 1 finally broke the dry pattern and conditions are improving. As you read this report keep in mind that unless otherwise stated all the data, graphs, maps and streamflow forecasts are based on first of month data. Unfortunately, February storms began with above freezing temperatures resulting in more rain in the mountains. As an example the Humboldt basin’s average air temperature across its SNOTELs on February 3rd and 4th was 42F, setting new daily records on those dates. Where rain occurred, this year’s relatively shallow snowpack was only able to absorb a fraction of the rainwater allowing the rest to pass through the snowpack spiking streamflow across the region. Mid-winter streamflow can be captured in basins with sufficient reservoir storage and if reservoir levels are below winter flood control limits. However, for basins lacking storage the water that runs off down the rivers now and won’t be available to meet demand during spring and summer months. Hopefully the next two months bring colder storms to fill in the lower elevation snow and increase high elevation snow. That is exactly what happened by April 1, 2018 after a miracle March bought a late season come-back to all elevations.

To check how conditions have changed since February 1, visit: Snowpack Map: https://tinyurl.com/SnowpackMap

Water Year Precipitation Map: https://tinyurl.com/WaterYearPMap Basin Charts: www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/support/states/NV/web/charts.htm

PIM 2025-004 Permanent Instruction

Memo, National Headquarters, Washington, DC, from the Assistant Director, Resources and Planning

This Permanent Instruction Memorandum (PIM) provides guidance for prioritizing data collection, evaluating land health, and implementing management of grazing permits and leases that will ensure protection of resources and resilient landscapes. Additionally, it provides guidance for analyzing and incorporating thresholds and responses, as appropriate, into terms and conditions of grazing permits and the associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis.

POLICY/ACTION:

A. Setting Priorities for Reviewing and Processing Grazing Permits

Field Offices (FOs) must give the highest priority to the work necessary to meet applicable legal requirements (e.g., court orders, compliance with the Endangered Species Act and associated regulations, etc.). FOs must then use the criteria listed below to develop a prioritization schedule for fully processing[1] active grazing allotments with high-priority resources. Sagegrouse and Bighorn Sheep habitats are the two highest priority resources based on the ongoing rangewide efforts to conserve the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) and the potential long-term nature and degree of potential impact of disease on bighorn sheep populations. These and additional priority categories are identified below:

LAND HEALTH: Areas not meeting or not making significant progress toward meeting land health standards (LHS), areas where standards have never been evaluated, and areas where LHS have not been evaluated within the past 15 years should be prioritized for permit review, with attention given to grouping areas into common geographic areas or watershed scales. Areas affected by recent disturbance such as drought, fire, and nonnative invasive species should also be considered priority areas for reviewing and processing grazing permits and leases.

SAGE-GROUSE:

•Allotments where sage-grouse populations have met a population threshold based on the best available science (e.g., neighborhood clusters as described in Coates et al 2022) or data presented by the state wildlife management agency.

https://www.blm.gov/policy/pim-2025-004

•Prioritization criteria identified in applicable land use plans for GRSG and Gunnison sage-grouse. For GRSG Plans, allotments with Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) are higher priority than General Habitat Management Areas where preliminary information indicates resource damage may be occurring but where that question has not yet been fully evaluated. This information can come from local, national, or external data sources.

•Areas where modifications to livestock grazing management will facilitate restoration of degraded habitats and ecosystems to achieve ecosystem resilience, defined as the capacity of ecosystems to maintain or regain their fundamental composition, structure, and function (including maintaining habitat connectivity and providing ecosystem services) when affected by disturbances such as drought, fire, and nonnative invasive species.

BIGHORN SHEEP: Areas with moderate or high risk of interaction between bighorn and domestic sheep based on risk of contact models, as outlined in land use plans, or proximity/overlap of occupied bighorn sheep range. Refer to Manual 1730 - Management of Domestic Sheep and Goats to Sustain Wild Sheep (Rel. 1-1771).

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED

SPECIES: Areas designated as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species or areas where recovery plans or conservation strategies from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) indicate that livestock grazing, or associated activity may impact the species.

AREAS WITH SPECIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGNATIONS: Areas such as National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, or Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), considering the known condition of the objects of the Monument, the purposes of the National Conservation Area, or the relevant and important values of the ACEC.

B. General provisions for the evaluation and processing of grazing permits with high-priority resources as defined in (A) above.

BLM FOs must, to the greatest extent practicable, complete the following steps within three years:

•Complete data collection and use the data collected to conduct LHS Assessments/ Evaluations[2] consistent with the prioritization of allotments developed under Part A.

•Where lands within the allotment are not achieving or making progress toward achieving applicable land health standards, complete a causal factor determination within one year as provided by 43 C.F.R. § 6103.1.2(f). Where current grazing management practices or levels of grazing use are determined to be a significant causal factor of lands not achieving or making progress toward achieving applicable land health standards, take appropriate action before the next grazing year as provided by 43 C.F.R. § 4180.2(c).

In all cases, BLM FOs must use the data collected to conduct an environmental analysis under NEPA and any other applicable statute, prepare associated documentation, and issue a grazing decision to renew with or without modifications or decline to renew grazing permits and leases consistent with the prioritization of allotments developed under Part A. NEPA must be completed in a timely manner so data that the BLM has collected does not become outdated.

Consistent with applicable law, BLM FOs must also: Monitor compliance with grazing permit/lease terms and conditions; Monitor progress towards achieving LHS; Implement responses to thresholds, as provided in the permit or lease. (See Part C, below.)

C. Analyzing and Incorporating Thresholds and Responses

When FOs fully process a grazing permit, they will develop thresholds and responses, as appropriate, through the NEPA process which will be incorporated in at least one alternative for analysis in accordance with the policy set forth below.

When a FO fully processes a grazing permit or lease, the NEPA analysis covering that permit or lease must include at least one alternative that analyzes incorporation of relevant thresholds and defined responses into the terms and conditions of the grazing permit or lease. Thresholds and responses will be developed through the NEPA process for the purposes of maintaining or moving BLM-administered lands toward achievement of LHS and any specific management objectives identified in relevant land use plans and management

plans for specifically designated areas or species.

Thresholds are grazing use indicators that can be measured to ensure that current livestock grazing management allows an area to make progress toward achieving specified habitat objectives and LHS. Examples include percent utilization, bank alteration limits, drought severity utilization limits, and browse utilization limits. The responses identify what changes in livestock grazing management would occur if a threshold is exceeded. If thresholds are exceeded, the authorized officer (AO) must apply the associated responsive management action or actions. These grazing thresholds are different from GRSG population thresholds, and they should not be used interchangeably.

To determine when to select an alternative that incorporates grazing thresholds and responses into permit terms and conditions, the highest priority should be given to the categories of grazing allotments identified in Part A of this PIM.

Where an AO determines that an analysis of grazing thresholds and defined responses is not necessary or elects to select an alternative that does not include thresholds and responses, the AO will document their decision rationale explaining how the selected livestock grazing management will achieve the desired effect, and what indicators and metrics will be used to evaluate and document achievement or continued progress toward achievement of LHS and land use and management plan objectives.

At the AO’s discretion, they may select an alternative analyzed in an EA/EIS that includes thresholds and responses for an allotment that currently achieves LHS to provide additional flexibility to the permittee to meet other resource management objectives. For example, FOs may want to incorporate thresholds and responses to ensure success of vegetation treatments, invasive species control, aquatic restoration, or reduction of excessive fuel loads through collaborative efforts to meet resource goals and objectives.

D. NEPA Considerations for Implementing Defined Management Responses

When fully processing grazing permits and leases, the FOs will complete the appropriate level of NEPA analysis on an allotment or multiple allotment basis as described in the NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, Release 1-1710).

For alternatives that includes thresholds and responses, multiple responses should be evaluated in the NEPA document that will allow the BLM and permittees options for responding when thresholds are exceeded. The analysis should also identify the location, timing, frequency and methodologies to be used for monitoring the thresholds.

If thresholds and responses analyzed in a NEPA document are incorporated into the grazing decision and grazing permit or lease as terms and conditions, the following criteria will help guide whether a given response can be implemented immediately or will require an additional decision:

•If the response is within the existing terms and conditions of a grazing permit, the response will be implemented immediately without an additional decision. If the AO intends to implement responses to thresholds during the life of a given grazing permit or lease without issuing a new decision, the AO should make that intent clear in both the final grazing decision and supporting NEPA document.

•If the response requires a modification to the terms and conditions of a grazing permit, an additional grazing decision will need to be issued. Incorporation of thresholds and management responses into a permit that were not included as terms and conditions in a permit may be possible where:

1.The thresholds and management responses were analyzed in another alternative but not selected. The AO may issue a new proposed decision selecting the alternative that analyzed the desired thresholds and management responses. A Determination of NEPA Adequacy may be sufficient when selecting a previously analyzed alternative to satisfy the BLM’s obligations under NEPA.

2.Monitoring determines that a different management response is needed, but the response was not addressed in the NEPA analysis for the authorization. In such cases, the FOs should implement interim measures that are within the terms and conditions of the existing permit (and that were addressed in an existing NEPA analysis) to minimize impacts. The FOs must expedite further NEPA analysis to support modification of the permit and incorporation of the appropriate management response.

E. Issuing Permits and Leases

Under Section 402(c)(2) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)

The BLM should prioritize fully processing permits and leases that have already been renewed at least once by operation of Section 402(c)(2) of FLPMA, with particular attention given to those permits and leases that are identified as higher

priority based on the process outlined above in Part A. In all cases, the BLM must seek to avoid successive renewals of permits and leases by operation of Section 402(c)(2) by prioritizing fully processing such permits before a second renewal period expires. Before any successive renewal decision under operation of Section 402(c)(2) is issued, the AO must notify the relevant BLM State Director.

F. Transparency Requirements

To make the priority and timing for processing grazing permits and leases transparent to the public, the BLM will proactively make annual prioritization schedules available to the public upon request, in the short term, and by making them available on the BLM’s public facing website once a site and process have been established. Prioritization schedules will be developed and available by October 1, 2025 initially, and March 1 annually thereafter. At a minimum, annual prioritization schedules (which may be updated more frequently than annually, as needed) will include the following:

Field Office, Allotment Number, Allotment Name, Draft Ranking, Factors for Priority Group Assignment, Year(s) Scheduled for Data Collection, Year(s) Scheduled for Land Health Evaluation/Determination, Year(s) Scheduled for NEPA analysis/ Decision

G. Consultation and Coordination

As required by Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 4110.3-1(c); 4110.33(a); 4110.3-3(b); 4120.2(c) and (e); 4130.2(b) and 4130.6-2,[3] FOs will work with grazing permit holders, the interested public, state agencies, Tribes, and other appropriate federal agencies when gathering data to compare current conditions to land health standards and objectives; developing alternatives for NEPA analysis, particularly when considering adjustments in authorized use; and developing a monitoring plan, particularly if other parties will be collecting data to determine the effectiveness of any changes in management. FOs will continue to work with permittees, state agencies having lands or managing resources within the area, tribes, other appropriate federal agencies, and the interested public during the review and processing of grazing permits including developing thresholds and responses. In addition to the consultation and coordination with the entities required by regulation, FOs will also include relevant federal, state and local government agencies as appropriate.

[1] A fully processed grazing permit is a grazing permit that has been issued in accordance with all applicable laws, regulation, and policy including NEPA, the En-

dangered Species Act (ESA), and decision processes provided in 43 CFR 4160.

[2] Land Health Assessments and Evaluations assess conditions relative to the land health standards that apply to each parcel of BLM-managed land, evaluate whether each applicable land health standard is being achieved, or whether significant progress is being made toward achieving each land health standard. When one or more land health standards are not being achieved, the BLM completes a causal factor determination to identify the causal factor or factors contributing to nonachievement of the land health standard or standards. Refer to Handbook 4180-1 Rangeland Health Standards (Rel 4-107) and any related guidance.

[3] All citations using 43 CFR Part 4100 refer to the version of the grazing regulations published in the October 1, 2005, edition of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Timeframe: PIM is effective immediately.

Budget Impact: The BLM will continue to consider several criteria when prioritizing the review and processing of livestock grazing permits. The BLM’s emphasis on reviewing and processing higher priority grazing permits will affect its ability to process and issue permits in lower priority areas. Monitoring requirements and workloads may increase to ensure effective implementation of grazing management plans associated with renewed grazing permits, particularly when management changes or thresholds and responses and effectiveness monitoring are implemented. Moreover, developing thresholds and responses is complex and often requires the consideration of many factors, which may increase the costs and timeframes of processing individual permits. However, once in place, the ability to adjust management to address changing conditions without requiring additional NEPA review can provide significant cost and time savings. Long term costs may be reduced as the BLM makes progress in conducting land health evaluations and addressing impacts to high priority resources.

Background: This policy is intended to ensure that land health considerations, including habitat for sage-grouse, bighorn sheep and threatened and endangered species, as well as areas with special or administrative designations, are the primary bases for prioritizing the processing of grazing permits and leases, monitoring the effectiveness of grazing management, and making progress toward achieving land health standards. This should be a collaborative effort among resource staff to ensure goals and objectives are being met.

The BLM has issued previous, now expired, policies that addressed prioritizing the processing of grazing permits and leases, including: WO IM 2018-024, Setting Priorities for Review and Processing of Grazing Authorizations in Greater SageGrouse Habitat, issued December 27, 2017; WO IM 2018-023, Incorporating Thresholds and Responses into Grazing Permits/Leases, issued December 27, 2017; WO IM 2016-141, Setting Priorities for Review and Processing of Grazing Authorizations in Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat, issued September 7, 2016; and WO IM 2009-018, Process for Setting Priorities for Issuing Grazing Permits and Leases, issued October 31, 2008.

Section 3023 of Public Law (PL) 113291, National Defense Authorization Act, 2015, amended Section 402 of FLPMA and includes seven provisions related to livestock grazing. Those provisions authorize the Secretary to set priorities for completing NEPA analysis in support of renewing grazing permits and leases based on the environmental significance of the grazing allotment, permit, or lease, and the available funding for the environmental analysis.

The BLM has a large administrative and civil litigation workload related to the grazing program. The BLM has also experienced a loss of rangeland management specialists which has resulted in successive renewals of grazing permits and leases without NEPA analysis or analysis under other relevant laws. Through the implementation of the policy contained in this document, the BLM will be better poised to focus its limited resources on high priority resources when conducting the grazing permit renewal process and to provide for increased public transparency. Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: This PIM transmits policy that will also be incorporated into BLM Handbooks 4180-1 (Rel 4-107), Rangeland Health Standards, and 4130-1 (Rel. 4-75), Authorizing Grazing Use, during the next revision.

Contact: If you have any questions, please contact Kimberly Hackett, Senior Natural Resource Specialist, Division of Forest, Rangeland, Riparian and Plant Conservation (WO-220) at 202-912-7216 or by email at khackett@blm.gov.

Coordination: This PIM was prepared in coordination with Headquarters, State Offices, Resources and Minerals Committee, and the Department of the Interior’s Solicitor’s Office.

Signed By Sharif Branham, Assistant Director, Resources and Planning

What is a water resource plan and what does it do for your community?

Home is Nevada, which happens to be the driest state in the nation. We know this as Nevadans - we have all experienced just how dry it can be. Even now, with winter’s snow flurries in the air, the US Drought Monitor shows that more than half of our state is under drought conditions and a quarter of it is abnormally dry. As we look ahead to continuing our ranching and farming livelihoods, ensuring healthy livestock, preserving agriculture, and supporting our communities, it’s a good time to have a water resources plan.

What is a water resources plan? At its simplest, it is an inventory of water supplies, current uses, and future water needs collected into a document that can be used for planning. An inventory of water supplies includes available groundwater, springs, and surface water sources. An inventory of water needs considers how communities are currently using water and how they may grow to use more.

Across the western US, many counties are realizing the benefits of water resource plans. By having an inventory of supplies, uses, and future needs, community planners can identify potential challenges, avoid conflicts, and develop strategies to ensure that there is enough water for communities. Water plans and subsequent management strategies are developed with community stakeholders, and often include items such as water conservation, protecting water sources from pollution, and increasing irrigation efficiency. Water plans can lead to infrastructure or community-support grants.

Water resource plans are not new to Nevada. Historically, ranchers and farmers tapped into water sources such as springs and streams, then later developed wells, for livestock rearing, agriculture, and domestic use. As communities grew, irrigation districts were formed by community leaders who recognized the need for water and responded by providing a supply. As time went on, the population of Nevada’s communities grew due to ranching and farming as well as industries such as mining and tourism. More comprehensive water resource management was needed to avoid conflict and ensure a healthy water supply.

In 1971, the State released the first of a Water Planning Report Series titled Water for Nevada: Guidelines for Nevada Water Planning. This document outlined three broad objectives for Nevada’s water resources: environmental quality, economic efficiency, and area development. The document stated that environmental quality should be maintained or improved, economic return on investments in water resources should be maximized, that investments in water should be for “specified patterns of development,” which are described as those with economic benefits that increase employment and income, and that no one objective be prioritized over another.

That same year, Nevada ranchers and farmers had what was described as a “high level” of cattle, calves, and crops as recorded by the USDA’ s Agricultural Statistics for 1971. According to University of Nevada researchers, domestic sheep and cattle arrived here alongside wagon trains on their way west during California’s Gold Rush. Ranching and farming have a history of being important industries that provide employment, income, and economic benefits to many communities.

The state’s first state water resource plan, Water for Nevada, was released in 1974. In all, it was a series of 16 planning documents which inventoried the state’s water resources, estimated water use, and developed forecasts for future water needs for various industries, agriculture, and municipalities.

By the end of the 1980s, the population had doubled in Nevada. As population grew, so did concerns over floods and drought, as well as competition between water users and available resources. The need to continuously understand the status of water, and anticipate demand, was recognized. In 1991, what we now know as the State’s Water Planning Division was created under Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 540.

In the general provisions of NRS 540, the Legislature declares that “it is the policy of the State of Nevada to continue to recognize the critical nature of the state’s limited water resources” and “recognizes the important role of water resource planning and that such planning must be based on identifying current and future needs for water.” With this mandate, the Water Planning Division released the Nevada State Water Plan in 1999.

The plan consists of three main parts - Water Resources Background and Assessment, Water Use and Forecasts, and Water Planning and Management Issues. The appendices contain detailed information related to counties, cities, and hydrographic basins. It is almost 1,000 pages of information related to water in Nevada.

If you’re interested in more historical details, you can find the 1971 Water for Nevada: Guidelines for Nevada Water Planning, the 1974 Water for Nevada, and the 1999 Nevada State Water Plan at the Nevada Division of Water Resources website: https://water.nv.gov/index. php/library/water-planning-reports. At that website, you’ll also see a note that the State Water Plan is being updated. Click on the buttons “for more information on the State Water Plan” and you’ll land on the Nevada State Water Plan website: https://storymaps.arcgis. com/stories/a36abde7d86a43db90fc97e4ed3411a3.

The Nevada State Water Plan website gives an overview, timeline, information about stakeholder engagement, and addresses some frequently asked questions (FAQs). Among the FAQs is a reason for updating the State Water Plan. In the 25 years since the last plan, and the 50 years since the initial plan, Nevada’s water needs and challenges have evolved. The initial Water Planning Report Series projected the state’s population 50 years out, for 2020, to be between 1.8 and 2 million. The 2020 census captured our population at 3.1 million. There are some important things to note about the State Water Plan. It does not change water law or reallocate water among users. It is not a new regulation and does not focus on infrastructure or project planning and does not replace a regional or local water supply plan. It is described as a “high-level” document.

Looking at Nevada from a high level, our state is made up of many communities in remote areas. Of our 17 counties, three are characterized as urban, three as

rural, and eleven as frontier (less than 6 people per square mile). A state-wide water plan does not, nor is it intended to, address the specific water needs of a community.

There is a need, however, for county-level water resource plans that can specifically address local issues. An inventory of water sources identifies available water and balances with current community needs to ensure reliable long-term supply. A water plan could identify at-risk water sources and promote protective strategies. It could support infrastructure upgrades, for example those that help manage floods and drought, and develop strategic management policies that are county-specific.

In 2019, Nevada Senate Bill 150 (SB 150) passed and became NRS 278.0228. This statute requires that the governing body of a county develop and maintain a water resource plan by July 2029, and update it every ten years (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-278. html#NRS278Sec0228). It specifies that plans must quantify all known sources of water available for use, assess existing and future water demand, determine whether the sources of water are of sufficient quality and quantity to satisfy existing and future demands, and, if necessary, develop plans for obtaining additional water of sufficient quality and quantity.

These specifics are not trivial. Right now, Nevada’s 17 counties are in varying stages of compliance with NRS 278. Some do not yet have a published water resource plan while others are conducting updates. Creating and updating a water resource plan is time consuming for county governing bodies, who would be taking on this task in addition to their existing responsibilities.

The Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ Nevada Division of Water Resources recognizes the need for counties to have additional financial and technical resources for county-level water plans. Desert Research Institute (DRI) has been funded with a grant to help rural and frontier counties develop or update their water resource plans by the end of 2026. The multi-disciplinary team at DRI has expertise in water resources and experience working within many rural Nevada communities.

We are offering assistance, free of charge to rural county governments, to create and update county water plans. We can help with any or all specifics of NRS 278 – inventory available water sources, assess existing and future water demand, evaluate water quality and quantity, and develop management strategies to protect and ensure many more generations of Nevadans have access to water. We can work with county governing bodies to write a draft water plan. Funds are available for county governing bodies needing additional assistance. If you would like to find out more about water resource plans and how we can help your community, please get in touch. Alexandra Lutz, Alexandra.Lutz@dri.edu, 775-329-3637; Alexa Daniel, Alexa.Daniel@dri.edu, 775-673-7343; Daniel Saftner, Daniel.Saftner@dri. edu, 775-673-7422

Water Resource Plans for Rural Nevada Counties

NRS 278.0228 states that every governing body must have a water resource plan by July 1, 2029 and it must be updated every 10 years.

What is a Water Resource Plan (WRP)?

A comprehensive plan that details the water resources of the county, the current and projected-future uses of this water, and implementable strategies to ensure water resources meet the needs of the community into the future.

278 Requirements of a Water Resource Plan:

Desert Research Institute (DRI) is working with Nevada Division of Water Resources to help counties achieve the goal of updating or developing a water resource plan by the end of 2026.

Who We Are:

 An interdisciplinary team of Desert Research Institute Scientists specializing in hydrologic sciences, data analysis and community engagement.

What We Will Provide:

 Technical expertise and guidance for plan development at no cost to the county.

 Funds to support county involvement in plan development.

 Coordination with Counties, NDWR & other Nevada Water Resource Planning Experts.

DRI will create an inventory of all surface water, groundwater, springs and associated water rights.

will work with counties to write the county water resource plan.

Benefits of a Water Resources Plan to Your County:

 Assess water resources for economic development opportunities.

 Develop management responses for floods and droughts.

 Protect valuable water resources by identifying and mitigating pollution sources.

•Existing Demand •Expected Demand •If sources are sufficient quality and quantity

•Management strategies to ensure sufficient water to meet demands

will analyze current demand and project future demand on water resources.

will work with Counties to develop water resources management strategies.

will develop a framework that guides counties in updating future WRPs.

 Ensure long-term water supply through development of strategic management policies.

 Balance community water needs to reduce conflicts.

 Plan and support critical infrastructure upgrades.

APHIS Confirms D1.1 Genotype in Dairy Cattle in Nevada

On January 31, 2025, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) confirmed by whole genome sequence the first detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b, genotype D1.1 in dairy cattle. This confirmation was a result of State tracing and investigation, following an initial detection on silo testing under the USDA’s National Milk Testing Strategy (NMTS) in Nevada.

APHIS continues to work with the NDA by conducting additional on-farm investigation, testing, and gathering epidemiological information to better understand this detection and limit further disease spread.

This is the first detection of this virus genotype in dairy cattle (all previous detections in dairy cattle have been HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b, genotype B3.13). Genotype D1.1 represents the predominant genotype in the North American flyways this past fall and winter and has been identified in wild birds, mammals, and spillovers into domestic poultry.

The detection does not change USDA’s HPAI eradication strategy and is a testament to the strength of our National Milk Testing Strategy (NTMS). In the interest of sharing information of import to the scientific community, APHIS will publish a technical brief on the findings on our website and post the sequence data on GenBank in the coming week.

INTRODUCING

You’re more complex than a worm, and researchers now believe they know why

Perhaps you’ve read in a biology textbook that humans have the same number of genes as Caenorhabditis elegans, a worm used in scientific research. Perhaps you’d also like to believe that humans are more complex than a worm that is used precisely for its simplicity. For decades, scientists have been trying to understand what drives organismal complexity, and researchers may have just found out where that complexity arises from.

Complexity in an organism is often defined by biologists as the number of cell types that an organism possesses.

David Alvarez-Ponce, an associate professor and bioinformatician at the University of Nevada, Reno, along with his coauthor and former graduate student Krishnamurthy Subramanian, currently at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, propose that complexity is driven by the number of protein families and domains rather than by genome size or the number of genes. This new finding, which has the potential to rewrite biology textbooks, was published last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

In the 1950s, scientists began to size up the genetic material of various species, hypothesizing that the amount of genetic material would be representative of the complexity of an organism. The researchers weighed the DNA of various species (these techniques would eventually be updated to counting the number of base pairs), including humans, and determined that genome size was not correlated with the number of cell types.

“When the human genome was sequenced for the first time, people expected that we would have a lot more genes in comparison to C. elegans,” Alvarez-Ponce said.

This is the G-value paradox. The G-value of humans is about 24,200 genes, and the G-value of wheat is about 124,207 genes. Once again, scientists don’t believe that wheat is more complex than humans, so they kept searching for a genetic factor that drives complexity. Instead of using genome size or the number of proteincoding genes as predictors of organismal complexity, Alvarez-Ponce and Subramanian decided to investigate the number of protein families and domains.

“Families are groups of genes that are related to each other via duplication,” Alvarez-Ponce said. AlvarezPonce offers an analogy using a toolbox. The toolbox has several types of tools. The tools themselves are the protein-coding genes, and the tool types are the families of genes. In the C. elegans toolbox, there may be many varieties of the same tool. For example, there may be many screwdrivers, like a Phillips-head and a flathead, and there might be various sizes of each.

“They are not exactly identical, but they are similar, and they carry out similar functions,” he explained.

In the human toolbox, there might be many different types of tools, including a saw, a file, a screwdriver, a level, pliers, a wrench, and so on. When comparing the human and worm toolboxes, even though both boxes contain a similar number of items, the human toolbox is equipped to do more complex types of work.

Researchers dubbed this the “C-value paradox” and found that it is mostly explained by how little of the genome is made up of protein-coding genes. Much of the genome is made up of non-coding material (for years, this was cast off as “junk DNA,” which is now known to have more function in the cell that previously thought). The C-value of humans is over 3 billion base pairs. The C-value of Triticum aestivum, bread wheat, is much bigger—17 billion base pairs. If C-values were representative of organismal complexity, we would expect wheat to be more complex than humans, which scientists (and likely most people) generally disagree with.

Once there were several genomes sequenced from the 1970s to the early 2000s, researchers were able to count the number of protein-coding genes (the G-value). However, they were once again surprised by the results.

“There isn’t a good correlation between organisms’ complexity and how many genes they have,” Alvarez-Ponce said.

The researchers also looked at protein domains, which are parts of protein structures that have similar functions (like binding to the cell membrane, for example). Using the Pfam database, hosted by the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, the researchers classified the protein families and domains of 16,929 species, divided into viruses (7,784 species), archaea (316 species), bacteria (7,236 species), protists (181 species), fungi (771 species), land plants (155 species) and animals (486 species). The researchers ran algorithms to compare the number of families and domains of proteins in progressively more complicated species. Starting with the viruses, which are the simplest organisms and have the fewest families and domains, they moved upward, identifying a positive relationship between complexity and the number of protein families and domains.

The researchers ran the same algorithm on data from multicellular organisms from another database in case there were biases introduced by human curation. The Ensembl Compara database’s gene families are defined automatically and are assumed to be free from human bias. Alvarez-Ponce and Subramanian found the same results when looking at the 884 species in the EC database as they found looking at the Pfam database.

“When we look at these quantities, they do correlate very well with organismal complexity,” Alvarez-Ponce said. This approach for estimating genome complexity is more closely aligned with how cells function and how species have evolved over time.

“Protein families and domains give us a more nuanced understanding of how many functions a genome can encode and carry out,” Alvarez-Ponce added.

Alvarez-Ponce hopes this research can help resolve some of the questions about what drives the complexity of organisms.

Young Farmers and Ranchers: The next generation of ag advocates Farm

Bureau’s YF&R program trains and equips young agriculturalists to educate policymakers

The Farm Bureau’s Young Farmers & Ranchers (YF&R) Committee empowers young agriculturalists in a wide range of ag-related occupations. By fostering a passion for farming, encouraging advocacy and developing future leaders, the program ensures agriculture remains a vital way of life for generations to come.

The past chair of the California Farm Bureau’s YF&R committee fits that description to a T.

“Agriculture has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember,” said Leah Groves, 30, who grew up in Trinity County. “My family owns a winery and vineyard here. I went to school at Shasta College and Fresno State and then lived in the Central Valley as a vineyard manager at Fresno State but recently moved back home to help my dad with the family business and to work for a nonprofit that helps ag businesses.”

She said her involvement with the YF&R program for the past decade has played a key role in shaping her commitment to agriculture and the Farm Bureau.

“From early on, I appreciated the Farm Bureau and what it does. I gained a passion for the family atmosphere I felt and to understand that membership is for every farmer and every family in every rural community,” she said.

Farm Credit is a leading sponsor of the Farm Bureau’s annual meeting (held most recently in Monterey) and the YF&R’s annual leadership conference because of their critical role in advocating for agriculture and developing the next generation of leadership, said Kevin Ralph, CA President of AgWest Farm Credit.

“December 2024 marked the Farm Bureau’s 106th Annual Meeting and YF&R State Conference, and throughout their history they have proven to be effective advocates, educating state and local officials about the importance of agriculture and the need to support farming and ranching,” Ralph said. “This year’s theme of Stronger Together was a great reminder of the need for everyone involved in agriculture to stand together to make sure our voices are heard.”

Jacob DeBoer, Regional Marketing Manager, American AgCredit, said YF&R’s role of building leaders for tomorrow is important as well.

“The Farm Bureau wouldn’t have thrived for over a century without strong and effective leadership. That’s why it’s so important to make sure that the next generation of farmers and ranchers are trained and equipped to ensure the organization’s continued success as the challenges farmers face grow ever more difficult,” DeBoer said.

He has personal experience, having attended state YF&R Annual Meetings in the past and currently serving as a director of the Stanislaus County Farm Bureau.

Farm Credit organizations supporting conferences are AgWest Farm Credit, American AgCredit, ColusaGlenn Farm Credit, CoBank. Fresno Madera Farm Credit, Golden State Farm Credit and Yosemite. These organizations are part of the nationwide Farm Credit System – the largest provider of credit to U.S. agriculture.

Groves said sponsorships such as Farm Credit’s are critical to putting on informative conferences to help younger generations of farmers and ranchers stay informed and educated.

“Sponsorships are essential for hosting quality conferences,” Groves explained. “They provide not only financial support but also lasting connections that help young farmers succeed.” (Besides financial support, several Farm Credit employees participated in presenting workshops such as how younger agriculturalists could fund their farms and ranches – and others participated in the Leadership Farm Bureau program.)

YF&R offers its 18-to-35-year-old members invaluable opportunities, Groves said. These include leadership training, networking with like-minded peers, and learning to navigate the complex issues impacting agriculture.

“The connections I have made have created longlasting friendships with like-minded individuals. We understand each other’s struggles and are able to work together for the greater good of agriculture,” she said.

A major annual event is the Discussion Meet held every year at the state conference.

“The Discussion Meet simulates a collaborative boardroom discussion,” Groves explained. It’s not about debating but working together to find practical solutions to agricultural challenges. There are five questions to study ahead of time, and then four or five people are placed in panels to discuss the topic and try to find solutions,” she said.

Questions in 2024 included how to diversify farm portfolios, ways for young farmers and ranchers to acquire agricultural land and how the Farm Bureau should work to increase domestic energy production while minimizing the loss of ag land and protecting private property rights.

Groves is a great example of the diverse nature of California agriculture. Her father, Keith, established the first vineyard in rugged Trinity County in 1981 on a former cattle ranch that had been in the family since the Gold Rush. That came after he did a feasibility study on whether wine grapes would grow in the mountains while studying for a winemaking degree at Fresno State.

“The assumption was that wine grapes couldn’t be grown there but the study indicated that they could be, and he planted two acres in 1981 and established the county’s first winery in 1984. Alpen Cellars has grown from producing 75 cases in the beginning to 5,000 today,” she said.

In fact, the combination of the high altitude and a favorable microclimate 30 miles northwest of Redding proved to be ideal conditions for growing grapes including white Riesling, Gewürztraminer and Pinot Noir.

While involved in the farm’s operations, she’s also committed to helping support young farmers in rural and isolated areas of far northern California.

“It’s very challenging in our area to have a farming lifestyle. We’re so remote from everything that we don’t have access to transportation and a lot of the resources people in the valleys might have,” she said.

“We need to find ways to get creative and find other income sources. The question is, how do you do that to support young farmers in these communities?”

Contacts:

Linda Sadler, Farm Credit Alliance (775) 677-7876, sadlerassociates@sbcglobal.net

John Frith, Write Stuff Communications (916) 765-6533, john@twscommunications.com

Leah Groves, left, participates in a Young Farmers & Ranchers Discussion Meet during the YF&R State Conference in December.

The change in agriculture today is just a glimpse of what lies ahead. It’s why, more than ever, we are committed to being the partner you can trust, who understands your needs and delivers value to help you achieve your goals.

Wherever agriculture goes, we’ll be there, alongside you, as you lead the way.

Creeks and Communities:

A Continuing Strategy for Accelerating Cooperative Riparian Stewardship

2025 Trainings

Riparian proper functioning condition (PFC) assessment uses common terms, definitions, and methods to identify opportunities for positive change from reasonable investments, enhance local management, and solve problems by people most affected. Integrated Riparian Management uses PFC assessment to prioritize needs for adaptive management with monitoring for riparian objectives and strategies. Trainings are available to landowners, Federal, State, and local agency personnel, tribes, industry, conservation interests, and others. Instructors are from Nevada Creeks and Communities Team. There is no cost for classes. Please share this announcement within your networks.

PFC Assessment for Integrated Riparian Management – February 17-19 by Zoom - The Zoom class will feature an optional evening (Wed.) of participant-provided practice or problem solving about class concepts.

PFC Assessment for Integrated Riparian and Grazing Management – May 19-23 McDermitt Community Hall, McDermitt NV.

PFC Assessment for Integrated Riparian and Grazing Management – June 23-27 Pioche, NV Fire Hall first building off Hwy 93 west on Airport Rd.

PFC Assessment for Integrated Riparian and Grazing Management – August 18-22, Eureka, NV Opera House

PFC Assessment for Integrated Riparian and Grazing Management – July 21-25 Feather River Land Trust Sierra Valley Preserve Nature Center 495 Beckwourth Calpine Rd., CA 96129

For PFC class reservations or questions: Sherman Swanson (775-233-6221 swanson@unr.edu) with name, affiliation, address, phone, e-mail, and interest, discipline, role or area of expertise.

You are welcome for the parts of the class you need or want (1 -5 days). After requesting a reservation, an agenda will provide a timeline. All classes begin mid-day on Monday with learning about and participating in PFC assessment, step 1 in the integrated riparian management process (IRMP). Presentations on steps 2 -7 of IRMP - riparian values, riparian area/reach prioritization, goals and objectives, management and/or restoration, monitoring, and adaptive management begin on Thursday for place based classes. PFC -IRMP and Grazing management classes include more about grazing management concepts and engagement with a case study for application of IRMP concepts.

PFC Assessment and/or Integrated Riparian Management -- Coaching field sessions are available for small groups such as interdisciplinary or collaborative teams beginning in May. Contact swanson@unr.edu

For reference materials go to https://www.blm.gov/learn/blm-library/agency -publications/technicalreferences Be sure to scroll down the page and expand the riparian area management section.

CattleFax Forecasts Continued Strong Demand and High Price Outlook for Cattle Producers

Source: The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

The popular CattleFax Outlook Seminar, held as part of CattleCon 2025 in San Antonio, Texas, shared expert market and weather analysis today.

The U.S. beef industry is poised for another year of strong market performance, driven by tight cattle supplies and robust consumer demand. As the beef cowherd enters a stabilization phase following years of contraction, the resulting supply constraints have shifted market leverage decisively in favor of cattle producers.

Weather conditions will remain a critical factor influencing grazing availability, herd expansion and cattle prices. Meteorologist Matt Makens said La Niña this winter brings rather volatile weather changes across North America with the majority of weather extremes affecting those in the Central to Eastern U.S. For Mexico and the Southwestern U.S., producers will see drought acreage increase as it has nationwide since June.

“Drought will likely increase across the Western U.S. this spring and into the Pacific Northwest, Northern Plains, and Canadian Prairies through this summer. To watch will be the North American monsoon and how much drought relief it can provide to Mexico, the Southwest, and parts of the Plains,” he said. “Current data show the monsoon is likely to produce more moisture this year than last. A strong enough monsoon can decrease precipitation across the central Corn Belt, watch July closely. Late in the year, the focus turns to the development of La Niña or El Niño.”

Shifting the discussion to an outlook on the economy, energy and feed grains, Troy Bockelmann, CattleFax director of protein and grain analysis, noted that inflation eased in 2024, ending the year at 2.9%, a significant drop from the 9% peak in 2022 but still above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. To address this, the Fed cut interest rates three times in the latter half of the year, bringing the Prime bank loan rate to 7.5%.

The labor market remained strong, with unemployment briefly rising midyear before falling to 4.1% as job creation outpaced expectations. Combined with solid consumer spending and wage growth, the U.S. economy is expected to see healthy GDP growth of 2 to 2.5% in 2025.

“The Federal Reserve’s rate cuts helped stabilize inflation and support economic growth, but we’re still above target,” Bockelmann said. “Despite economic headwinds, consumer confidence and spending have remained resilient. However, lingering inflation and potential trade uncertainties may limit the extent of further interest rate cuts this year and inflation remains a key factor to watch in 2025.”

CattleFax shared that National Dec. 1 on-farm hay stocks were up 6.3% from a year-ago at 81.5 million tons with hay prices averaging $175/ton in 2024. Corn

stocks-to-use at just over 10% and should support the spot market towards $5.00/bu. with a yearly average spot future price of $4.40/bu. expected.

“An increase in corn supply for the new crop year is expected as smaller beginning stocks are offset by larger production levels due to corn regaining acres from soybeans. Stocks-to-use have the potential to be above 13 percent which implies a price range of $3.75 to $5.15/bu. for the 2025 market year,” Bockelmann said. “There is a strong correlation between corn stocks-to-use and hay, and we expect hay prices to follow corn and trend a bit higher in the coming year.

On the energy front, he noted, for 2025, not much will change. Average crude oil prices are expected to be near steady with 2024 though risk remains for a reduced U.S. market share of global product due to potential trade policy impacts. He also expects ethanol production to continue to stay strong.

Kevin Good, vice president of market analysis at CattleFax, reported that U.S. beef cow herd is expected to see the cycle low to start 2025 at 28 million head, 150,000 head below last year and 3.5 million head from the 2019 cycle highs.

“We expect cow and bull slaughter to continue declining in 2025, with overall numbers down by about 300,000 head to 5.9 million head total. Feeder cattle and calf supplies outside of feedyards will also shrink by roughly 150,000 head, while cattle on feed inventories are starting the year slightly below 2024 levels at 11.9 million head,” he said. “With a tighter feeder cattle supply, placement pace will be more constrained, leading to a projected 700,000-head drop in commercial fed slaughter to 24.9 million. After modest growth in 2024, beef production is expected to decline by about 600 million pounds to 26.3 billion in 2025, ultimately reducing net beef supply per person by 0.8 pounds.”

Beef prices continued their upward trend in 2024, averaging $8.01/lb., the second-highest demand level in history. While demand may ease slightly in 2025, retail prices are still expected to rise to an average of $8.25/lb. Wholesale prices will follow suit, with the cutout price projected to reach $320/cwt.

“Retail and wholesale margins are historically thin, making strong consumer demand essential to maintaining higher price levels,” said Good. “While opportunities for further leverage gains are limited, the market remains favorable for producers.”

Inflation remained moderate in 2024, but high consumer debt, elevated interest rates, and competition from more affordable protein options could impact purchasing decisions. However, foodservice demand showed resilience, ending the year stronger as samestore sales and customer traffic improved.

“Despite economic pressures, consumers continue to pay premiums for higher-quality beef,” Good added. “Choice grade or better remains in high demand, reinforcing the strength of the premium beef market.”

Turning to global protein demand, Good noted that the outlook for animal proteins remains strong, although U.S. beef exports are projected to decline by 5% in 2025 due to reduced production and higher prices. Conversely, U.S. beef imports are expected to grow as lean beef supplies tighten.

“The global outlook is currently an interesting scenario as trade policy developments, including potential tariffs, could pose risks to international markets. While growth is expected this year, it may be limited to global competition supply constraints and an uncertain tariff environment,” Good said.

Mike Murphy, CattleFax COO, forecasted the average 2025 fed steer price at $198/cwt., up $12/cwt. from 2024. All cattle classes are expected to trade higher, and prices are expected to continue to trend upward. The 800-lb. steer price is expected to average $270/ cwt., and the 550-lb. steer price is expected to average $340/cwt. Utility cows are expected to average $140-/ cwt., with bred cows at an average of $3,200/cwt.

“While the cyclical upswing in cattle prices is expected to persist, the industry must prepare for market volatility and potential risks. Producers are encouraged to adopt risk management strategies and closely monitor developments in trade policy, drought conditions, and consumer demand,” Murphy said.

2025 USDA All-Fresh Retail Beef prices are expected to average $8.25/pound and, which will continue the balancing act for retail between high prices and reduced supply. Murphy noted that the key is to avoid setting prices too high, especially in light of competition from more affordable proteins.

Randy Blach, CattleFax CEO, concluded the session with an overall positive outlook, and noted that strong margins in the cow-calf sector have set the stage for cowherd expansion to begin, with heifer retention likely back near a more normal pace, relative to minimal retention in recent years. Drought and pasture conditions are now the key factors influencing the rate of expansion with a slower herd rebuild anticipated compared to the last cycle. This more measured expansion pace implies a positive outlook for producer returns over the next several years. Strong consumer demand also remains a bright spot for the industry.

“We have to remember where we came from,” Blach said. “Continued improvements in quality and meeting consumer expectations with a safe, nutritious product and a consistently good eating experience have had tremendous impacts on moving the needle for this industry. We’re moving in the right direction, and we need to keep paying attention to that signal.”

Fallon Ranch Hand Rodeo 2025 HOT IRON BRANDING Results

MEN'S TEAMS

1st Place Team: Bar A (Jake Ward, Billy Finks, Blake Teixeira, Alan Malotte)

2nd Place Team: Deadman Ranch (Trevor Carrasco, Austin Carrasco, Josue Madrigal, Matt Hussman)

3rd Place Team: Martin Ranch (Range Martin, Brett Martin, Quaid McKay, Brodi Jones)

WOMEN'S TEAMS

1st Place Team: Long Drinks ( Brynn Lehman, Desi Dotson, Monel Bilant, Mesa Martin)

2nd Place Team: LC Livestock (Noel Lambert, Kale Knittle, Marissa Julian, Tess Johnson)

3rd Place Team: Flying M Ranch (Hannah Prom, Lexy Osborne, Mattie Ward, Kathleen Brown)

FAMILY TEAMS

1st Place Team: Bar A (Jake Ward, Malachi Malotte, Alan Malotte, Hadley Malotte)

2nd Place Team: Martin Ranch (Ridge Martin, Range Martin, Quaid McKay, Thomas McGarva)

3rd Place Team: Cross Ray (Nick Donker, Garret Donker, Kaleb Donker, Vade Donker)