The Progressive Rancher May-June 2019

IN THIS ISSUE

FIND MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE

www.progressiverancher.com Livestock Groups Reach Agreement with Activists on Management of BLM Horses and Burros Differences Between High-, Mediumand Low-Profit Cow-Calf Producers

27 Nevada Farm Bureau | Fusion

4 BLM | Grazing Comparisons

28 Nevada Farm Bureau | FFA

6 NBC Checkoff News

30 FFA Convention Highlights

7 Recipe: Beer Braised Beef Tacos 8 NBC - Mind of a Millennial 10 Eye On The Outside 12 Nevada Cattlewomen 13 Interview: Rosealee Rieman 14 The Perkins Company - Hemp 14 NAF | New AG Class Materials

Economic Contribution of Nevada Agriculture

16 SRM | Soil Tools 20 The Beef Checkoff Lawsuit

Agriculture Reports Nevada State Water Plans Sage Grouse Articles

FIND US ON FACEBOOK AT

 / TheProgressiveRancher You are invited to COWBOY CHURCH Sunday @ 11am services Bible Study Wed @ 6 pm

Harmony Ranch Ministry Tom J. Gonzalez | Diana J. Gonzalez, Pastor

2 MAY - JUNE 2019

37 NMU | Cattle Vaccination and Immunity 38 UNR Cooperative Extension Heifer Target Weight Study 39 UNR Cooperative Extension Care of Cold Stressed Calves 40 CNRWA Update

21 NCBA | Beef Checkoff Attacks 22 USDA | Audit Report

42 Falen Law Offices | Contracts

25 Save Calves from Scours

43 Falen Law Offices | Permits

The Progressive Rancher

Owner/Editor/Publisher – Leana Litten Carey progressiverancher@elko.net Graphic Design/Layout – Allegra Print & Imaging www.AllegraReno.com

Cover Credit: Leana Carey Published 8 times each year. Viewable at www.progressiverancher.com The Progressive Rancher has a readership reaching more than 30,000.

The views and opinions expressed by writers of articles appearing in this publication are not necessarily those of the editor. Letters of opinion are welcomed by The Progressive Rancher.

Rates for advertising are available upon request. Advertising in The Progressive Rancher does not necessarily imply editorial endorsement.

Liability for any errors or omissions in advertisements shall not exceed the cost of the space occupied by the error or omission. © The Progressive Rancher Magazine. All rights reserved.

Leana Litten Carey, Owner/Editor

1951 W Williams Ave # 432 • Fallon, Nevada 89406 (208) 358-2487 • progressiverancher@elko.net

We would love to come to your event or ranch and host Cowboy Church for you.

threecrossls@cccomm.net

36 NMU | Vaccination Guidelines

41 Range Plants for the Rancher Bailey's Greasewood

Are you having a Rodeo or Livestock event? GIVE US A CALL.

3767 Keyes Way Fallon, NV 89406

34 NDA | Monitoring App

26 Nevada Farm Bureau | Milestone 44 Cowbelles Update & Recipe

Hard Copy Issues of this magazine are now only available in Nevada, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, DC so keep up with issues FREE at our website and on Facebook

You are invited to COWBOY CHURCH Bible Study Fri @ 9 am 4275 Solias Rd Fallon, NV

3 Riding for the NCA Brand

(775) 240-8870 Cell (775) 867-3100

Read the magazine and more articles online at

WWW.PROGRESSIVERANCHER.COM

The Progressive Rancher

Ads sent to or built by The Progressive Rancher become property of this magazine. www.progressiverancher.com

From the desk of your NCA president

By Sam Mori, NCA President

engage in the process to make the right decisions for our country. As I have said in the past, we have come I hope this writing finds you well and enjoying the to the crossroads where all of the talk has taken us, above average moisture we received this spring. I know and it is now time for implementation of the rhetoric! there were times when our will to proceed was tested, The Nevada Cattlemen’s Association has invested and that is not always a bad thing. Many times when countless time and resources in true change in how things are hectic it can be an opportunity to realize we do business. We will continue to work and press how dependant we are on each other and what Mother for improvement in management that will benefit all Nature can deal us. Our challenges in agriculture are users of our abundant natural resources. The picture everyone’s concern. The devastation and destruction has been clearly scientifically painted and we truly that has occurred in many parts of our country will expect change that has been identified and agreed on! affect markets world-wide, so all of our partners up and down the food chain will be challenged in some Our congratulations to recently confirmed Interior way. A person really finds out who your neighbors are Secretary David Bernhardt. His confirmation will in times of emergency. I am proud of the ranchers and allow the things that are sitting on his desk such as farmers of our country as they realize the true values a major grazing regulation rewrite to move forward. and principles that this great nation was built on, and The wild horse issue may also take some direction and action with his confirmation. Our thanks to Deputy will continue to lead the world by.

Secretary Brian Steed and the job he has done to allow As we travel around our state and nation it is our thoughts and needs to be presented. We also look becoming more and more evident that our industry forward to working with newly appointed State BLM has much respect. People truly listen and want to Director John Raby.

Hi Everyone,

Our relationship with USDA Secretary Sonny Purdue and State Supervisor Bill Dunkelberger is strong and gives us the venue to hammer out some of the difficult issues that need to be addressed. We are not going to agree on everything, but we can agree to make positive change in many areas.

The Public Lands Council under the leadership of Ethan Lane has done an excellent job of getting the right message to the right people at the right time. J. J. Goicoechea and Ron Cerri have been instrumental in this process and our thanks to them.

I want to take this opportunity to thank PresidentElect Tom Barnes for representing us last month at the Legislative Conference in Washington D.C. Your dedication and hard work are greatly appreciated.

As you can see folks, your Association is and will continue to be in high gear representing membership and our industry. If we can be of help in any way, give us a call.

Special Feeder Sales

May 14 June 11 July 9

For more information about our Team Roping, please visit FallonLivestock.com www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 3

Grazing Comparisons

by Kathryn Dyer State Range Program Lead National Outcome Based Grazing Lead (775) 861-6647 office | kdyer@blm.gov.

3. Decision issuance. This step requires public protest/appeal timeframes.

Dear Progressive Rancher Readers,

4. I mplementation (actually doing the treatment.)

I have been asked to give a comparison of some different types of grazing, such as ‘Targeted Grazing’, ‘Outcome Based Grazing’, ‘normal or traditional grazing’, and ‘flexible grazing’ With the new efforts that have come out in the BLM. Range Program, there is some confusion among Targeted Grazing, term permit renewal (“normal” 10-year permit renewal), and Outcome Based Grazing Authorizations (and WO Demo of Outcome Based Grazing Authorizations), and flexible grazing permits. Below you will find some differences and defining characteristics of each. Please let me know if this needs more discussion!

5. Effectiveness monitoring to see if the treatment worked as expected.

The main purpose of targeted grazing is changing the vegetation rather than maximizing the performance of the grazing animal. So, the production of the livestock is secondary to the vegetation treatment.

Your livestock may or may not experience the same amount of daily gain, and there is ordinarily a larger amount of input needed (often supplementation, frequent livestock movements, water hauling, etc.).

1. Data review/collection

Term Permit Renewal: This is the legal action, based on specific regulations, under which all types of grazing are authorized.

There are two types of “normal” livestock grazing permits: 1. A fully processed permit, and 2. A FLPMA permit.

Both of these permits are 10-year grazing authorizations for grazing livestock on BLM Targeted Grazing: managed lands; however, there are some differences Targeted grazing is defined as the application of I’ll try to explain below. a particular kind of grazing animal at a specified season, duration, and intensity to accomplish A permit is considered ‘fully processed’ when it includes the components below: specific vegetation management objectives.

2. Data analysis 3. Land health assessment 4. Land health evaluation and determination 5. NEPA analysis 6. Proposed decision

Targeted grazing can be done independent of a 7. Final decision 10-year grazing permit, since it is a vegetation treatment that is just using livestock as the tool. It 8. Permit issuance could also be included in a 10-year grazing permit, 9. Implementation under defined conditions, but does not have to be.

10. Monitoring Depending on the project, implementing Targeted (effectiveness, resource and compliance) Grazing requires the following steps: 1. Data collection. This may be minimal and very site-specific, depending on the situation.

2. Analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA.) This may not be necessary if Targeted Grazing has already been analyzed in another document, such as a vegetation Environmental Assessment.

4 MAY - JUNE 2019

FLPMA Permit: Sometimes offices do not have the capacity to fully process a permit prior to expiration, in which case the BLM office will renew the permit under the FLPMA authority, and it becomes known as a “FLMPA permit” (previous called a rider permit since it was authorized through the annual The Progressive Rancher

Appropriation Act prior to the amendment to of section 402(c)(2)) of the Federal Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). These are also legal 10-year grazing authorizations, but they are not “fully processed.” The permit can be issued for less than 10 years, if there is a legal reason to do that, such as a 5 year base property lease, but cannot be issued for a term of less than 3 years. When a permit is renewed using the FLPMA authority, BLM is not able to change any of the terms and conditions of the permit. This can mean that a permittee could be working within terms and conditions that are less than ideal for a large amount of time.

For a “fully processed” permit, NEPA requires the analysis of a range of alternatives. This range depends on the specifics of the situation. For example, if the allotment is not meeting land health standards and current grazing is a causal factor, BLM must analyze alternatives that modify grazing to achieve land health standards. This alternative does not have to be a reduction; it could be a change in season of use, or something else. The change should be driven by whatever the data shows is preventing the achievement of land health standards.

Even if an allotment is meeting standards, during the NEPA alternative development, other management methods could be proposed and analyzed. For those of you curious about Allotment Management Plans (AMPs), those are incorporated as one of the alternatives in a NEPA document if they are created for a particular allotment. The permittee and BLM staff ideally can create an alternative that works for everyone, but it is also possible to have multiple alternatives proposed from different sources. If a permittee has strong desires to pursue and AMP style approach to alternative development, they should communicate this with their range specialist.

I’ve listed below some of the grazing regulations that specifically speak to grazing permits and what they include. The section numbers (for example, § 4130.2) refer to sections of Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which regulates public lands in the Department of the Interior. § 4130.2 Grazing permits or leases.

(a) Grazing permits or leases shall be issued to qualified applicants to authorize use on the public lands and other lands under the administration of www.progressiverancher.com

the Bureau of Land Management that are designated as available for livestock grazing through land use plans. Permits or leases shall specify the types and levels of use authorized, including livestock grazing, suspended use, and conservation use. These grazing permits and leases shall also specify terms and conditions pursuant to §§ 4130.3, 4130.3–1, and 4130.3–2.

to incorporate flexibility in your grazing permit.

However, flexibility does have to be analyzed under NEPA and included in the grazing decision, and be written into your permit before you can exercise the flexibility. Because this is only done at the 10year renewal time, the time when an individual permittee can add flexibility to their authorization depends on when it comes up for renewal. Most districts have a priority list for processing 10-year § 4130.3 Terms and conditions. permit renewals, but permittees can request that Livestock grazing permits and leases shall contain the district review their authorization’s place on terms and conditions determined by the authorized the list. officer to be appropriate to achieve management and resource condition objectives for the public lands WO IM2018-109 specifies that ‘The BLM and other lands administered by the Bureau of Land may authorize grazing permits and leaseholders Management, and to ensure conformance with the (permittees) to exercise flexibility by making adjustments in their livestock grazing use provisions of subpart 4180 of this part. to accommodate changes in weather, forage productions, effects of fire or drought, or other § 4130.3–1 Mandatory terms and conditions. (a) The authorized officer shall specify the kind temporary conditions when flexibility is included and number of livestock, the period(s) of use, the in an allotment management plan (AMP) or its allotment(s) to be used, and the amount of use, in functional equivalent.” As I pointed out in bold animal unit months, for every grazing permit or in the previous paragraph, the IM states that the lease. The authorized livestock grazing use shall appropriate time to create flexibility in a grazing not exceed the livestock carrying capacity of the permit or AMP is when processing a permit for renewal. As you go through the seasons in your allotment. operation, write down what you may be seeing (b) All permits and leases shall be made subject to that is influencing your management desires/needs cancellation, suspension, or modification for any for that year. That can help ensure that when your violation of these regulations or of any term or permit is due to be fully processed, your ideas and flexibility needs can be identified in the alternatives condition of the permit or lease. and analyzed. At least one of the alternatives in (c) Permits and leases shall incorporate terms and the NEPA analysis must describe and analyze the conditions that ensure conformance with subpart flexibility you request. Then the flexibility (described 4180 of this part. and analyzed in the NEPA analysis) will become a term and condition of the grazing authorization § 4130.3–2 Other terms and conditions. (permit, lease) when the decision to incorporate the The authorized officer may specify in grazing permits flexibility is issued. or leases other terms and conditions which will assist in achieving management objectives, provide So, to summarize, flexibility is available to anyone; for proper range management or assist in the orderly however, it has to be described and analyzed under NEPA and undergo the decision process to be administration of the public rangelands. included in your permit/lease.

Flexibility in Permits: There has been significant interest lately in flexibility.

Who is it available to? How can I request it? How it is different from the Outcome Based Grazing Authorizations (OBGAs?) First I want to make sure that you are all familiar with a BLM document known as Instructional Memorandum 2018-109 (Flexibility in Livestock Grazing). This document is available on the BLM web site at this link: https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-109.

IM 2018-109 was issued to give national direction on what components are needed to integrate flexibility into grazing permits. IM2018-109 explains how flexibility in livestock grazing is one component of the outcome based grazing (OBG) concept. You do not have to be a participant of the outcome based grazing authorization demonstration project www.progressiverancher.com

Outcome Based Grazing Authorizations: These follow all the same laws and regulations as “normal” permits, and follow WO IM 2018-109 just as described in “Flexibility in permits” above, but with some additional actions aimed at collaborative management and national policy development.

Outcome based grazing authorizations (OBGA) will help the BLM work with permittees to apply livestock management to reach identified objectives.

It also will provide a monitoring framework to track accomplishments effectively. In terms of flexibility, the livestock operator could adjust numbers, distribution, levels of use, or take other livestock management actions based on weather, annual production, fire risk and other factors. Range improvements, however, would not be allowed in The Progressive Rancher

“flexibility” unless they are already included in the NEPA analysis and permit (example: could place water in any or none of the 50 pre-approved water haul sites in a given year.)

The steps for implementation of OBGA will include everything from the “normal” permit renewal, but in addition will include: • Achievable and measurable resource objectives developed cooperatively.

• Plan of monitoring to track/confirm achievement of those objectives, including frequency of monitoring and reporting, such that results are available and actionable in ecologically and economically relevant time scales.

• Flexible terms and conditions to provide for changing ecological, social, and economic conditions, and clearly described adaptive management actions to address the change in any or all of those conditions.

• A list of possible actions that can be taken to maintain a trajectory toward attainment of resource objectives, and multiple use objectives within an allotment or landscape.

• Annual meetings with permittee/cooperators/ BLM to look over annual data, discuss the last year (flexibilities & results) and the coming year.

Unlike flexible permits defined above, the OBGA demonstration projects have the added objective of shaping national policy and process regarding flexibility in grazing permits.

The OBGA national demonstration project has additional components in order to contribute to this larger goal. These include: 1. Meet with project participants to discuss landscape concepts and develop ecological objectives.

2. Develop guidance to field for identifying landscape and ecological objectives.

3. Meet to discuss economic/social (operational) objectives.

4. Develop guidance to field on operational objectives.

5. Develop plan for information transfer of lessons learned and successes.

6. Confer monthly to coordinate and give updates – share methods, successes, lessons learned.

I hope this article was informative, but if it left you with questions, please let me know. As always, feel free to send your feedback, comments, topic ideas and questions by emailing me, Kathryn Dyer, at kdyer@blm.gov.

MAY - JUNE 2019 5

CHECKOFF NEWS Results of Latest Nevada Beef Council Promotion When it comes to reaching and engaging consumers, the Nevada Beef Council (NBC) works to build campaigns that incorporate a number of elements designed to reach them at various points in their path-to-purchase.

Over the past few years, we’ve worked to incorporate new partnerships and campaign elements to continually evolve these marketing efforts, and to ensure our messages are reaching consumers in the most effective way possible.

In late 2018, the NBC launched its latest promotion, this one built around holiday entertaining, featuring holiday roast imagery and recipes, and offering cash-back rebates on select roasts at the retail level.

This integrated marketing campaign involved multiple digital and broadcast elements, as well as a rebate available through the mobile shopping app Ibotta, all of which were designed to reach and ultimately encourage consumers to add beef to their market basket during the 2018 holiday season. The campaign launched November 28, 2018, with the broadcast and digital elements running a total of five weeks, until January 1, 2019. The campaign targeted adults 25-49, with a primary focus on the state’s major population areas of the Las Vegas and Reno markets.

The Ibotta offer for this campaign was a $4 rebate on any brand beef roast, two pounds or larger. As we’ve shared in previous updates, the NBC has incorporated Ibotta offers into its campaigns for the last few years, finding a good return on investment and broader reach than through previous retail-level promotions.

Ibotta partners with leading brands and retailers to offer rebates on a variety of products and groceries. The consumer unlocks qualifying rebates through the app by completing a brand engagement, then purchases the item at the store, and verifies the purchase for a rebate that comes in the form of cash or gift card. The app has proven popular with consumers, with over 22 million downloads to date.

By Nevada Beef Council Staff

Providing rebates through Ibotta also provides more flexibility for the NBC in terms of retailer engagement. Since Ibotta rebates are available through any participating Nevada retailer, shoppers visiting most grocery stores in the state are able to access the offers, which helps broaden the reach of our retail promotions. For this campaign specifically, the top retailers at which rebates were redeemed were Smith’s (31 percent), Walmart (19 percent) and Albertson’s (19 percent).

In terms of the broadcast and digital elements deployed throughout this campaign, the use of geo-fencing helped target consumers using location-based and behavioral displays to target the primary grocery shoppers within a specified distance of the retailer. This was deployed through a broad app network, including Shazam, Slacker, Words With Friends, Fox News, Pandora, Accuweather, and many others. Digital video pre-roll and mobile banners were displayed through these apps using the geo-fencing technology.

Additionally, a series of broadcast radio ads were aired on a variety of Las Vegas and Reno market radio stations, with a reach of 971,000 listeners through these ads alone.

Although these campaign elements concluded the first of the year, the Ibotta offer remained active for another several weeks into 2019, extending the timeframe in which Nevada shoppers could take advantage of the rebate. During the course of the promotion, approximately 35 percent of shoppers redeeming the beef rebate were between the ages of 25 and 34, and 31 percent were between 35 and 44. In terms of gender, over 85 percent were redeemed by women, with 14.75 percent redeemed by men.

Ultimately, the campaign helped reach over 2.7 million Nevada consumers, and resulted in 6,295 rebates being redeemed on the Ibotta mobile app – a redemption rate that is almost double the benchmark for covering the state of Nevada!

Virtual Ranch Tours Available BeefItsWhatsForDinner.com makes the ranch more accessible than ever, with virtual reality tours of farms and ranches now available on the site. The 360° videos provide a unique, behind-the-scenes look at ranching, offering consumers and influencers a closer look at how America’s beef producers raise cattle.

These virtual reality tours have been used by the Beef Checkoff and state beef councils in recent months to share the ranching experience at various food and retail influencer events and conferences. Users get a sense of what goes into ranching through a fun and interactive experience, with the ranchers themselves sharing their stories as narrators on the videos.

What’s more, two of the three ranches featured are here in the West – Brackett Ranches in Idaho, and Easterday Ranches in Washington.

You can learn more at BeefItsWhatsForDinner.com/raising-beef/360-videos.

6 MAY - JUNE 2019

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

Beer-Braised Spicy Beef Tacos

By Nevada Beef Council Staff Who doesn’t love tacos?? This savory recipe features beef braised in a beer and adobo sauce mixture that adds plenty of flavor and just enough kick! But if this particular taco recipe just isn’t for you, never fear – there are many delicious options available at BeefItsWhatsForDinner.com!

INGREDIENTS • 1 beef Shoulder Roast Boneless (2 pounds) • 2 teaspoons olive oil • Salt and pepper

• 1 bottle (12 ounces) beer

• 2 medium chipotle peppers in adobo sauce, minced

• 2 tablespoons plus 1 teaspoon adobo sauce from chipotle peppers, divided

• 12 small corn or flour tortillas (6-inch diameter), warmed • 2 cups coleslaw

• Toppings: chopped red onion, chopped fresh cilantro, crumbled queso or sour cream, fresh lime juice or lime wedges (optional)

“Courtesy of Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner.”

COOKING INSTRUCTIONS • Heat oil in stockpot over medium heat until hot. Place beef roast in stockpot; brown evenly. Pour off drippings; season with salt and pepper, as desired.

• Add beer, peppers and 2 tablespoons adobo sauce to stockpot; bring to a boil. Reduce heat; cover tightly and simmer 2-1/4 to 2-1/2 hours or until pot roast is fork-tender.

• Meanwhile, combine coleslaw and remaining 1 teaspoon adobo sauce. Refrigerate until ready to use.

• Remove roast; cool slightly. Skim fat from cooking liquid; bring to boil. Reduce to medium and cook 10 to 12 minutes or until reduced to 1-1/2 cups. Meanwhile, trim and discard excess fat from cooked roast. Shred roast with 2 forks. Return beef to reserved liquid; cook over medium heat until heated through.

• Serve beef in tortillas; top with coleslaw mixture and toppings, as desired.

www.nevadabeef.org | www.mybeefcheckoff.org www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 7

In the Mind of a Millennial

By Jill Scofield, Director of Producer Relations, California & Nevada Beef Council

Continuing to Share Beef’s Sustainability Story Nevada ranchers – and U.S. ranchers in general – have a lot to be proud of. Continuous improvements over the years have garnered a lot of positive results for producers and the industry in general. Today’s ranchers do more with less – producing the same amount of beef as in 1977, with 33 percent fewer cattle, for example. What’s more, U.S. farmers and ranchers produce 18 percent of the world’s beef with only 8 percent of the cattle.

Consider, too, that U.S. beef has one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world, 10 to 50 times lower than some nations. In fact, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from beef production, including the production of animal feed, only account for 3.3 percent of U.S. GHG emissions.

by Jill Scofield

(GHG) emissions, fossil energy use, blue water impact us for a long time. Check them for credibility consumption and reactive nitrogen loss. and respond in a meaningful way.”

Among the findings were that cattle only consume 2.6 pounds of grain per pound of carcass weight, which is similar to pork and poultry. Additionally, nearly 90 percent of grain-finished cattle feed is inedible to humans, meaning these plants can only provide value to humans when they’re upcycled by cattle into high-quality protein.

This underscores the importance of checkoff-funded research such as the lifecycle assessment, giving consumers and the industry the real story of beef sustainability, based on facts.

When this study was released, the checkoff team worked to share it with the masses, distributing it via the wire to consumer-directed media outlets, as well In terms of water use, it takes on average 308 as creating a “Beef in a Healthy, Sustainable Diet” gallons of water, which is recycled, to produce a landing page on BeefItsWhatsForDinner.com. pound of boneless beef. In total, water use by beef is only around 5 percent of U.S. water withdrawals. You might feel like this topic comes up a lot, and Finally, total fossil energy input to U.S. beef cattle you’re right. It’s important that we all keep in mind production is equivalent to 0.7 percent of the the valid and trustworthy resources like this that exist to help us all clarify misconceptions that exist national consumption of fossil fuels. about beef ’s environmental footprint While these conclusions are compelling, a recent report published by the EAT-Lancet suggests that Remember to visit DrivingDemandforBeef.com the only way to “save the planet” is to eat less meat, to learn more about checkoff-funded efforts, and eat more nuts and beans, or adopt a “flexitarian” BeefItsWhatsForDinner.com to learn more about diet (defined as flexible vegetarianism, eating more all things beef, including sustainability. vegetables than meat).

With all this positive information to hang our hats on, it is frustrating when misinformation is shared intimating that beef production’s environmental footprint is significantly greater than science tells us. And when you consider that 73 percent of Millennial consumers are willing to pay more for goods considered “sustainable”, it deepens the importance of pushing back against the idea that producing beef doesn’t fit within this category.

Frank Mitloehner, Ph.D., professor and air quality A few months back, we shared some information specialist for the Department of Animal Science at released from a recent study that helped shed the University of California Davis, recently chimed even more light on this issue. As was stated in in on this topic, noting that in order to meet EATEnvironmental Footprints of Beef Cattle Production, a Lancet’s solution of replacing meat with nuts, the study recently published in the journal Agricultural U.S. would have to increase nut production by 580 Systems, widely accepted claims about beef percent.

cattle's environmental impact in the U.S. are often An article published on DrivingDemandForBeef. overestimated. com, a checkoff-funded producer education site, The study was based on a comprehensive beef goes on to further clarify the issue: “As others try to lifecycle assessment that was conducted by the influence dietary guidelines throughout the world, USDA's Agricultural Research Service and the Beef Dr. Mitloehner cautioned that the often-cited data Checkoff, and was designed to scientifically quantify in the 2006 FAO report (Livestock’s Long Shadow) and other soon-to-follow reports will continue to the sustainability of U.S. beef production. make inaccurate claims about food production.”

Researchers collected and examined feed- and cattle-production-related data from more than In the article, Dr. Mitloehner also provides this 2,200 cattle producers in seven regional production insight for the beef industry: “The way you produce areas. They derived their conclusions by using a animals has a profound impact on environmental simulation model and regional production data footprint,” he says. “Although these reports are full to estimate national impacts on greenhouse gas of inaccuracies, don’t just disregard them as they will 8 MAY - JUNE 2019

The Progressive Rancher

Jill Scofield is the Director of Produce Relations for the California and Nevada Beef Councils. She grew up on a cow-calf ranch in Northwestern Nevada www.progressiverancher.com

Jack Payne Cell: 775-217-9273 • Alt: 775-225-8889 Cedarville - Archie Osborne 775-397-3645 Southern Nevada - Cole Reber 702-232-7351 Carey Hawkins 208-724-6712 | Frank Norcutt 775-223-7390

OFFICE: 775-423-7760

Full-Service Cattle Sales & Marketing - serving Fallon, Nevada and the Outlying Areas.

PAIR & BRED COW SALE MAY 16, 2019 @ NOON

NEXT FEEDER SALE MAY 16, 2019 @ 11:30am held in conjunction with the Pair & Bred Cow Sale

Over 1,000 pairs have already consigned. Two large herd dispersals included! 70% of pairs “Where the will be seven or younger. All cows OCV. 90% of Ranchers Shop” cows will be Angus or Angus X. Cows will be NEVADA LIVESTOCK VET SUPPLY, LLC sorted by age; 3 & 4 years, 5 & 6 years and Store Hours: Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 7 & 8 years old. Short solids & broken mouth.

131 Industrial Way • Fallon, NV 89406 • 775-624-4996 HD 14 4 9 4 5 12 12 2 22 22 3 16 1 12 1 7 1 4 16 2 3 2 10 4 2 3 3 7 2 4 2 9

Description BLK BLK CHAR BLK BLK BLK BLK BLK RD RD MIX BLK CHAR BLK RBF MIX BLK CHAR MIX RD BLK BLK RD MIX RBF BLK MIX BLK MIX BLK BLK MIX

STEERS Weight Price CWT 475 178 529 176 527 175 530 168 549 167 548 165 548 165 573 162 518 159 518 159 515 157 595 157 500 153 636 152 615 147 664 147 545 146 690 144.5 705 144.5 553 143 688 140.5 653 140 608 136 626 135 773 131 807 128 818 128 794 127.5 825 126.5 773 125 823 125 911 122.5

www.progressiverancher.com

Location Malin, OR Spring Creek, NV Orovada, NV Malin, OR Las Vegas, NV Battle Mountain, NV Battle Mountain, NV Fallon, NV Battle Mountain, NV Battle Mountain, NV Fallon, NV Paradise Valley, NV Silver Springs, NV Las Vegas, NV Eureka, NV Winnemucca, NV Fallon, NV Reno, NV Paradise Valley, NV Paradise Valley, NV Winnemucca, NV Lovelock, NV Fallon, NV Fallon, NV Carlin, NV Yerington, NV Fallon, NV Reno, NV Fallon, NV Fallon, NV Battle Mountain, NV Fallon, NV

HD 23 18 11 9 7 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

Description MIX BLK MIX MIX BLK BLK MIX MIX BLK MIX BLK MIX BLK MIX RD MIX BLK BLK WF BLK BLK

1 1 1 8

CHAR RBF BLK MIX

1 1 1

BLK BLK BLK

1 1

WF CHAR

The Progressive Rancher

HEIFERS Weight Price CWT 608 143 600 141 696 135.25 646 140.5 519 157 524 156 581 139 609 143 455 164 626 135 720 121 473 133 482 155 365 170 788 126 696 135.25 493 140 660 140 975 91 1,405 94 455 164 BULL CALVES 295 171 490 160 440 157.5 579 138 BULLS 1,885 76.5 1,990 68 1,655 67.5 COWS 1,335 65 1,445 58.5

Location Fallon, NV Winnemucca, NV Fallon, NV Eureka, NV Fallon, NV Spring Creek, NV Winnemucca, NV Fallon, NV Fallon, NV Fallon, NV Fallon, NV McDermitt, NV Fallon, NV Orovada, NV Washoe Valley, NV Fallon, NV Fallon, NV Paradise Valley, NV Carlin, NV Fallon, NV Fallon, NV Reno, NV Fallon, NV Winnemucca, NV Winnemucca, NV Winnemucca, NV Fallon, NV Carlin, NV Carlin, NV Fallon, NV MAY - JUNE 2019 9

By Joseph Guild

Cows & Climate Change Every once in a while I have to repeat myself by echoing a recent column to make the point that something is not just serious, but really serious.

How many of you meat eating readers have ever tried a veggie burger or something not specifically named a burger but an animal substitute food which is derived from plants and claims to be a replacement for a hamburger made from beef?

I have tried a couple of different versions of these products. What does the competition taste like-right?

And while I did not gag when trying them, I wasn’t launched into food heaven either. But if I had what I considered to be righteous reasons to switch to a veggie burger, I would have played the “I am doing my best to save the planet game” and shouted to the world how great this burger was.

Look, I am a capitalist and I do not criticize any entrepreneur who discovers a market, fills that market with a product and makes money off the manufacturing and selling of that product. But if the consumer is misled into believing they are helping to “save the planet”, I have a problem with that. One of the current mantras is if humans do away with animal protein for food and switch to a plant based diet, a reduction of greenhouse gasses will be the result and we can reduce carbon emissions significantly. I question what the tradeoff is and whether we would really be helping to solve the climate change problem.

Let’s look at some facts. Recent research dispels many of the myths such as the one that claims animal agriculture contributes as much as 50% of the greenhouse gasses causing climate change. The United States Environmental Protection Agency says that beef cattle produce only about 2% of the human caused emissions in the United States. So is that a good enough reason to change your diet?

Then there is the claim that livestock production is ruining our environment and therefore a switch to “benign” plant agriculture to produce our food will help protect the planet. I have a vision of a giant combine harvesting plants for food versus a single cow on a pasture grazing things humans can’t or won’t eat, drinking water, soaking up sun shine, then being 10 MAY - JUNE 2019

finished efficiently in a confined feeding operation and much later in life being harvested by humans to provide a high quality protein with essential vitamins and minerals for human nutrition needs.

Two things come out of this vision. First, the cow is probably grazing at least a part of its life on pasture or rangeland which is unfit for crop growing because it is too steep, very rocky or too arid. In fact, more than 40% of the land in the United States fits into this category. Thus, land unfit for growing a plant based diet is still being used to feed humans. Second, for example, quinoa, a highly touted substitute protein first domesticated in the high Andes Mountains

Research dispels myths such as claims that animal agriculture contributes as much as 50% of climate-changing greenhouse gasses

less land, water and other resources including human resources are used and expended while helping to feed a growing population. I think the world could take a lesson about our efficiencies and do the same thing, if not now certainly in the near future.

So the obvious question I would have is how much land must be converted to crop production to fill the gap created by the curtailment of animal protein production in favor of a plant–based diet?

There are about 8,000 ounces of trimmed, boneless meat in a finished beef animal. Thus, one beef animal produces 2,667 three ounce meals of protein. I wonder about the amount of resources it would take to create the equivalent amount of protein from plants.

We need all kinds of food to feed a planetary population on its way to about 9.5 billion people in the next 30 years. That means we need to use all of the land, water, technologic, human, plant and animal resources available to us to meet these future needs.

Thus, my criticism of a plant only diet is not about that per se. My criticism comes from a place where I do not want anyone telling me what to eat or what to raise for other people to eat. I have no problem with vegetarians or vegans or the people who support their choices. My problem is with the organized groups who falsely claim I am part of the problem and want me to stop raising animals to eat.

They falsely claim I am contributing more of my share to climate change while they fly in jets, drive and use by the Inca, is one of the plants often offered as a other petroleum based transportation, use computers viable alternative to eating meat. I have no criticism to write their falsehoods made by industries which of someone who wants to go down this dietary path. help to contribute to climate change, and heat and However, it would take 3 cups equaling about 650 air condition their homes and offices with fossil fuels. calories of quinoa to get the same amount of protein as in 3 ounces of cooked beef which equals about 170 They do all this while failing to recognize my wise calories. Can you say overstuffed and bloated? use of limited resources to help solve the problem.

The hypocrisy is appalling and in my view is counterSpeaking of the environment, American cattle productive to help solve the problem, which if they producers are so efficient they now grow the same are right we apparently all face. So stop whining amount of beef as they did in 1977 with 33 percent about what I do, stay in your lane and work positively fewer cows. Another way to look at American with me and your fellow human beings. efficiency is we produce 18 percent of the world’s beef with just 8 percent of the cattle. This means that I’ll see you soon.

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

ELKO COUNTY FAIR C E L E B R AT I N G 9 9 Y E A R S

AUGUST 23 SEPTEMBER 2

2019 WWW.ELKOCOUNTYFAIR.COM (775) 738-3616 www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

6 DAYS OF LIVE HORSE RACING 4H & HOME ARTS TEAM BRANDING 4-D BARREL RACING MIDWAY/COMMERCIAL VENDORS MULEY ROPING USTRC TEAM ROPING NRCHA APPROVED SHOW WORKING COW HORSE EVENTS COWBOY COLOR CHASE 5K FAIR PARADE WESTERN DANCE BY RECKLESS ENVY CARNIVAL & FAMILY FUN STAGE BATTLE OF THE BANDS

MAY - JUNE 2019 11

Acknowledging and Embracing Generational Differences to Expand Nevada CattleWomen, Inc. Membership Releasing new digital software and app soon for online membership and membership communication

By Staci Emm Nevada CattleWomen, Inc. held a retreat with the officer team at the end of March in Elko and a major part of the discussion was membership and projected growth of the organization in the future, and how we can meet the demands of past, current and future generations.

A couple of months ago, I was in charge of taking care of my 21 month-old nephew, Cooper. I got him out of the car because we had just went shopping at Walmart to get his food and a toy. He was Face Timing on my IPhone with papa as he walked into the house, and of course had to carry my phone all by himself. I figured as long as I could hear him talking and he was in the living room that he was still on the phone with grandpa. I unpacked the groceries and I went to sit by him and low and behold he was not talking to grandpa. In fact, it was his fifth Face Time call to individuals in my contact list. He had a call with a few of my friends and he was talking to them all and as they told him how cute he was. He would say, “I know” and “bye,” and hit the red button to end the call and dial again to talk to the next person he chose in the contact list. He could operate my phone almost as well as I could scrolling through my apps. I was amazed.

See, my nephew is on the cusp on being a “Gen Z” (also known as Generation Z). The population that knows what they want and know how to get it according to recent research. There are nearly 74 million living in the United States ages approximately 3 -23 years old and are expected by 2020 to make up one-third of the US population. Major companies spend millions of dollars researching the needs and wants of future consumers and the traits of their future workers. Young people play a major role in shaping societal trends. This generation is computer literate and is exposed to social networks and mobile systems immediately.

A consumer research study by McKinsey & Company reported on Gen Z behaviors, and a common theme was for this generation was the “search for the truth” and being able to “process information faster than any other generation.” What are Gen Zers views on consumption and their relationships with brands? According to the study, this generation views consumption as access, expression of individual identity and ethical concern. So, why are we so interested?

At our retreat, we went over the policies and procedures of Nevada CattleWomen, Inc. A big portion of the policies, procedures and duties of the officers were seen as outdated by the executive board members that consist of one Gen Z, two Gen Y (Millennials) and two Gen Xers. For example, there was a statement about one of the executive team clipping newspaper articles for the yearbook. In today’s digital environment, this is no longer logical, but not even applicable in some cases.

Elko County Cattlewomen are increasing their membership monthly just through Facebook and other social media tools. Nevada Cattlewomen, Inc. have increased their following by over a 1,000 people on Facebook posts, which 12 MAY - JUNE 2019

has resulted in us wondering about why these people are not all members. We have this following but how do we get them to become members? The team knew immediately what the problem was and there is no online access to membership. In fact, who even carries their check book around anymore? I have a colleague that I work with at the University of Arizona that has a card carrying case within his phone. He carries his identification card, a credit card and a debit card. He said he use to carry a wallet but he lost it, and it was a horrific hassle. He said he always has his phone right next to him and the case eliminated all his problems. So, is it realistic to ask our future cattlewomen to contact us so that we will email them a form. Once they get the form they will send it back to us with a check? This is what our current members are doing, and we know that it is a barrier to increasing our membership.

Nevada CattleWomen, Inc. decided to invest in a membership software program that will handle online membership, event planning, website design and email blasts. While the team in currently working to understand how this software works, there is a lot of excitement as to how it can make it easier to join the organization, and become involved in different events throughout the state. Not only will this software remind current members to renew their membership, but it can be used with other social media tools to have members join. Once they join and an email address in obtained, they will receive updates and communication for activities, events and issues that are facing the state. The executive team is going to take the summer months to get this software system working and to understand everything that it can do.

While we are exciting about utilizing new technology, we are also beginning to plan for our annual meeting that will be held Elko the third week of November. We are hoping to involve youth and provide a presentation about this new software system, and how it works. We sincerely hope that utilizing new technology available will increase membership and expand the reach of educating our publics about the beef production and the ranching way of life.

Todd Miller

(210) 695-1648 www.headhonchosllc.com

LEGAL & Seasonal papered ranch workers, farm workers, and cowboys from old MEXICO. Work visa specialist with 18 yrs. of expert experience & focused knowledge. Large ranch operation references.

The Progressive Rancher

FREE Work Visa Counseling www.progressiverancher.com

Interview: Rosealee Rieman

by Ruby Uhart

The craziest thing I have heard of happening on the ranch was my dad getting chased by a beaver. To give a little back story, a few weeks prior to being chased, my mom had sent my dad an article about a man killed in Canada by a beaver that bit his femoral artery. One night, Dad went out around 1am to change water down by the river when he noticed these weird patterns in the field. He followed the pattern up the field when he noticed something weird sitting in the shadows. He started walking up to it thinking it was just an otter. He said before he knew it, the beaver whipped around and started chasing him through the field! All he could think was “This thing’s gonna kill me!” After the beaver dove into the ditch he realized he still had to pull boards…right where that beaver had gone! He was able to get the boards out but pulled each one with cation. When he finally got back around 3am he woke up my mom to tell her all about it. That's probably the craziest thing that's happened on the ranch.

My name is Rosealee Rieman, I’m 20 years old and currently a student at the University of Nevada, Reno as a Agricultural Education major. I'm also a competitor for the Nevada Rifle team. My family ranches in the Carson Valley. The home ranch is about 3 or 4 miles from Gardnerville and the lower ranch is about 3 miles from Minden. We have a cow/calf operation and put up our own hay to feed and sell. The ranches are operated by my mom, dad, uncle, cousins and me. From working cows with family, I have learned no matter how mad you get at each other don't hold a grudge. Usually after you get done working they will act like nothing ever happened. If your cousin gets you with the hot shot don't hot shot him back… it doesn't end well… this also applies to getting hit with sorting flags.

I would say ranch life can be more stressful in certain aspects, compared to city life.

We live off of only 2 major paychecks a year and we have to be able to stretch that I have been a member of the Western Nevada CattleWomen’s for about 6 years. I money out. In Carson Valley, I personally get stressed out by all the people that have am the fifth generation here on the ranch. Ever since I can remember, I have been moved here. We have a lot of issues with trespassing and have had problems with out working with my dad and grandpa. When I was 3 years old they used to put the people messing with calves or blocking gates because they are trying to look at birds truck in first gear and I would stand on the seat and drive while they fed. Then when or take pictures. Sometimes it feels like we are ranching in L.A. They enjoy being we needed to stop I would jump down off the seat and push the brake pedal. I also out of the city but complain about the smell, the noise, etc. No matter how stressful used to take the feed truck when they weren't looking and leave them! My grandpa it gets or what problems come up I wouldn't trade this lifestyle for anything. I can't used to put me on the horses while he fed in the corrals so I wouldn't go anywhere. imagine growing up in a subdivision. I actually have a really hard time living in When we would go up to work on The Pickle Meadows Ranch, my grandpa would Reno for school because of this. There are way too many people so whenever I get sneak me off to go fishing. He could catch fish with a shovel but I never quite the chance to go home, I do. mastered that trick. I did, however, get super good at learning how to soak people!

When I was about 5 or 6 I did Pee-wee Junior rodeo. I used to make my dad run the I think it’s important for ranchers to share their story to help others learn about barrel and pole bending patterns every time “because I forgot”. I really just thought our profession and why we do what we do. We live in a world that is uneducated it was fun to watch my dad do the pattern with my stick horse. I think he knew I about where their food comes or how it’s prepared. This is a major reason on why I was messing with him but he still did the patterns every time. decided to become an Ag teacher. I can help share my passion and educate others.

As I got older, my chores and jobs got bigger and more involved. Now I help with irrigating meadows leading up to haying season. I also rake hay, drive the harrow bed, backhoe, and hay squeeze (I’m really slow but I can do it). When there is cow work to do I help with vaccinating and branding calves and doctoring and moving cows. My dad has taught me how to do some mechanic work. I’ve worked on the swather, big and small balers, harrowbeds, rakes, hay squeeze, tractors, and pick-up trucks.

My favorite thing about ranch life would probably be getting to witness God's creations and working with my dad; from watching a newborn calf take its first breath of air to watching the sunrise paint the mountains, being able to witness all this with my dad makes it even better. The hardest part of ranch life for me is losing calves. I know sometimes it's out of our control but I hate losing calves. I think this is something I struggle with because those calves are our livelihood. At the end of the day no matter how much you check the herd and try to keep them warm and healthy there’s some that can’t be saved and that’s hard.

My advice to anyone wanting to pursue the ranching lifestyle, would be to learn as much as you can. There are skills I still don't know and want to learn. In this industry you will never stop learning. Have a good work ethic and don't be afraid to get dirty! They invented soap for a reason! Don't be so serious! Wear that wild outfit, dance at random times, jam out to that song. If the radio doesn't work in the tractor a headband makes a great phone holder. Always have a bright colored water bottle so when it falls off the back of the rakes you can find it before it gets baled up. Don't be afraid to ask for help. Words I live by: God has a plan and we need to trust his plan. He will never give us a situation we can’t handle.

It's always hard to prepare for complications but we do the best we can. We watch the weather as much as we can and make adjustments as needed, and stock up on parts that commonly break throughout the haying season. But with cows? Ahhh… sometimes you just gotta shake your head and tend to them. How does a 400lb calf wind up stuck in a culvert? How does a rogue heifer get across a river so fast and then disappear up the hill in the dark? Cows just like to do their own thing so you just gotta go with the flow.

A typical day depends on what season we are in. Right now we are starting haying season. This means equipment is getting pulled out of the barns and getting greased.

We are burning ditches and irrigating, and starting to get a handle on our invasive weeds. Right now we are wrapping up our branding season. Our first branding was in March. When all the calves are done we put our herd on pasture. When we brand, we use a calf table. I usually push calves or help with the branding iron and holding legs. I can vaccinate but I’m not the biggest fan of needles so that one isn’t my go-to job. When the herd is on pasture we go through and check salt boxes.

We also have day riders come in 3 times a month to doctor and ride through cows.

My favorite seasons are Feeding Season and Calving Season which are around the same time for us. We calve out in January and February and feed until about the middle of April. These are my favorite seasons because I get to work with the cows a majority of my day. We get to feed cows and horses, and we get to see all the new calves running around. www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 13

Nevada Agriculture and Water Educational Series

Hemp and Legislature Hemp is generally defined as the cannabis plant (yes, the same one that produces marijuana) but with very low levels of tetra-hydrocannabinol (THC). THC is the principal psychoactive constituent of cannabis. Hemp can’t get you high, but it can help you calm joint discomfort, reduce stress, fight inflammation while promoting a healthy heart and restful sleep. It is also a great source of nutrition and protein, among other benefits. Yet inexplicably for decades federal law did not differentiate between hemp and other cannabis plants. That began to change with the 2014 Farm Bill which, among other things, allowed for some hemp production and pilot programs. But the most significant change in the hemp world was the Farm Bill of 2018. This bill, while imposing serious restrictions like low THC levels and a mandatory federal/state regulatory program allows for hemp-derived products to be produced, transported and sold for commercial purposes across state lines.

Because the Farm Bill of 2018 was signed into law on December 20, 2018 by President Trump, most of the public was not aware that it is now a legal product on both the state and federal levels. This lack of awareness also included most members of the Nevada State Legislature. The 2019 session of the legislature began on February 4, 2019. Members of the legislature are generally supportive of hemp products and the Nevada hemp industry, but are unaware of recent changes at the federal level that occurred in December. In addition, three bills were drafted that dealt with hemp. The most extensive bill is SB347 from Senator James Settelmeyer – which ensures that federal requirements of the farm bill are carried out including the establishment of a Nevada State Regulatory Program to be overseen by the Nevada Department of Agriculture. SB 209, sponsored by Senator Dallas Harris establishes testing and retesting programs and seeks to ensure that hemp products, currently primarily from out-of-state sources, are safe and actually contain CBD and appropriate THC levels.

SB 228 introduced by Senator Pat Spearman establishes authority to use hemp oils and food products, including the use by veterinarians. Because the latter two bills were drafted before the farm bill was signed there were misunderstandings on this topic in Carson City. Recognizing that this uncertainty could threaten the entire Nevada hemp industry, Western States Hemp brought on The Perkins Company, a veteran government affairs group uniquely suited to help navigate the legislative needs to establish the hemp industry.

The Perkins Company is led by its founder Richard Perkins a three time Speaker of the Nevada Assembly and retired Henderson Chief of Police and Leo Drozdoff the eight year Director of Nevada’s Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Other very key members of the Perkins Company are Mike Willden, Governor Sandoval’s former Chief of Staff, Mari Nakashima, Governor Sandoval’s former Communications Director and Brian Evans a veteran of four legislative session. This team, in very short order was able to bring legislators, Nevada government officials and other stakeholders together to provide needed education on hemp and propose necessary changes in all three bills that brought about improvement and workability.

All three bills have been amended and survived the first major deadline of 2019. Bills needed to be passed out of committee by Friday April 12, 2019. That was not the case for 268 other bills that died on that date. These bills still need to pass out of the Senate, then out of the Assembly and ultimately signed by Governor Sisolak. So much work remains before the 2019 Nevada legislative session ends on June 3. Discussions continue with officials from the Nevada Department of Agriculture and the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services to ensure there is mutual understanding of how these bills will be implemented especially as changes continue to be made at the federal level. Western States Hemp, legislative partners and The Perkins Company are committed to making Nevada a leader in hemp production and hemp products. This would be a great outcome for the State of Nevada and its citizens. We are committed to give the Progressive Rancher an update in early June. Stay tuned!

14 MAY - JUNE 2019

The Progressive Rancher

Explore one of Nevada’s most important natural resources through the lens of food and agriculture Lessonplansandresources for grades 3-5 teachers

New Nevada AG in the Classroom Materials

Nevada elementary school teachers will soon have new tools available to enhance their classroom instruction. The Nevada Agriculture and Water Educational Series is being published as part of the Nevada Agriculture in the Classroom curriculum.

The lessons emphasize the importance of water in raising the food, fiber and fuels that are essential to everyday life. The materials will help teachers and students understand how Nevada farmers and ranchers are using science and technology to be good stewards of our most precious resource.

The materials are designed specifically for Grades 3 to 5, but many of the lessons can be used with other class levels and ages as well.

The lessons and resources are aligned to educational standards and will highlight: • How farmers and ranchers use water

• Tools farmers and ranchers utilize to efficiently manage water use

• Water management practices Nevadans may see in their daily life but be unfamiliar with what they do or why they are done • Career opportunities in the food, agriculture and natural resources in Nevada.

Lessons start with the basics of the water cycle and addresses Nevada watersheds and aquifers and the history of water in Nevada.

They go on to discuss the importance of water in agriculture, how it is used to the benefit of all Nevadans and modern agricultural practices that conserve and develop water resources. In addition to classroom instructional materials and hands-on learning exercises, a series of videos with accompanying worksheets are part of the curriculum.

Development of these materials was spearheaded by the Nevada Agricultural Foundation to launch a water education program that will enhance the effectiveness of Agriculture in the Classroom for Nevada. NAF saw the need for this new program and engaged the Department of Agriculture which administers the Ag in the Classroom program in Nevada. Numerous contributors of ideas, information and funding have gone into the final product. In addition to printed materials that will be available, teachers will also be able to download materials for their continued use.

Special thanks go to Nevada Rangeland Resources Commission, American AgCredit, CoBank, Nevada Agriculture Council, Truckee Meadows Water Authority, Guild Foundation for their financial support of the project and to USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service, Desert Farming Initiative, Bently Ranch, and Gilcrease Orchard for their input.

Contacts for more information:

Sue Hoffman, Executive Director of NAF, sue@nvagfoundation.org 775/673-2468 Amber Smyer, Agricultural Literacy Coordinator for NDA asmyer@agri.nv.gov 775/353-3769 www.progressiverancher.com

Selling 50 plus head of Ranch & Performance Horses Extensive 2 day preview: ranch trail class, stock horse contest, calf branding, team roping, ranch roping and doctoring, conformation class, bronc riding, BBQ Friday Night

www.shelmanfamilyhorses.com

WILDFIRES HAPPEN

Is your community prepared?

This ad was funded by Bureau of Land Management in cooperation with University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, an EEO/AA institution.

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

Learn more at LivingWithFire.info MAY - JUNE 2019 15 

Soil Tools for Rangeland Management By: Erin Hourihan, NRCS Soil and Plant Science Division, Rangeland Management Specialist and Heather Emmons, NRCS Nevada State Public Affairs Officer Major land resource areas (MLRAs) (Figure 1) are maybe the bestknown building block of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) hierarchy that houses soil survey and ecological sites (ES).

They are based on the basic premise that natural vegetation is a result of the combination of geography, soils and climate. Early in human history, people learned that soils with productive native plant communities were also favorable for crops. This idea resulted in a natural progression as agriculture production drove early soil mapping. Soil scientists divided the land into units with similar soils, climate and vegetation/crops. This allowed for the development of soil interpretations that are useful for many landowners and producers in a region, instead of individuals.

As of 2019, Ag Handbook 296 is under revision based on recent and on-going soil survey and ecological site work.

The handbook was last updated in 1978. The current update includes the development and delineation of Land Resource Units (LRUs). LRUs are subdivisions of MLRAs that have one or more unique features making them more homogenous than the surrounding area. LRU determinations are based on dominant topography, soil moisture and soil temperature regimes, and the amount of effective precipitation the site receives on a climatological basis (not annual weather fluctuations).

LRUs provide a valuable resource to land managers at an intermediate scale between the MRLA and the soil survey map-unit (MU). Management decisions frequently occur on a watershed or allotment basis encompassing multiple MUs, soil types and ecological sites, but much smaller than the MLRA. Well-defined LRUs share important abiotic factors—or nonliving parts of the environment that affect living organisms and ecosystem function—such as soil climate, effective precipitation and geomorphology.

The current effort to update Ag Handbook 296 has allowed for the development of LRUs throughout the Great Basin. LRU breaks are 16 MAY - JUNE 2019

Figure 1: MLRAs of the Great Basin. Detailed MLRA information can be found in United States Department of Agriculture Handbook 296 (https://bit.ly/2OB9tgi). based on interactions between elevation and soil properties, the same characteristics that determine how an ecological site responds to, and recovers from, a disturbance like wildfire. Ecological sites (ES), or as they were previously known: range and forest sites, are likely the best-known soil survey interpretation. Ecological sites are defined as a documented group of dominant controlling abiotic factors including soil properties, landscape position, etc. These factors are used to differentiate similar ESs during the development of soil-vegetation correlations, by determining the limits (boundaries) within which the specific ecological site occurs. It is important to note: LRU determinations cannot and should not be made by solely evaluating individual ecological sites or the present plant community.

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conversation Service

Figure 2: MLRA 25 Land Resource Units From a management perspective, the abiotic factors defining the ES, nested within the LRU, are important. Range management questions of stocking rate, soil health and invasive species occur at multiple temporal and spatial scales. Information used to develop LRU concepts includes published soil surveys, EPA ecoregions and climate information. The building blocks of LRUs are not biotic characteristics—or the living parts of the environment— that are ephemeral in nature, making them valuable for landscape level management decisions. For example, they can be used to make restoration recommendations for a watershed, with the goal of conserving resources and improving success. LRUs are differentiated by their ability to respond to natural and anthropogenic disturbance, and differences are reflected in mappable soil properties.

The example provided here is MLRA 25 – The Owyhee High Plateau. In general, MLRA 25 is characterized by cooler temperatures and increased available soil moisture compared to the surrounding MLRAs. Precipitation comes mostly as snow in the winter, averages ≥7” annually, the growing season is short (especially at the higher elevations) and dominant parent material is volcanic. This MLRA has been split into 4 LRUs (Figure 2) based on identifiable differences including topography, elevation, and climate information (effective precipitation, kind of precipitation, length of growing season). Lower elevation LRUs have less available soil moisture, lower annual biomass production, and are at risk of being dominated by non-native annual grasses following repeated disturbance. High elevation LRUs typically recover on their own and land managers will probably see an increase in production of perennial-native herbaceous vegetation. www.progressiverancher.com

MLRA 25XA – Dissected Low Lava Plateau This LRU represents the lower elevation, dryer portions of the northern half of MLRA 25. The dissected lava plateau forms the southern boundary of the extensive Columbia Plateau basalt flows. This part of the MLRA is characterized by deep, narrow canyons incised into broad basalt plains draining to the Snake River. Topography is characterized by extensive flat summits with limited steep sloping side-slopes and elevations are less than 5400' (<1650m).

Soils formed in volcanic ash and/or loess over residuum and commonly contain >5% volcanic glass. Organic matter provided by native plant communities is limited and soil development reflects this. Many soils are light brown in color and characterized by low amount of organic matter.

More organic matter may accumulate in soils that recieve increased run-on or run-through moisture resulting in a darker surface horizon. These soils support low producing shrub-grass vegetation characterized by Wyoming big sagebrush associated with bluebunch wheatgrass, western wheatgrass and Thurber’s needlegrass. This LRU provides wildlife habitat and forage for livestock, but is also at risk of disturbance including frequent wildfire and increased cover of non-native species.

MLRA 25XB – Dissected High Lava Plateau This LRU represents the higher elevation plateaus in the northern half of MLRA 25. The southern boundary of this LRU borders the dissected low lava plateau of the Columbia Plateau basalt flows. This part of the MLRA

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 17

Soils in this LRU dominantly form in loess or ash deposits over alluvium, tuff deposits, and mixed stream deposits.

Similar to 25XA, soil properties reflect the limited organic matter produced by native shrub-grass communities. Representative vegetation includes: Wyoming big sagebrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, Thurber’s needlegrass, and bluegrass. Black sagebrush and low sagebrush are less common. Areas with deep soils and run-in moisture are commonly characterized by basin big sagebrush. This LRU includes the broad floodplains of the Humboldt River used for farming and adjacent native rangelands used for grazing. This area is at risk of invasion by non-natives following wildfire and is also threatened by urban expansion.

MLRA 25XD – Mountains, hills and high plateaus (High elevations forest and shrublands)

NRCS soil scientists determine soil characteristics associated with a low sagebrush plant community in Elko County. is characterized by deep, narrow canyons that have been incised into the broad basalt plain draining to the Snake River. Topography is characterized by extensive flat summits with limited steep sloping side-slopes/ vertical walls, and elevations range from about 5000 to 6000' (1500-1865m).

Soils are formed in volcanic ash and/or loess over residuum and commonly contain >5% volcanic glass. Soil properties indicate that native vegetation has been productive over the long term and provides stable inputs of organic matter. These soils support mountain big sagebrush, low sagebrush and/or early sagebrush associated bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue. Snowberry, curlleaf mountain mahogany and ceanothus are common. This LRU provides excellent grazing and valuable wildlife habitat. Sites are resilient following disturbances and supplemental seeding is typically not required.

MLRA 25XC – piedmont slope (Upper Humboldt Plains) This LRU represents the alluvium-dominated piedmont slopes in the southern portion of MLRA 25. It is characterized by isolated, uplifted fault-block mountain ranges separated by narrow, aggraded desert plains.

Topography is characteristic of the basin and range, formed by grabens and half-grabens, fan piedmonts and small to medium sized fluvial systems.

This entire area is contained within the hydrologic Great Basin, as none of the surface water resources drain external of the Great Basin. Elevations range from 5000'-6500' (1580-1900m). This area is warmer and dryer than the surrounding mountains.

18 MAY - JUNE 2019

This LRU is representative of mountains and hills. It includes the Jarbidge, Independence, Mahogee, Ruby, East Humboldt, Santa Rosa, Raft River, Grouse Creek, Owyhee Mountains, and other minor ranges. Lithology of mountain

ranges is dominantly volcanic (rhyolite) with areas of igneous intrusions, metamorphic deposits, and calcareous marine deposits. Aspect is an important driving factor in this LRU. Vegetation patterns and resulting soil patterns on the landscape are heavily influenced by north-south aspects.

Elevations are greater than 5900' (1800-2350m) with individual peaks as high as 11,000’.

Soils form in loess and/or ash deposits over residuum and colluvium derived from mixed parent material. Where conditions permit, native shrub communities are very productive and soil profiles are rich in organic matter. Soils support conifers, aspen, curlleaf mountain mahogany and many conifer species. Vast areas support shrub-grass vegetation characterized by Mountain big sagebrush or low sagebrush in association with Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, needlegrasses, and/or bluegrass.

How can NRCS soil survey and ecological sites information benefit you?

Soil survey and ecological sites are used by public and private land managers to make important decisions. The addition of LRUs has increased the utility of this tool by providing soils formation at multiple scales, ranging from the field or pasture, to the grazing allotment, to the whole county. Search for soils information helpful to you at: www.nrcs.usda.gov and click on the Topics tab, then choose soils.

If you are interested in LRU information for your area, please contact Erin Hourihan, Rangeland Management Specialist, NRCS-USDA, 775.224.3842 or erin.hourihan@nv.usda.gov.

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

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

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 19

THE BEEF CHECKOFF LAWSUIT In the early 1980’s, after several years of losing market share to other meats like chicken, cattle producers in the U.S. initiated a Beef Checkoff Program to promote beef.

For 2019 the CBB received 14 Authorization Requests submitted by seven contractors, totaling $45 million and the CBB approved a $43.9 million dollar budget.

After a lot of hard work and effort by many beef producers, and three tries to get it passed, this program was included in the 1985 Farm Bill as the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985.

The NCBA had five of their proposals approved by the Beef Board for a total of $27.4 million (62% of the Beef Board’s total budget). The U.S Meat Export Federation had had one proposal approved for $8.3 million but it was only as a subcontractor to the NCBA (meaning the NCBA controls $35.7 million, or $81 of the checkoff ).

By Heather Smith Thomas Edited by Leana L. Carey & Lucy Rechel “I am speaking as a producer, though I’ve gained a lot of knowledge from my experience and position working as a volunteer for the Checkoff. As a producer, the reason I give my time and energy to the Checkoff is that I believe it is a very effective tool for our industry and for beef producers in promoting beef,” says Rechel.

“That very effectiveness has made it a target for antianimal agriculture organizations such as HSUS. If the The beef checkoff was a brilliant concept, but the Checkoff was not extremely effective in promoting reason it took three votes was because many cattlemen beef and convincing consumers to eat beef, HSUS had reservations. Under this national beef checkoff, would not be spending money trying to derail the all beef producers are required to pay a dollar-per- Other approved proposals included North American Checkoff. To me, this is one of the strongest messages head assessment for every head of cattle sold. This Meat Institute (four proposals for $1.9 million), to producers who have doubts about the Checkoff. assessment occurs each time the animal is sold/resold, Cattlemen’s Beef Board (one proposal for $1.7 “All the tracking that’s done with the Checkoff shows through its lifetime. million), American Farm Bureau Foundation for significant return on investment. I think the last These assessments are usually collected by qualified Agriculture (one proposal for $700,000), Meat Import figure was more than $11 and this research will soon state beef councils that remit half the money (50 Council of America (one proposal for $417,000) be done again, to measure the results of the checkoff. cents of each dollar) to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and National Livestock Producers Association (one Those surveys are done by independent third parties (CBB) and retain the remaining half for authorized proposal for $60,000) who are in the business of doing that kind of research. promotion, information and research activities in I trust those numbers because of the credentials of their own state. In 2018, over $80,000,000 Beef the people doing the research and because of the A HOUSE DIVIDED Check Off money was collected from across the US. consistency of those numbers over time (not just a On May 2, 2016, R-CALF USA filed suit against one-shot survey), We see the ROI steadily improving USDA in Montana federal district court, attacking over the years. I think this validates the authenticity WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO? the constitutionality of the Beef Checkoff Program of those numbers,” says Rechel.

Each year the Operating Committee approves by claiming that half of the federal assessment their Plan of Work for the following year. The Beef that stays with the Montana Beef Council (MBC) “As a person who has been intensely involved in the Promotion Operating Committee is defined in the forces R-CALF members and other Montana cattle Checkoff, I feel that it’s fair enough that producers Beef Act as the body responsible for developing the producers to subsidize speech of a private council. question it because they want to know what’s annual budget, which must be approved by the full R-CALF said producers shouldn’t be forced to pay happening with their dollars. There are good ways to question checkoff spending. The most important Beef Board and USDA, and for developing plans into a private group that engages in speech with way is to get involved with your checkoff. Go to the and programs in the areas of promotion, research, which they disagree--such as the generic promotion Beef Council session at the cattlemen’s convention consumer information, industry information, foreign of beef, no matter where it is actually produced. and listen to the updates. Read the reports the state marketing and producer communications. The beef councils produce, that show how the money was Operating Committee includes 10 producers elected This lawsuit has shaken the beef industry, creating spent, and show the return on investment,” she says. by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and 10 producers a highly emotional rift with both sides painting the elected by the Federation of State Beef Councils. other in bad light. Hard-working grassroots ranchers “Even better is to serve on that beef council, or at The Act and Order requires that the Operating who have worked on state beef boards feel that least have a conversation with one of the members Committee contract with national, non-profit, R-CALF is trying to destroy the Checkoff itself. and share your perspective on how the money is being industry-governed organizations to implement spent. The Beef Checkoff seeks grassroots inputs from checkoff programs. Last September, the Operating Lucy Rechel, a Nevada cattlewoman who runs the producers, formally in meetings at state and national Committee released their budget for 2019 and how feeding program for Snyder Livestock Company, a levels, and informally as Beef Council members the $40-plus million they collect will be divided up, bull and heifer development yard, has served for many across the country visit with fellow producers. In my years on the Nevada Beef Board and is passionate subject to the USDA’s approval. opinion, the wrong way to question the checkoff is about the Checkoff. “It has become a political issue to create splinter organizations and let decisions that To apply for money from the Beef Checkoff, a proposal and our industry can’t afford to be political,” she says. should be made by producers be made by the courts.” for funding (called an Authorization Request) must be submitted to the Beef Board. The AR’s go through An August 10, 2018, a NCBA news release states She frequently hears statements about the Checkoff an intensive review, starting at a grass roots level with “Although NCBA is not a party to the litigation, money being mismanaged and used politically and checkoff committee review and approval. Checkoff the association’s support for the Beef Checkoff is inappropriately. “This is one of the rallying cries of committee members are producers from all of the unwavering. We will stand with the state beef councils the opposition. As a producer who has served in Qualified State Beef Councils and the Cattlemen’s and help defend them against the attacks being leadership, I know this is not true. The internal and Beef Board. All checkoff funds are paid on a cost orchestrated by R-CALF and its activist allies, who external auditing the NCBA has done at the state recovery basis, assuring that producer dollars are used are aligned with the Humane Society of the United level to me verifies the firewall that is solidly in place States and other anti-agriculture organizations.” as approved by the operating committee. and respected,” she says.

20 MAY - JUNE 2019

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

“The most recent outside audit of the NCBA (how they are handling funds and if they are doing things appropriately) found 3 problems, out of tens of thousands of transactions. One was simply a clerical mistake with travel expense in the wrong column--something very minor and they found it and fixed it. As a business person and someone running a feedlot, if I could keep the number of mistakes we make to just 3 per year, I would be ecstatic! People who are against the Checkoff might say, well of course you audit yourself and you are not going to show us the real numbers, but I believe in the integrity of the staff and volunteer leadership who are committed to keeping the checkoff dollars working as they are supposed to be working, and not allowing those funds to be spent in the political arena,” says Rechel.

THE NEED FOR UNITY “Anyone can point to times in our history when we are not doing as well as we are today, but even at those times the mishandling of funds or perceived wrongdoings were seized upon by people who don’t like NCBA and want to do anything they can to shut down NCBA or make it look bad. In my opinion we ought to be sitting down and talking and working together and work out our differences,” she says.

“The mentality of ‘If I don’t get my way I am leaving and creating a new organization’ rather than trying to discuss and compromise and making sure we understand everything, is hurting our industry. There is animosity and bitterness toward the individuals who have a different opinion, and this is very damaging. We have so much in common; we all want to sell beef—and produce safe, delicious beef. We need to promote beef as a health food, a strength food, and quit apologizing for beef as we were doing when beef was getting blamed for heart disease. We were playing defense but we don’t need to. As an industry we are in a great position to play offense.

We should not squander funds on in-industry fighting when we could be working together to promote beef.” says Rechel.

Activists Allowed to Expand Attacks on Beef Checkoff The announcement that R-CALF will be allowed to expand its activist-funded crusade against state beef councils is a disappointment to countless beef producers and NCBA members across America.

The phony allegations being perpetuated by R-CALF and its activist legal partners are without merit and only serve to divide beef producers and distract beef councils from the important work of building demand for our products.

"The simple fact is that regular audits of the beef checkoff and NCBA have found both to be compliant with the laws governing the checkoff. Two audits conducted by USDA’s Office of the Inspector General have also come back clean. R-CALF’s accusations to the contrary are false,” said Kendal Frazier, NCBA Chief Executive Officer. R-CALF has become nothing more than a front group for activists seeking to divide the industry, lessen beef demand and drive producers out of business."

Accusations that dollars invested in the Federation of State Beef Councils are being misused are equally false. NCBA has a longstanding commitment to the beef checkoff and the state beef councils, whose collections and demand-building work pre-date the federal checkoff. NCBA is firm in its commitment to defend both the checkoff and state beef councils

against outside attacks. The volunteer cattlemen and cattlewomen who serve on state beef council boards are committed to improving the beef business and demand for our products and they do not deserve the attacks being leveled by these activist groups.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that these attacks

by R-CALF are being aided by allies at the Humane Society of the United States, Food and Water Watch, Public Justice and other activist organizations that stand against cattlemen and women. These groups know that beef demand is increasing in the United States and abroad, in part due to work funded by the checkoff. These achievements make the beef checkoff and other agriculture industry self-help mechanisms a target for organizations and individuals driving a vegetarian agenda.

“It’s unfortunate that R-CALF has chosen to become a puppet in the war being waged by animal rights activists and the vegetarians seeking to drive beef producers out of business. Let’s be clear, though, the groups aligning with R-CALF are choosing a future with shrinking beef demand, less opportunity and more government involvement,” said Frazier. “That’s not the future NCBA members choose, so we will defend the beef checkoff and cattle producers against these attacks."

“As ranchers, we have much in common, and we have common detractors like people who promote a vegan diet or laboratory meat, or the extreme environmentalists who don’t want cattle out there, or the people pushing for Meatless Mondays. There are many people whose agenda is to put us out of business. Our whole industry needs to stand together,” Rechel says. www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 21

United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General

Agricultural Marketing Service Oversight of the Beef Research and Promotion Board's Activities Audit Report 01099-0001-21

by Gil H. Harden Assistant Inspector General for Audit

OVERVIEW What Were OIG’s Objectives Our objectives were to determine if AMS’ oversight efforts were adequate to ensure beef checkoff assessments were collected, distributed, and expended in accordance with legislation, and to verify that the relationships between the beef board and other beef industryrelated organizations were compliant with existing requirements.

What OIG Reviewed

OIG reviewed AMS’ and the beef board’s policies and procedures, designed to monitor activities related to the beef checkoff program. OIG also examined 1,005 invoices that amounted to over $20.5 million in reimbursement payments from the beef checkoff fund.

What OIG Recommends

AMS needs to develop and implement oversight procedures specific to the beef board, perform management reviews of the beef program, and recommend that the beef board improve the transparency of its documents. .............................................

OIG reviewed the oversight AMS provides to the beef research and promotion program to ensure beef checkoff funds are used in accordance with regulations. .............................................

What OIG Found

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) determined that the relationships between the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board (beef board) and other industry-related organizations, including the beef board’s primary contractor, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), complied with legislation. We also determined that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) needs to strengthen its procedures for providing oversight to the beef research and promotion program.

As part of our audit, we determined that assessed funds were collected, distributed, and expended in accordance with legislation. However, we found that AMS had not previously made these determinations itself because AMS had not conducted periodic management reviews of the beef board, and the agency’s procedures for conducting these reviews could be improved. For example, AMS had not identified weaknesses in the beef board’s internal controls over project implementation costs. Sensitivity to these controls is important because the costs are incurred by the national marketing body the beef board is required to use. Without AMS’ independent oversight, it may not be clear to beef producers, importers, and the public that beef checkoff funds are collected, dispersed, and expended in accordance with legislation.

Our audit also addressed concerns and specific allegations that beef checkoff funds may have been misused.

22 MAY - JUNE 2019

We found no evidence to support that the board’s activities in those areas did not comply with legislation, and AMS guidelines and policies. AMS concurred with our two recommendations.

Background and Objectives The Beef Research and Information Act (Act) of 1985 and the subsequent Beef Research and Promotion Order (Order) established and structured the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board (beef board) to carry out a coordinated program of generic beef promotion and research.1 The Beef Promotion and Research Program aids in advancing the commodity as a whole. The program was designed to strengthen the beef industry’s position in the marketplace, as well as to maintain and expand domestic and foreign beef markets. The “Beef, It’s What’s for Dinner” advertising campaign is one of the projects that the beef board’s operating committee determines it will carry out each year, and then contracts with other organizations to implement. Per the Act and the Order, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides oversight to the program through its component agency, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).

AMS provides oversight for 20 research and promotion boards’ domestic activities, while the Foreign Agricultural Service, another agency within USDA, is responsible for oversight of international activities. Among research and promotion boards, the beef board has the lowest level of administrative expenses allowed—5 percent.2 The beef board’s authorizing legislation specifies its organizational and funding structure. Further, for certain activities, the beef board was required to contract with approved, industry-related organizations that were in existence when the industry voted to approve the program in 1988.3 Additionally, half of the beef promotion operating committee must consist of individuals from the Federation of State Beef Councils (federation). The federation predated the authorization of the beef board.

It has since merged into the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), which also operates as the board’s primary contractor. AMS’ primary oversight objective is to ensure that research and promotion boards, such as the beef board, use funds in accordance with requirements.

The Beef Program and Its Operations The Beef Promotion and Research Program is also known as the beef checkoff program because the beef industry funds the program with “checkoff ” dollars. The beef checkoff program collects a $1 assessment for each head of domestic cattle sold, as well as assessments for imported cattle, beef, and beef products. Qualified State beef councils collect the domestic assessments and are responsible for forwarding half of the funds each month to the beef board, which manages the national program.

4 Beef producers and importers paid approximately $81 million in checkoff assessments each year during fiscal years 2008 through 2010. Assessments are used to support marketing promotions, research, consumer and industry information projects, and program administration that benefit the beef industry. However, beef checkoff funds may not be used for activities such as lobbying, as both the Act and the Order specifically prohibit the use of checkoff funds for “influencing government action and policy.”

Each year, the beef board brings a total of approximately $36 million in producer assessments and $6 million in importer assessments forward from qualified State beef councils and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service, respectively, to the national program.5 The beef board selects 10 of its members to serve on its Beef Promotion Operating Committee (BPOC). The BPOC’s remaining 10 members are individuals from the federation, which provides approximately $10 million to The Progressive Rancher

the national program each year. The BPOC meets about four times a year. It receives an approved budget from the board that allocates funds among program areas. The BPOC may approve or amend activities within a project, as well as the cost of the program submitted by a potential contractor. As provided in the Act and Order, the BPOC, subject to USDA approval, can enter into contracts or agreements to carry out program activities.

The federation merged into NCBA in 1996. NCBA has had annual contracts with the beef board for each of the last 26 years, and is the beef board’s primary contractor.

Within NCBA, the federation division, staffed with microbiologists, nutritionists, chefs, economists, marketing specialists, and food technologists, carries out a majority of the approved programs. The federation division receives 100 percent of its funds from beef checkoff contributions, which represents about 82.5 percent of NCBA’s total funding.

In addition to the federation division, NCBA also includes a policy division. The policy division provides about 17.5 percent of NCBA’s funding through contributions received from individuals and supportive organizations.6 Policy division funding is designated for NCBA’s political activities, which may include lobbying.

NCBA states that it manages the separation of funds within its two divisions through a “firewall” of codes, separate bank accounts, policies, and responsible officials.

Other industry related organizations that contract with the beef board include the United States Meat Export Federation (USMEF), the American National Cattlewomen (ANCW), and the Meat Import Council of America (MICA).

AMS’ Oversight of Commodity Boards and Recent Reviews AMS’ primary oversight objective is to ensure that research and promotion boards use checkoff funds in accordance with legislative and regulatory requirements.

AMS is not involved in making executive decisions; the executive leaders of a board are responsible for overseeing the financial management of checkoff funds. AMS monitors activities to ensure research and promotion boards’ decisions and operations are in accordance with applicable legislation. AMS also reviews annual financial audits that certified public accountants perform.

AMS apportions its oversight responsibilities to four program areas. Each program area is represented in a functional committee, which include: · Cotton and Tobacco · Dairy · Fruit and Vegetable · Livestock, Poultry, and Seed.

AMS assigned responsibility for beef board oversight to the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program. In addition, upon request by the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program, AMS’ Compliance and Analysis Program assists with performing management reviews of the boards.

In June 2012, AMS updated its guidance document regarding oversight reviews of research and promotion boards and general prohibitions against using checkoff funds for expenses such as spousal travel, open bars, and payments for non-checkoff work. OIG had evaluated previous internal controls AMS established to oversee the research and promotion boards’ activities in a report, issued in March 2012. 7 As part As part of its response to the audit, AMS developed its research and promotion board oversight procedures and guidance for conducting periodic internal reviews of its program area operations.

In 2010, under its own authority, the beef board commissioned an independent accounting firm to perform an attestation engagement that included a review of expenses NCBA submitted to the beef board www.progressiverancher.com

for reimbursement between fiscal years 2008 and 2010.8 The engagement disclosed findings related to contractorsubmitted expenses, some of which were unrelated to checkoff activity. Following the engagement, NCBA officials admitted that they had mistakenly coded and submitted improper expenses to be reimbursed by the beef checkoff fund. AMS officials reviewed the findings of the engagement and concurred with the board executive committee’s recommended corrective actions. Board and AMS officials met with NCBA officials to review the engagement findings and develop corrective actions. The final corrective action, reviewed and approved by AMS in September 2010, resulted in NCBA reimbursing $216,944 to the beef checkoff program. NCBA also hired a compliance manager to oversee and manage compliance with checkoff requirements and respond to beef board expense questions.

OIG received three allegations about the potential misuse of beef checkoff program funds during the course of this audit. OIG audit work to assess these allegations found no evidence to support that beef board and NCBA activities were non-compliant with the applicable legislative Act, Order, and current AMS guidelines and policies. We evaluated the following alleged activities or decisions: • Whether the beef board had used checkoff funds to pay for a division of NCBA to attend USDA Grain Inspection and Packers Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) rulemaking information sessions;

• The propriety of the beef board’s use of checkoff funds to gain membership in the U.S. Ranchers and Farmers Alliance; and • A cattle association’s use of the beef checkoff logo in a beef industry trade paper editorial, relative to a proposed GIPSA rule.

See Exhibit A at end of article for more information.

Objectives Our objective was to determine if AMS’ oversight procedures were adequate to ensure that beef checkoff assessments were collected, distributed, and expended in accordance with the Beef Research and Information Act (Act) and the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Order). Also, to determine if the relationship between the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, as well as other beef industry-related organizations, complied with the Act and Order.

to contractors be reasonable and necessary to achieve the the board received sufficient information about project objectives of the specific authorization request or contract. implementation costs before it agreed to pay such To meet our audit objective, we reviewed the collection, costs. Specifically, the board did not ensure it received distribution, and expenditure of beef checkoff funds. detailed information about, for instance, the hourly rate We determined that the funds related to our randomly- or estimated number of hours that contractors would selected sample were collected, distributed, and expended charge to perform various administrative services to in accordance with the Act and Order. We also determined implement a given project. Frequently, with the type that the board’s relationships with its primary contractor, of contract that the board used, contractors provide a the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), as detailed cost schedule up front, such as the hourly rates well as other industry-related organizations, complied at which the contractor would invoice the board for with the Act and Order. However, we found that AMS personnel hours.14 However, the beef board received had not previously made these determinations. Officials details only after costs were incurred, through the stated that they felt their daily monitoring of contracts, invoice from the contractor. While the accounting budget documents, and promotional material, among practice is technically acceptable, documents did not other monitoring procedures, was sufficient oversight. provide a high level of transparency that the costs However, AMS had not performed management reviews were reasonable and compliant. Without detailed of the beef board, as AMS officials interpreted the information about estimated costs up front, reviewers guidelines that were in effect during our audit to mean, cannot confirm if estimated rates are reasonable and “Conduct a review when a complaint or issue arose.” expenses are compliant before the board authorizes to AMS oversight guidelines state that AMS must conduct pay them. Further, reviewers cannot compare estimated management reviews at least once every 3 years.11 and actual expenses.

For example, the beef board authorized approximately $280,000 to be paid to a contractor to implement the program’s advertising strategy for fiscal year 2010. The We reviewed the standard operating procedures AMS board based this authorization on a document that personnel would use to conduct management reviews. listed a manager who would implement the strategy We found that AMS has not developed its management and a completion date, but that did not list hourly rates review procedures to adequately make determinations at which the contractor would bill the board for the that beef checkoff funds were collected, distributed, and performance and supervision of the work. The document expended in accordance with the Act and Order, and also did not list the estimated number of hours the to ensure transparency. Our analysis of AMS’ guidance program manager and any other personnel would spend for conducting management reviews disclosed that the to implement the project. guidance in effect during our audit does not provide The beef board has begun to develop a revised request adequately specific procedures for reviewing records to form to ensure it receives such details before the board ensure they support contract compliance in terms of the authorizes its contractors. AMS officials stated that they Act and Order. The guidance instructs the reviewer to have reviewed the form. By recommending that the board pull a representative sample of contracts and provides a ensures these details are documented, AMS can help to checklist of questions for reviewers to use during reviews. increase transparency over project implementation costs As part of our work, we learned that the relationship the beef board pays with beef checkoff funds.

AMS officials stated that the agency plans to conduct a management review of the beef program in the near future.

between the beef board and its contractors is complex.

Per the Act and Order, the beef board must contract with approved, industry-related organizations only. Further, during our audit, the beef board was required to contract with organizations that were in existence when the Act and Order were signed in 1988.12 Additionally, the Act and Order require that half of the beef promotion operating committee’s (BPOC) members be individuals from an organization that has become a component of the board’s primary contractor, NCBA.13 This committee is responsible for voting to approve contracts. Given these complicated and mandated relationships among the beef board and its contractors, it is crucial that AMS ensures its independent reviews of the board are designed to provide comprehensive assurance of contract compliance.

AMS’ oversight plays a significant role in the beef program environment and provides assurance to the beef industry and the public regarding the use of assessed funds. AMS can take additional steps to enhance assurance in the program by strengthening transparency over the use of funds overall.

Recommendation 1

Develop and implement standard operating procedures for management reviews, specific to the beef board, that include procedures for reviewing the overall process of collecting, distributing, and expending assessment funds, and for reviews of the entire beef board contractor expenditure verification process. Then, perform a management review of the AMS’ current guidance states that reviews will cover beef program. contract compliance; however, it does not provide Agency Response detailed procedures for doing so. AMS is currently in the process of updating its procedures for periodic AMS concurs with this recommendation and will commodity board management reviews to clarify AMS’ implement supplemental management review role and responsibilities and to provide additional details procedures for the beef board to augment the current about the process. AMS officials stated that the agency standard operating procedure (SOP) covering will issue new standard operating procedures following management reviews. While the SOPs are designed review of the findings and recommendations of our audit, to promote consistency across all of the Research and that they will use the new procedures to perform the and Promotion programs, they also allow flexibility initial management review after adoption. for the unique structure of each board and give AMS is responsible for overseeing the implementation, latitude for customization when appropriate. AMS administration, and operation of commodity research Without reviews and well-developed procedures to will develop this supplemental management review 9 review contract compliance with the Act and Order, and promotion boards.

AMS responsibilities procedure by June 2013. Finally, AMS agrees to AMS may not identify whether, for example, the beef include performing management reviews and other conduct a management review of the beef board by 10 board’s documentation standards are adequate.

We noted administrative procedures and requirements. Beef board .... continued next page guidelines require that all cost reimbursement payments during our audit that AMS did not identify whether October 31, 2013.

Finding 1: AMS Should Strengthen Oversight Controls We found that AMS’ oversight of beef checkoff funds should be strengthened to ensure the expenditure of funds complies with the Act and the Order. For example, AMS had not identified weaknesses in the beef board’s internal controls over project implementation costs. Sensitivity to these controls is important because the costs are incurred by the national marketing body the beef board is required to use. This occurred due to inadequate AMS procedures for performing management reviews of beef board operations and AMS officials’ decision to perform these reviews of the beef board only if a complaint or concern arose. Without AMS’ independent oversight, it may not be clear to beef producers and the public that beef checkoff funds are collected, dispersed, and expended in accordance with the Act and Order.

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 23

.... continued from previous page OIG Position We accept management decision for this recommendation.

Recommendation 2

Recommend that the beef board require detailed estimates of project implementation costs, such as salaries, benefits, all applied overhead expenses, and other expenses, before it authorizes the projects.

Agency Response

AMS concurs with this recommendation. The beef board is in the process of revising the form contractors use to request funds to include additional information as recommended. The beef board’s next fiscal year begins September 30, and contractors typically submit authorization requests to the beef board by July. AMS will ensure that the beef board implements this change prior to the BPOC meeting.

· To determine each State’s assessment collection value, assessments paid to the beef board, contributions to the federation, and funding of State programs, we reviewed the financial statements of all 45 qualified State councils and annual reports by independent public accountants for compliance with the Act and Order. In addition, we determined the total value of beef board-approved national programs and reviewed the federation’s use of and request for checkoff funding for national and nonnational programs.

duties to review federation expenses, requested that NCBA reclassify $400 in travel expenses pertaining to a policy-related event. NCBA did reclassify those expenses. Beef board officials informed us that since they did not pay NCBA’s request, they took no action against NCBA. AMS officials were aware of, and supported, the beef board’s actions. The beef board had the authority to take administrative action against NCBA for submitting the request for reimbursement; we concluded that its action was appropriate for the circumstances.

· Interviewed beef board officials to evaluate processes used for the collection of assessments, oversight of contracted industry-governed organizations, and issuance of policies and guidance.

· The Board Allegedly Used Checkoff Funds to Become Affiliated with a Private Industry Association

· Reviewed the beef board’s methods for contract monitoring; communicating and handling deficiencies; handling requests, complaints and/ or concerns; assessing internal controls; selection OIG Position of BPOC members; and key official roles and responsibilities. We also tested and evaluated We accept management decision for this the beef board’s debt management, budgets and recommendation. budget amendments, financial statements, financial Scope & Methodology audits, administrative expenses, investments, travel expenses, direct and overhead costs, and USDA D.C.; beef board, NCBA, and American National costs.

Cattlewomen offices, all located in Centennial, Colorado; the U.S. Meat Export Federation office in Denver, Colorado; the Meat Import Council of During the course of our audit, we did not verify America office in Reston, Virginia; and at State information in any AMS electronic information council offices in Kansas, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and system and we make no representation regarding Texas. The scope of our audit was from fiscal years the adequacy of any agency computer systems or the information generated from them.

2008 through 2010.

Our field work enabled us to gain an understanding of how these organizations are involved in collecting, distributing, and expending beef checkoff assessment funds. Our review of financial data was instrumental in determining whether these organizations were in compliance with the Act and Order. We developed a sampling methodology to determine the appropriate approval processes and uses of checkoff assessment funds. *See Exhibit B at end of article for further information

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings.

A beef industry organization alleged that the beef board improperly used checkoff funds to join the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance, a private industry association. We discussed the matter with AMS officials, who provided us with a determination from the USDA Office of the General Counsel that stated the beef board could take the cited action, as long as: (1) the activity or project was consistent with specific authorizing legislation, implementing regulation, and USDA policy; (2) the beef board approved the activity or project; and (3) AMS approved the activity or project. Based on the Office of the General Counsel’s determination and documentation that supported the beef board and AMS’ approval of the activity, we concluded that the beef board’s use of checkoff funds for the alleged action met legislative requirements. · Alleged Unauthorized Use of the Beef Checkoff Logo

A beef industry organization alleged that the editor of a beef industry trade journal improperly used the beef checkoff program logo in an editorial commentary on a proposed policy rule. The organization also alleged that NCBA’s influence contributed to the editor’s use of the logo. The cattle association president that submitted the article told OIG that the submission he EXHIBIT A: SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS sent to the journal did not contain the checkoff logo.

Our interview with the publisher of the trade journal Evaluation of Allegations disclosed that the cattle association did not include To accomplish our objectives we also performed the During the course of our audit, we received three the checkoff program logo. Also, the editor (who is no following steps: complaints directed towards the beef board and longer with the publication) had unknowingly used the NCBA. The complaints alleged the misuse of beef · To examine the propriety of the total amount paid checkoff funds and the misuse of the beef checkoff logo. logo in the editorial without permission or knowledge to the beef board, we selected a random sample of We examined accounting and management records, of the cattle association or the beef board. The article $20,520,855 in checkoff fund expenditures from the where appropriate, and discussed the complaints with was removed from the website. We concluded that universe of $126,628,692 in assessments the beef applicable parties, including AMS officials. Overall, neither the cattle association nor the trade journal board received for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010. we concluded that the beef board and NCBA took intentionally misused the checkoff program logo.

We also examined 107 authorization requests for appropriate action to correct the matters, or that there EXHIBIT B: Results for Audit of Beef compliance with the Act and Order. was no impropriety related to the allegation.

Research & Promotion Board Activities · To determine if controls existed and if they met the The specific allegations, as well as the work we requirements of the Act and Order, we completed performed and the conclusions we made, were as The audit objective was to determine if AMS oversight procedures were adequate to ensure that beef checkoff an overall assessment of established internal controls follows: assessments were collected, distributed, and expended AMS Livestock, Poultry, and Seed program area in accordance with the Beef Research and Information officials used for oversight of the beef board. · NCBA Allegedly Charged Prohibited Act and the Beef Promotion and Research Order.

Expenses to the Checkoff Fund · Visited three of the largest assessment collecting RESULTS States (Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas) to gain an A beef industry organization alleged that NCBA understanding of the State councils’ involvement in knowingly and deliberately submitted expenses for No exceptions were found. Based on our sample results, the collection, distribution, and expenditure of beef a policy-related event, an activity that is specifically we project there are no exceptions in the universe from checkoff assessments. We conducted tests to verify prohibited by legislation. We examined the beef which the sample was drawn. There is a 5 percent risk that qualified State beef councils properly accounted board’s reimbursement records and NCBA’s travel that more than 10.6 of the records contain an error; for assessment collections and distribution to the expense records for fiscal years 2008 through 2010, and there is a 95 percent probability that fewer than 10.6 beef board. found that the beef board audit staff, as part of their percent of the records contain an error. /END 24 MAY - JUNE 2019

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

Save Calves from Scours It’s a management problem – and solution.

Here are the symptoms, treatment and prevention.

A couple of years ago the Minnesota Extension Beef Team conducted a study to identify the primary inefficiencies in cow calf operations around the state. We looked at data from about 1,500 cow calf operations from all over the state over a nine-year period (2005-2013) and compared pregnancy, calving, and weaning percentages from these operations. The results have given some pretty good insights into things that Minnesota cow-calf producers do well; and some things we certainly could improve upon to make our operations more fruitful, satisfying and ultimately more profitable.

What became very evident during the course of this analysis was that Minnesota cow calf producers do a very good job of getting cows pregnant (mean pregnancy percentage = 96%) and getting live calves on the ground (mean calving percentage = 94%).

As group, cow calf operators in this state should be proud of these numbers as they rank right up there with South Dakota, North Dakota, and Nebraska.

Unfortunately, as group, we seem to have a more difficult time keeping calves alive between calving and weaning (mean weaning percentage = 88%).

What this tells us is that the average Minnesota cow calf operation loses about 6% of our live calf crop after calving but before weaning. In comparison, the bigger cow states in our region like the Dakotas and Nebraska will wean 93% of those calves that were born alive.

The bad news is that this is primarily a management issue; the good news is that this is primarily a management issue. Management snags generally can be corrected or at least improved by changing a few of the ways we handle specific problems. The point here is not to compare the western states with Minnesota in terms of cow calf production; the point is that we can be more efficient if we can identify and correct some specific issues that are resulting in this undesirable outcome.

Through the presentation and discussions of this study around the state over the last couple of years, one of the main things producers agree on is that they tend lose some calves to calf scours fairly frequently.

This in and of itself is not that surprising, but what ultimately results from these discussions is that many producers feel they could do a better job of preventing and treating scours. Furthermore, they feel that their personal knowledge of prevention and treatment protocols may not be as good as it could be.

www.progressiverancher.com

So, let’s talk a little about scours. Calf scours is a term for diarrhea or is sometimes referred to as “enteritis”; which means inflammation of the intestinal tract.

Cattle of any age can develop diarrhea, most cases of calf scours occur under one month of age; usually between the first 3 to 16 days of the calf ’s life. Older calves that are 1-6 months of age also can develop a case of scours, but it is much less common than in young calves.

Probable Causes There are many possible causes of scours in baby calves and most are infectious agents. The most common things are: 1) Viruses – rotavirus and coronavirus are a couple of the more common viruses, 2) Parasites – Cryptosporidium and coccidia are relatively common in certain areas, and

By Eric Mousel

among 2-3 feedings. If you work off the farm during the day, a feeding in the morning, one after supper, and one late in the evening is a good schedule to follow.

You will need to continue hydration therapy until the signs of scours have completely cleared up or the calf is up and nursing normally and won’t take any more fluid.

The next thing you need to do is try to identify the cause of the infection. You will need the help of a vet to definitively identify the cause; but here are a few guidelines to get started. If the calf is exhibiting a viral infection (watery stools that may be brown, green, yellow, or grey in color, flecks of blood (not a lot), and mucus usually are observed in the stool), about all you can do at this point is keep the calf hydrated and wait for the infection to run its course. Antibiotics will not clear up the infection and administering them without instruction from a vet may actually cause problems for the calf. Maintain the fluid therapy and the infection will likely clear up in a week or so.

However, if the calf is exhibiting signs of a viral infection for the first 3-5 days and then the signs of a bacterial infection develop (rust colored or very bloody stools usually are a sign), chances are that a secondary infection has developed (it is unlikely that a parasitic infection would show up at this point) and you are Physical Symptoms to Look For going to need a vet-directed broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment in addition to the on-going fluid therapy.

The first sign you will probably see is a tough-looking If the initial scours are rust colored or very bloody, calf that looks depressed, is not nursing like it should; then the infection is likely either bacterial induced or or not at all, and probably has a messy rear-end. a parasitic infection that will require a vet-directed Watery stools that may be brown, green, yellow, or grey identification of the problem and treatment such as a in color, flecks of blood (not a lot), and mucus usually broad spectrum antibiotic and/or a coccidistat (there are observed in the stool. This is usually indicative of are no real effective treatments for cryptospirosis) as a viral infection. Rust colored or very bloody stools well as extensive fluid therapy until the symptoms have usually are a sign of a bacterial or parasitic infection cleared up. such as Salmonella or E. coli (bacterial) or coccidiosis (parasitic). A few days after the onset of the infection, Preventative Measures calves will develop a sunken-eyed appearance. This is a classic sign of dehydration. As a test for dehydration, It is unlikely that you will ever completely eradicate you can pinch the skin of the calf and if it doesn’t calf scours from your farm, however, you should be able immediately flatten out, the calf is pretty dehydrated. to consistently maintain an infection rate below 1% Ultimately, if calf scours are not treated quickly and/ over the long term by working towards prevention as or properly, the calf will actually die from dehydration, well as improving your treatment methods and skills.

The following prevention methods are a few things to rather than from the actual infection. consider if you don’t do them already: 3) Bacteria – Escherichia coli (E. coli), Salmonella, and Clostridium perfringens are quite common.

Calf scours may be caused by one or more than one of these infectious agents acting together.

Suggested Treatments

Treating calf scours should really fall under the direct supervision of your veterinarian, especially when it comes to determining if you are going to need an antibiotic or parasite control. The following is simply a guide to help you start fluid therapy and to know what questions to ask your veterinarian.

1. Vaccinate cows before calving for calf scourcausing agents. Vaccination will provide some passive immunity through colostrum to the calves.

2. Provide wind breaks for cattle in open country.

Keep these breaks bedded and cleaned properly.

3. Keep cows and calves out of mud and manure as Once you have identified calf scours as the possible best as you can. Scrape calving lots before the frost cause of ailment, the first thing should be to isolate goes out if possible and put down fresh bedding. the cow and calf where they have little to no contact with other calves, are dry and are out of the wind. 4. Spread cows out during and after calving.

This may be 2 weeks in a worst case scenario, but you want to avoid spreading the problem to the rest of the 5. Keep bedding fresh to keep mama clean. Cows herd. Regardless of the ultimate cause of the scour that lay in mud/manure and get muddy bags will be problem, the single most important thing you can do a point-source for sucking calves to pick up scours. is start treating the calf with electrolyte fluids using an esophageal drench tube and a powder electrolyte 6. Provide properly maintained calf huts to keep product you mix with warm water. You should run calves out of the mud and wind; preferably huts that about 4-6 quarts through the calf each day divided keep mama out.

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 25

NN evada Farm BF ureau evada arm

Bureau

80th Nevada Legislature Advances Past Major Milestone

By Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President The 68th day of the 2019 Nevada Legislature (April 12, 2019) marked a major milestone of the current session…the deadline for all bills from the body they were introduced to be sent to the floor (or their respective money committee) for further consideration. Non-exempt legislative proposals which didn’t meet this deadline are basically done being considered.

opportunity for participation of those who could be impacted.

AB 95 – This bill addresses domestic wells and provides protection for these well owners who comply with the requirements to participate if the State Engineer applies a curtailment from pumping for a groundwater basin. Given the junior water right status of most domestic wells, the law for needing to halt pumping Of the 498 bills introduced to the Nevada Assembly, would fall on them first, if a curtailment order is issued. so far, 142 bills failed to make the committee deadline AB 95 protects those who participate, by installing a ( Joint Standing Rule 14.3.1). On the Senate side, 127 meter, to continue to pump one-half (1/2) acre foot of of the 501 bills introduced met the same fate. water for use in maintaining their household use, in spite of the curtailment.

Attention now focuses on floor sessions and processing the legislation that has been sent forward from the SB 140 – This proposed legislation sets aside ten (10) respective committees of each body. April 23rd will percent of the available/unappropriated water, in a be the deadline for passage from the “first house” (the groundwater basin that hasn’t already been appropriated body in which legislation was introduced). to its limit or has been over-appropriated. Domestic wells are not counted in the calculations for this bill.

Committee passage from the second house is due by The water that is held back for appropriation would May 17 and May 24 is the deadline for passage from be available for temporary applications in emergency/ the second house. drought-declared situations.

Water legislation has been the primary concentration for Farm Bureau, although several other bills outside of water have also drawn attention. Several of the key water bills on note, which will be advancing for further consideration include: AB 30 – This legislation deals with mitigation and involves mitigation actions for conflicts with water right owners or applications that might conflict with existing water right owners/domestic well owners. The measure was brought forward by the State Engineer and sought the ability to consider mitigation actions to allow for an application of water that might interfere or conflict with an existing water right/domestic well owner. In the hearing on the bill, the only support came from the State Engineer and the Director for the Department of Natural Resources. Those who opposed the bill worked cooperatively to create an amendment that was accepted by the Director for the Department of Natural Resources and the State Engineer’s office, pertaining to when and under what circumstances that mitigation could be used.

The amended version, which passed from the Assembly Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining Committee, insures that the application first fits within the amount of available (unappropriated water) and directs that the purpose for the mitigation activities is geared to avoiding conflicts with existing water right/domestic well owners. The consideration by the State Engineer of the mitigation proposal would also be dealt with in a formal process hearing, providing

26 MAY - JUNE 2019

SB 236 – Under this bill, it would be allowed to relocate a groundwater well, crossing a property boundary, as long as the new location would be within the 300 ft. current limit and the property that is getting the new well location is also owned by the same owner. Such a transfer would be a one-time move and it wouldn’t be allowed to have multiple jumps of well-relocation.

SB 250 – Receiving an intense level of evaluation and multiple efforts for clarifying amendments, the bill addresses situation when water rights are required to be dedicated to development projects and it is determined that there is water left over or isn’t needed for meeting the needs of the property that the water was dedicated. The intended purpose of the bill was to prevent the authority which required the dedication from selling the un-used water and transferring it to some other purpose.

of the surface and groundwater conflicts of the Humboldt River Basin. These provisions included groundwater pumping that interfered with surface water availability to provide replacement water or pay a fee in order to continue to pump. The collection of the fees paid would be used to pay the surface water right owners who had been impacted.

Beyond the Director of the Department of Natural Resources and the State Engineer’s office, no one else supported passage of the bill. Because of the collection for fees, AB 51 required a two-thirds majority vote for passage. There was no further attention given after the hearing had been held in the Assembly Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining Committee.

SB 280 – Although not technically a “water” bill, this legislation involves “navigable waters” and pertains to the state lands jurisdiction over the bed and banks of these waterways. In spite of covering fees that the State would be able to charge for the “improvements” associated with the navigable waters and clearing up the process of a court ruling being necessary for classifying navigable waters, it failed to advance from the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

SB 499 – This was a bill that proposed an Advisory Board on Water Resources Planning and Drought Resiliency. The eight-member Advisory Board was proposed to be appointed by the Governor. As written into the bill, this Board originally was made up of very non-rural members, but proposed to be changed to a more comprehensive list of members that would have covered a group of water stakeholders (including an agricultural representative). It was intended to report to “Chief ” of water planning section within the State Engineer’s office. It received no further action after the hearing that was held by the Senate Natural Resources Committee. Nevada Farm Bureau was one of the groups opposing the bill.

Additional non-water legislation that won’t be moving on because of not gaining passage from committee:

A couple of notable water bills that failed to be acted on favorably by the assigned legislative committee, AB 473 – This bill, as introduced, called for abolishing prior to the deadline included: the use of leg-hold traps. If it had passed it would AB 51 – This was another of the proposals brought have been unlawful to set, operate or otherwise use a forward to change current water law, by the State leg-hold trap to hunt any wild mammal. The bill also Engineer’s office. It was aimed at addressing sought to require the Nevada Wildlife Commission “conjunctive management,” a concept that was added to adopt regulations for 24-hour trap checks. During to Nevada water law last legislative session, in the form the hearing on the bill, an amendment was proposed of a sub-bullet for what Nevada’s Legislature states its to not ban leg-hold traps and instead go after bodyintentions to be. The bill portrayed the authority for clenching traps (conibear traps), exempting mouse operational activities to be very similar to what has traps. The trap-check requirement was proposed to be been proposed by the State Engineer for management 48 hours instead of the 24 hour visitation requirement

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

NN evada Farm BF ureau evada arm

Bureau

Fusion Conference

By Brittney Pericoli, Director of Communications on a statewide basis. The Assembly Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining Committee did not process the amendment or the bill before the deadline killed the bill.

SB 132 – This bill, which Nevada Farm Bureau supported, proposed to put in place a requirement that the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents to use the proceeds and rents from property contributed to Max C. Fleischman College of Agriculture, University of Nevada, Reno for support of current agricultural programs at UNR or to develop/ expand programs relating to agriculture at any other institution within the system. The bill never received a hearing.

SB 389 – This bill received a hearing and drew one of the bigger crowds to attend a hearing by the Senate Natural Resources Committee. It proposed to prohibits a person from owning or possessing an apiary within certain areas of the State – (urban, city lots, especially in Southern Nevada where Africanized bees are becoming a problem and hazard). Needless to say, beekeepers were not pleased with the proposal and turned out in force to oppose the measure and also to set the record straight as they saw the problem. Beyond causing quite a buzz – the bill was not processed for further consideration.

The Young Farmers and Ranchers (YF&R) Committee and Women’s Leadership Committee Chair traveled to Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the Fusion conference.

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) puts on the Fusion conference every other year holding the YF&R conference in between. Fusion is a combination of YF&R, Women’s Leadership and Promotion and Education.

This year the Nevada Farm Bureau was able to send 11 people to represent the state including the YF&R Committee and the Women’s Leadership Committee Chair. Attendees learned new ways to advocate on both the national and state level as well as different ways to engage with members.

Breakout sessions had a wide variety to choose from including business and rural development, Ag Careers-A Perfect Fit for Educational Outreach, Member Engagement, Communicating about Plant Breeding Innovation, GMO: A Made-Up Word with Big Consequences and much more.

Not only did sessions include great information that could be useful for the state of Nevada but was also an excellent opportunity to mingle with people from other states to see what activates and engagement they have and do.

“It’s exciting to see what other states have found success with and what they have found to be less successful,” said Cindy Hardy Women’s Leadership Chair. “I look forward to bringing back what I have learned at Fusion and think this was a great benefit to Nevada.”

In addition to breakout sessions three keynote speakers spoke including: Jim Morris, Redmond Ramos and Paul Long. All three speeches included a similar theme to motivate and encourage the audience no matter the situation.

SB 487 – This bill gained a lot of notoriety with its introduction, but never received a hearing in the Senate Natural Resources Committee. It proposed to make it unlawful to conduct or participate in a contest where coyotes would be killed, caught, harmed, etc.. The bill proposed to make such involvement in a contest of this type to be a category D Felony and any coyote that was harmed would have been required to be taken to a veterinarian for care.

Moving Ahead: Thank you to those who continue to be involved on an ongoing basis in tracking the progress of the 2019 Nevada Legislature. We continue to welcome the interaction, questions and input we receive for Nevada Farm Bureau’s engagement in promoting the organization’s policy positions. We also greatly appreciate the contacts by email or phone calls that are being made with your specific legislator or with committee members who are considering bills before them.

June 3 marks the end of the 120-day session and the pace from this point onward will continue to pick up speed and importance.

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 27

NN evada Farm BF ureau evada arm

Bureau

2019 FFA Youth Discussion Meet

By Brieanna Valdez, Field Representative On March 21, 2019 the Nevada Young Farmers and Ranchers (YF&R) Committee hosted the FFA youth Discussion Meet at the Nevada FFA State Convention. This is the first time this event has been held in several years.

We held a one round 15-minute discussion around the question, "sustainability needs to be an integral part of agriculture, how do we as Farm Bureau and FFA work together to advance technology and practices?"

During the discussion FFA members mentioned many note worthy points.

"How can we combine the youth of FFA with the Knowledge of Farm Bureau members to create a more sustainable agriculture industry?", stated Dionne Stanfill from the Silver Sage FFA Chapter.

There were six participates in the Discussion Meet who came from all over the state for the competition. We had members from Alamo, Nevada all the way to Spring Creek, Nevada. This is the only event allowing students from different areas of the state to come together to discuss agriculture topics and exchange ideas.

Logan Ohl from the Pahranagat Valley FFA Chapter stated in her closing statement, "We learned a lot here today in this discussion and I personally had a lot of fun!"

We thank Churchill County and Clark County for their generous donations to the Discussion Meet Scholarships. We look forward to expanding this competition in future years to come.

The top four competitors each received a Nevada YF&R hat and the top three received scholarships.

The top four competitors were:

1st Place Dionne Stanfill Silver Sage FFA 2nd Place Mackenzie Kephart Moapa Valley FFA 3rd Place Jaylee Whipple Virgin Valley FFA 4th Place Logan Ohl Pahranagat Valley FFA

First Place

Top Four Competitors â&#x20AC;&#x192;28â&#x20AC;&#x192;MAY - JUNE 2019

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

August 8-11, 2019 ds

Eureka County Fairgroun Eureka, Nevada

Stock Dog Trials Gymkhana ck Youth Rough Sto 4-H Livestock Show and Sale

July 8 - 10 Nugget Resort & Casino Reno, NV WATCH & LISTEN TO THE SALE on the Web at:

For details call (530) 347-3793 or the representative nearest you:

Gary Nolan

Mark Venturacci

(775) 934-5678

(775) 427-8713

Elko, NV

Fallon, NV

Steve Lucas

Paradise Valley, NV

(775) 761-7575

Brad Peek— (916) 802-7335 or email us at wvm@wvmcattle.com Look for the catalog and video on our website www.wvmcattle.com

775-237-6026

US/FAIR.HTM WWW.CO.EUREKA.NV.  EUCOFAIR www.progressiverancher.com

Consignment Deadline: May 21

Catalog Deadline: June 20

Team Branding Team Roping Bronc Old West Saddle and Bull Riding Mud Volleyball st Pie Eating Conte ance Live Band and D Exhibit Hall Visit us at

UPCOMING SALES Thursday • May 30 Cottonwood, CA

Market your cattle with the professionals!

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 29

2019 HIGHLIGHTS NEVADA FFA STATE LEADERSHIP CONVENTION & COMPETITIVE EVENTS The 2019 Nevada FFA Convention was held at the University of Nevada, Reno from March 19 through March 22. During the week, nearly 600 students traveled from schools across Nevada to compete in agricultural career and leadership development events, to volunteer and to attend motivational sessions. They also welcomed to the Silver State, Layni LeBlanc, National FFA Secretary.

HIGHLIGHTS • Nearly 600 students competed in 20+ events that develop career and leadership skills • Six state officers lead five leadership-based sessions and installed the new 2019-2020 state officer team

• Countless volunteers helped manage, judge and provide numerous learning outcomes for students

• Floriculture Career Development Event highlighted on KTVN Channel 2: http://www.ktvn.com/clip/14786192/ffa-convention?

• Four students with outstanding work-based learning projects were interviewed for the Off-Farm Income Podcast http://www.offincome.com/

2018-19 State President Marco Ovando delivered his retiring address at the final session.

• 50 students received the Nevada FFA State Degree for developing their work-based learning projects, maintaining financial records, and being active in the FFA • $32,110 received in donations via many NV FFA supporters

• Conducted two service projects that included increasing agriculture literacy at a Reno elementary school and interacting with seniors at a senior-living facility • 22 supporters received the Honorary State Degree for their support of agricultural education and the FFA

View photos at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nvffa/albums View videos at:

Students evaluated carcasses during the Poultry Evaluation Career Development Event.

https://www.youtube.com/user/NevadaFFA/videos

Seniors learn from students about how to evaluate floral arrangements during one of the service projects conducted at the convention.

View all competitive events results in the Awards Booklet here: https://issuu.com/nvffa/docs/award_book_final__1_

(View results and event photos at www.nvaged.com)

30 MAY - JUNE 2019

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

Print, Direct Mail and Marketing Center Marketing • Print • Mail

• Color Printing • Banners & Posters • Graphic Design • Complete Bindery • Complete Mailing • High-Speed Copying

www.progressiverancher.com

• Brochures • Stationery • Flyers • Mailers • Marketing Materials • Volume Discounts

The Progressive Rancher

• Forms • Postcards • Rack Cards • Newsletters • Manuals • Reports

MAY - JUNE 2019 31

Ranch properties now available Elko Area River Property with Water Rights 650 deeded acres of which approximately 300 acres have surface water rights out of the Humboldt. May work well for mitigation of environmental and water issues. Access at the Ryndon Exit. Price: $950,000.

Jiggs, Nevada Smith Creek Property 200 deeded acres with approx. 126 with surface water rights out of Smith Creek. Great homesite already carved out of the hill above the meadows with well and trees planted. On county-maintained road approx.

30 miles out of Elko. $600,000 - PENDING

Elko County NRCHA Judge: Zeph Schulz

Antelope Peak Ranch 5,300 deeded w/ BLM permit attached. 5 center pivots irrigating approx. 583 acres plus another 28 acres with surface water rights out of large spring. Three homes plus shop and other outbuildings. 1 land owner Elk Tag. Offered at $3,900,000. PENDING Will continue to show and take back up offers!

Stallion Nomination Deadline August 1, 2019 Nomination Fee: $200.00 Late nominations accepted from Aug 2 - 19 with $100 late fee

Need more Ranch Listings! Have buyers looking. Let me sell your ranch or farm!

Half Page Program(5.5”x4.25”)

HalfPage Page Program(5.5”x4.25”) Half Program(5.5”x4.25”) For additional information on these properties, go to: BOTTARIREALTY.COM NEVADA STALLION STAKES Paul D. Bottari, Broker Work: 775.752.3040 ALL NSSHalf CLASSES Page Program(5.5”x4.25”) paul@bottarirealty.com Home: 775.752.3809 1222 6th St. PO Box 368 Wells, NV 89835 Fax: 775.752.3021 WILL DO HERD, DRY, COW EVENTS

Futurity • Derby • Hackamore Half Page Program(5.5”x4.25”)

Two Reined / Green Bridle & Bridle Divisions Open, Limited/Non Pro & Non Pro Limited Divisions

Timingcounts countswhen whenitititcomes comes Timing Timing counts when comes toyour yoursocial socialsecurity securitybenefi benefi to t tt to your social security benefi Nevada Stallion Stakes Show Entry deadline: August 19 Timing counts when it comes NRCHA Rules

late entries accepted until August 22 with additional penalties

Social Security can be one of your most valuable

Social SocialSecurity Securitycan canbe beone oneofofyour yourmost mostvaluable valuable to your social security benefi t retirement assets.

The decision of when you start ECNRCHA Show Entry Deadline August 22 Half retirement assets.

The decision of when you Page Program(5.5”x4.25”) retirement assets. The decision of when youstart start

Timing counts when it comes to your social security benefit

taking your benefit impacts how much you’ll receive.

your benefi t timpacts receive. taking your benefi impactshow howmuch muchyou’ll you’ll receive.

Social Security can be onetaking of your most valuable Entries forms available at www.elkocountyfair.com retirement assets. The decision ofor when you start Call visit today, and learn how your decision E-mail entries to: ecfbsecretary@gmail.com Call today, and Callor orvisit visit today, andlearn learnhow howyour yourdecision decision taking your benefit impacts how much you’ll receive. impacts your overall retirement income strategy.

Mail entries and payments to: impacts impactsyour youroverall overallretirement retirementincome incomestrategy. strategy.

Social Security can be one of your most valuable Elko County Fair Board, PO Box 2067, Elko, NV 89803 Call or today, and learn how your decision retirement assets. The decision ofvisit when you start Timing countsabout when it comes Final decisions Social Security filing strategies always rest For More contact: impacts your overall retirement income strategy.

Final decisions about Social Security filing strategies always rest Final decisions about Social Security filing strategies always rest taking your Information benefit impacts how much you’ll receive. with you and should always be based on your specifi c needs to your social security benefi t with you and onon your specifi c needs JJ Roemmich 775.397.2769 with you andshould shouldalways alwaysbe bebased based your specifi c needs and health considerations.

For more information, visit the Social and health considerations.

For more information, visit the Social and health considerations.

For more information, visit the Social Social Security can be one of your most valuable or ecfbsecretary@gmail.com Security Administration website at www.socialsecurity.gov.

Call or visit today, and learn how your decision Security Administration website at www.socialsecurity.gov.

impacts your overall

Final decisions about Social Security fiassets. ling strategies always rest Security Administration website at start www.socialsecurity.gov. retirement The decision of when you with you and should always be based on your specifi c needs taking your benefi t impacts how much you’ll receive. retirement income strategy. and health considerations. For more information, visit the Social Security Administration website at visit www.socialsecurity.gov.

Call or today, and learn how your decision

Jason BLand, Land, AAMS® Jason BBLand, AAMS® Jason AAMS® Financial Advisor

Financial Advisor Financial Advisor .

Final decisions about Social Security filing strategies always rest . . with you and should always be based on your specific needs 2213 North 5th Street 2213 North 5th Street Final decisions about Social Security filing strategies always rest 2213 North 5th Street and health considerations. For more information, visit the Social with you and should always be based c needs Suite A on your specifi www.edwardjones.com Financial Advisor Suite A Security Administration website at www.socialsecurity.gov. and health considerations.

For more visit the Social Suite A information,Member .

SIPC impacts your overall retirement income strategy.

IRT-7557B-A IRT-7557B-A IRT-7557B-A

Jason B Land, AAMS®

B-A

2213 North 5th Street 32 MAY - JUNE 2019 Suite A

.

Suite A Elko, NV 89801 The Progressive Rancher 775-738-8811 T-7557B-A

IRT-7557B-A

Elko,atNV 89801 Security Administration website www.socialsecurity.gov.

Elko, Elko,NV NV89801 89801 2213 North 5th Street 775-738-8811 Jason B775-738-8811 Land, AAMS® Jason B Land, AAMS®Suite A 775-738-8811 Financial Advisor Elko, NV 89801 www.edwardjones.com Financial Advisor .

SIPC 5th Street 2213 North 775-738-8811 Member

www.edward www.edwardjon www.edwardj Member SIPC

Member SIPC Member SIPC

www.edwardjones.com

Member SIPC

www.progressiverancher.com

FORT RANCH 42nd Annual Production Sale

Saturday • June 22, 2019 • 35 Miles West of Brigham City Prospects raised on 21,000 acres in the beautiful, rugged Promontory Mountains of Utah. Our foals are born and raised in the elements and on the mountainside. They have a rich history of being cow horses that excel on the ranch, in the arena, and in the show pen. We hope to see you at our annual production sale!

Saturday June 22, 2019 10:00 Sale

MATION & FOR INFOR STS CALL: UE Q E R G CATALO l Landon Hal 41 208-680-90 tranch.com or www.for

Preview 11:30 Fo Complim rt Ranch Sale Be en gins througho tary lunch serve d ut the sa le.

Reference Sires: Quite A Boon

Peptoboonsmal x Meradas Little Sue

Silver Savanah Moon

Once In A Blu Boon x Savanah Holli

Cat Suep

High Brow Cat x Meradas Little Sue

Cow Kwacker

High Brow Cat x Kwackin

Dams include own daughters of:

FORT RANCH

Kid Dunit

Dun It With A Twist x Melimelo Kid

Smart Zee Lena

Smart Little Lena x Zee Dualy

Eric Duarte - Auctioneer 541-533-2105 www.duartesales.com

Mitch Jacobs 2496 North 2375 East Hamer, ID 83425 208-662-5530 208-589-1951

Frank VanderSloot 2880 North 55 West Idaho Falls, ID 83402 208-528-6635

Bobalena Bob Bodee Boonsmal Cat Ichi CD Lights Doc Oak Doc Ray Olena Doc's Hickory Doc's Rondo Dual Rey Gun Goes Boon Gun Smart Hickorydickory Doc High Brow Cat

Little Pistol Badge Mr Peppy Olena Mr Skyline Peppy One Time Pepto Playdox Playin Stylish Quite a Boon Ricochets Sue Roman Eddie Hancock Smart Little Jaebar Smart Little Lena Smart Little Rondee TR Dual Rey Zoom Zoom Shorty

Sale Terms: 1/3 down payment with balance to be paid in August when foals are weaned and picked up by their new owners. Foal guaranteed to be alive and sound or your down payment will be refunded. www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 33

Initial Site Information Initial Site Information

Home Screen Initial Site Information Rangeland Monitoring App Now Available Schedule a training with NDA

By David Voth Rangeland Health Coordinator The Rangeland Monitoring app is officially available for download to your smartphone or tablet from the iTunes or GooglePlay stores. The app is a tool for collecting, tracking, and storing rangeland monitoring data, and is based on the Rancher’s Monitoring Guide. Monitoring can be used to make long- and shortterm management decisions. agri.nv.gov Monitoring helps the range, ranchers, and all users ofAnnual the land

Monitoring provides all users with information and feedback for their current management practices. Monitoring also helps determine whether management objectives are realistic and achievable. Using the new app also allows access to records of environmental and resource conditions, events, and management practices that may influence vegetation trends.

agri.nv.gov

agri.nv.gov

Site Information Annual Site Information

When individuals apply the procedures outlined in the app with accuracy, the information that is gathered is acceptable to federal and state cooperating agencies.

It is important to coordinate monitoring of public lands with the appropriate public land manager and jointly collect the information whenever possible. All who collect monitoring information should properly reference and document the data, so it may contribute to evaluating rangelands on a large scale.

New features on the range app The range app also features Ecological Site Descriptions (ESD) and State and agri.nv.gov agri.nv.gov Transition Models (STM). Using the GPS on your device, the app will retrieve the Monitoring Methods ESD and STM associated with that site, providing a much more detailed approach Monitoring Methods to land management and site objectives.

agri.nv.gov

With one tap, users will be able to identify the land’s potential, what the land could look like, and what inputs are needed to make that happen. This ESD report will give details regarding expected species composition, soil factors, vegetation factors, average production in pounds per acre, and more.

The STM report will show the land’s potential, help identify the current state of the land, and help to decide what management practices will increase the health of the rangeland, how to maintain the current state, and what some of the risks are that may shift the site to a different state.

Schedule a training on premise!

NDA staff is available to help effectively implement this technology on ranchers’ property or allotments. Send an email to dvoth@agri.nv.gov to schedule a training.

In as little as one day per year, monitoring with the range app can provide benefits agri.nv.gov that will last for generations.

agri.nv.gov

Class Help

agri.nv.gov

Class Help

• Built with the producer in mind • A tool to help the producer be more successful Provides defendable data • FREE agri.nv.gov

34 MAY - JUNE 2019

The Progressive Rancher agri.nv.gov

agri.nv.gov

www.progressiverancher.com

It matters who you work sun-up to sun-down with.

IT MATTERS WHO YOU BANK WITH.

The load is lightened when you work with someone you trust. That’s why Nevada State Bank works alongside you on everything from equipment financing and operating lines to livestock purchases and real estate.* Our agriculture specialist, John Hays, is here for you—and he’s already got his sleeves rolled up. *Subject to credit approval. Terms and conditions apply.

A division of Zions Bancorporation, N.A. Member FDIC Equal Housing Lender

John Hays

Agricultural Banking Specialist

®

nsbank.com | 775.393.2376 www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 35

Cow Herd Vaccination Guidelines

by John C. Wenzel, Extension Veterinarian

Department of Extension Animal Sciences and Natural Resources, New Mexico State University Cow herd vaccination programs, like calf vaccination programs*, are an important component of a complete herd health program. Vaccination protocols should be designed with specific management systems and production goals in mind. Cows are generally vaccinated for three reasons: 1) to prevent disease in the cow, 2) to protect the newborn calf via colostrum, and 3) to protect the unborn calf from diseases that can result in abortion.

Preventing Disease in the Cow and Passing Immunity to Calves Some cow vaccinations, like blackleg (clostridial), are given to protect the cow from diseases that affect her directly. Some vaccines develop immunity in the cow that is passed in the colostrum so her unborn calf will be protected from diseases such as rotavirus, coronavirus, or Escherichia coli (E. coli), agents that cause scours in newborn calves. The need for specific vaccinations of this type may vary depending on the disease prevalence in a given area and the age of the calf when a disease will potentially occur. As a general rule, booster vaccinations of this type should occur 2–4 weeks before calving so colostral antibody levels peak while colostrum is being made by the cow.

A third category of vaccines are given to help prevent diseases that can result in a loss of pregnancy, either from making the cow sick or making the unborn calf sick, thus helping prevent abortion. Examples of diseases these vaccines protect against are viral diseases like infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) and bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), bacterial diseases like vibriosis (bovine venereal campylobacteriosis) and leptospirosis, and protozoal diseases like neospora and trichomoniasis. In New Mexico, most pregnancy losses occur between mid-December and mid-February.

Therefore, it may be preferable to vaccinate cows in the fall when cows are gathered for pregnancy testing so the immunity stimulated by the vaccination will peak just before the greatest disease challenge and stress level to the pregnancy. In the fall, cows are generally in the best body condition of the production year, so undernutrition is less likely to affect cows’ response to vaccination. Some vaccines are more effective in preventing abortion when given before breeding.

Cows and Bulls • Long-acting viral vaccine that includes at least IBR and BVD, and may include parainfluenza-3 virus (PI3) and bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) • Long-acting campylobacter fetus (vibrio)/leptospirosis (lepto) vaccine • Dewormer

7-way clostridial booster (optional)

• Other vaccines if necessary in your area NOTE: In the fall, bred replacement heifers should be vaccinated using the same protocol as the mature cows.

Replacement Heifers (pre-breeding) • Modified-live IBR, BVD, PI3, BRSV (initial at 2 to 3 months of age, plus booster around weaning) • Vibrio and 5-way leptospirosis (initial and booster around weaning) • Dewormer

• 7-way clostridial booster (optional)

• Brucellosis (optional; if administered it must be given by an accredited veterinarian and before 1 year of age) • Other vaccines if necessary for your area

Vaccination Protocols If cows are on a spring vaccination (fall calving) schedule, modifications to the fall vaccination program shown here may be needed. It is important to note that there is a wide variety of vaccine types, combinations, and uses. Labeled directions must be strictly followed because some vaccines have narrow parameters of efficacy.

For example, trichomoniasis vaccine must be given just before the breeding season because the duration of immunity from vaccination is very short. If this vaccine is administered at a different time its efficacy may be compromised.

It is also important to include bulls in the cow herd vaccination program because they can be a reservoir for some diseases. However, in the case of certain diseases, such as trichomoniasis, existing vaccines are not effective in bulls. This highlights the need to consult your veterinarian if you have questions about your vaccination program.

Vaccination is a tool that can be used very effectively to help reduce the incidence of disease in a cow herd. As with all tools, vaccinations must be administered correctly to get the full benefit. Proper timing, route of administration, dosage, and type of vaccine are paramount to preventing disease. Beef quality assurance guidelines should be followed whenever vaccines or medications are administered.

Your veterinarian can help you develop a vaccination program specifically for your operation and geographic area. The following protocols are suggested for a fall vaccination program. * For information about calf vaccination programs, see NMSU Extension Guide B-223, Calf Vaccination Guidelines, available at http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/B223.pdf.

36 MAY - JUNE 2019

For information about calf vaccination programs, see NMSU Extension Guide B-223, Calf Vaccination Guidelines, available at http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/B223.pdf.

John C. Wenzel is the Extension veterinarian in the Department of Extension Animal Sciences and Natural Resources at NMSU. He earned his B.S. from NMSU and his DVM from Kansas State University College of Veterinary Medicine. His work focuses on cow/calf medicine and preventative health programs for livestock producers in southwestern New Mexico.

Original authors: John Wenzel, Extension Veterinarian; Clay P. Mathis, Extension Livestock Specialist; and Boone Carter, Extension Associate.

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

Cattle Vaccination and Immunity

by John C. Wenzel, Extension Veterinarian

New Mexico State University is a College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences

Developing immunity in cattle requires an effective herd health program.

Vaccinations are not a silver bullet cure all for disease in a cowherd, but are a primary component of a complete herd health program. Vaccines contain antigens of disease-causing agents, and are used to stimulate cattle’s immune systems and create an immune response before significant natural exposure to disease-causing agents. It is important to understand that vaccination does not equal immunization.

Many factors influence the immune response to vaccinations, including stress, vitamin and mineral balance, nutrition, and overall health of the animal being vaccinated. A basic understanding of how the immune system responds to a vaccine is important to understanding how vaccines function.

The first time a cow’s immune system encounters a pathogen (disease-causing agent), it often cannot respond quickly enough to prevent disease. However, the immune system usually succeeds in neutralizing the infection over time. After an animal recovers from an infection, memory cells that have been produced by the immune system remain for months to years. Memory cells are programmed to recognize specific pathogens if they are encountered again, and facilitate a response before the pathogen can cause disease. Memory cells recognize parts of a pathogen’s body called antigens. Antigens are molecules unique to each pathogen, and memory cells use antigens to recognize specific pathogens.

Vaccines work by exposing the immune system to antigens from a specific pathogen, tricking the body into thinking is has encountered the actual pathogen. Exposure to an antigen stimulates an immune response, which creates memory cells for that pathogen without causing the negative effects of an actual first infection. Most vaccines are either modified-live vaccines (MLV) or killed vaccines (killed). The MLV contain live microbes that have been modified so that they have the antigenic components of the disease-causing agent but do not cause disease; killed vaccines contain antigen components or pieces of the disease-causing agent. Presenting the antigens to the immune system for processing greatly depends on the type of vaccine used and on the route of administration. For example, an MLV vaccine labeled for intramuscular injection (injection directly into muscle tissue) may not yield the desired immune response if it is administered subcutaneously (injected into the fatty layer of tissue directly beneath the skin).

Secondary exposure to a pathogen or its vaccine makes the immune system stronger and better prepared for future exposure. This is because some memory cells have a longer lifespan than others; this is also what makes the timing of vaccinations so important. A second (booster) vaccination creates a stronger immune response of longer duration because the concentration of memory cells and their effectiveness increase with repeated exposure to an antigen (Figure 1). This is why one vaccination usually does not provide sufficient protection. Most vaccines require a booster two to four weeks after the initial vaccination and annually thereafter. The goal is to stimulate the immune system by repeated exposure to an antigen so antibodies are present in the body at a level that is highly protective if exposure to the actual pathogen occurs. However, disease may still occur in cases where pathogen exposure exceeds the animal’s protective level for that disease.

Why Vaccinated Animals Still Sometimes Get Sick The most common reason vaccinated animals get sick is because they fail to fully respond to vaccination, or fail to become immunized. Procedures to maximize immune response include following label directions for timing, route of administration, and proper vaccine handling, and minimizing stress that can suppress immune function. Some vaccines, especially MLVs, must be handled very carefully. Exposure to heat, sunlight, or being mixed too long prior to use can reduce a vaccine’s effectiveness. All vaccines must be kept cool, even while the vaccine is in the syringe. Nevertheless, even when everything is done correctly some animals To find more resources for your business, home, or family, visit the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences on the World Wide Web at aces.nmsu.edu www.progressiverancher.com

Figure 1. Change in serum antibody concentration over time after a primary and secondary (booster) exposure to vaccine antigen. fail to mount an immune response sufficient to create immunity to the disease.

Factors contributing to this failure are poor nutrition (including micro and macro mineral imbalance or deficiency), vitamin deficiency, congenital immunodeficiency, and poor overall health.

While it does not provide perfect protection, vaccination is the most effective tool available to prepare an animal’s immune system to respond to disease challenges.

Preparing the immune response before exposure to stress and disease will result in cattle being better able to mount an adequate immune response when challenged. A sound vaccination program developed with your veterinarian and carried out using proper timing and technique is critically important for maintaining the health and profitability of your herd.

GLOSSARY Pathogen: disease-causing agent

Antigens: molecules unique to each pathogen by which the immune system recognizes the pathogen

Modified-live vaccines (MLV): vaccines containing live microbes that have been modified so that they have the antigen components of the disease-causing agent but do not cause disease

Killed vaccines: vaccines containing antigen components or pieces of the diseasecausing agent Intramuscular injection: injection directly into muscle tissue

Subcutaneous injection: injection into the fatty layer of tissue immediately beneath the skin Primary vaccination: the initial exposure to an antigen via vaccination

Booster vaccination: second vaccination to stimulate the immune system via repeated exposure to an antigen

Congenital immunodeficiency: weakness of the immune system present at birth For more on this topic: TPB-226: Increasing the Effectiveness of Modified Live Vaccines http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/B-226/welcome.html All Livestock and Range Publications: http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/

Original authors: John Wenzel, Extension Veterinarian; Clay P. Mathis, Extension Livestock Specialist; and Boone Carter, Extension Associate.

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 37

INFLUENCE OF TARGET WEIGHT ON PUBERTY IN HEIFERS: A CASE STUDY

by Ron Torell | Dr. Ben Bruce | Dr. Bill Kvasnicka | Ken Conley | John Wilker Age, weight and breed of cattle influences puberty.

Of the three, inadequate body weight is usually the cause of non-cycling heifers at breeding. This paper discusses the importance of target weight and looks at a case study that shows cycle rates on various weights of English bred heifers. The University of Nevada Gund Research and Demonstration Ranch located near Austin, Nevada, was the study site.

Determining Target Weight The “65 percent of adult weight” rule of thumb is a handy way of determining the correct target breeding weight for English-bred replacement heifers (70 percent for continental and Brahman influence breeds). This is how it works. Determine the weight of the mature cow herd in average flesh. Simply multiply the average mature cow weight by 0.65 or 65 percent.

For example, if the average mature cow weight on a ranch is 1,000 pounds, then the minimum target weight for replacement heifers at breeding is 650 pounds (1,000 x.65).

approximately 14 percent protein and 78 percent energy. When feeding this ration, gains of one to one and a quarter pound per day are obtainable. This ration requires the development phase to start early enough so target weights are reached with a lower ADG (more days on feed). It is often more cost effective to feed a cheaper ration for a longer period of time. It is important that the diet be balanced.

One that is short in either energy or protein will not produce the desired gain.

Another popular ration which yields a higher A.D.G. is free-choice alfalfa hay and three to four pounds of ground corn. Gains of 1.25 to 1.5 pounds per day have been realized when feeding this ration.

This ration requires fewer days on feed to reach target weight than the grass hay wheat-mid ration.

Producers often wait until early winter to initiate a heifer development program. By doing so, the days on feed are shortened thereby increasing the ADG required to reach target weight.

Parasite control at the start of the development phase along with the addition of an ionophore to the ration Determine the Required Average Daily will increase ADG thereby reducing required days on Gain to Reach Target Weight feed to reach target weight. It is also suggested to feed The next step is to determine the average daily gain a calcium phosphorous trace mineral mix during the (ADG) required for heifers to reach target weight. development and breeding period.

The authors suggest test weighing replacement heifers at the start of the development phase. Subtract the There are many computer ration balancing programs starting weight from the target weight and divide available that can help you develop a least cost ration that figure by the days in the developing period. For utilizing the feedstuffs available on your ranch and example, if heifers weigh 500 pounds on December 1 in your area. It is also very important to have your and the desired April 15 target weight is 650 pounds, feedstuffs tested for nutrient content to properly then a 150 pound gain is needed to reach target balance diets. Your local extension agent or nutritionist weight. The developing period is 136 days (December should be able to help you in this area. The critical 1 to April 15). By dividing 150 pounds by 136 days point to keep in mind when developing a ration is that we determine that it will take 1.10 pound per day gain heifers must reach target weight prior to breeding. to reach the target weight on April 15. The longer the development phase, the easier it is to reach target It is suggested that ranchers weigh heifers throughout weight. Waiting until a few weeks (or months) before the developing period to ensure the ration is adequate. breeding to add several hundred pounds can be a Adjustment in the ration may be required. Too much weight as fat is costly and is as detrimental to fertility nearly impossible task. as not enough weight. Additionally, excessive fat Research indicates that conception rates are higher on deposition in the mammary glands can reduce future the second and third heat cycles of heifers compared milk production. to the first heat after reaching puberty. This suggests that getting heifers to their desired target weight at Case Study least one month prior to breeding may increase first A two year study conducted at the University of conception rates.

Nevada Gund Research and Demonstration Ranch shows the importance of winter feeding replacement Developing a Ration to Reach Target Weight heifers to reach target weight prior to breeding. Sixty There are many combinations of feedstuffs that can weaned English bred heifer calves were selected for be successfully used during the development phase. replacements in the fall of 1995 and again in 1996.

A popular ration fed in northeastern Nevada has Heifers were synchronized for estrous for ease of been free choice early cut, high quality grass hay and heat detection and artificial insemination in both 3 pounds of wheat middlings. Wheat middlings are the 1996 and 1997 groups. Heat detection involved 38 MAY - JUNE 2019

The Progressive Rancher

the use of "HEAT WATCH," an electronic heat detection system.

Winter nutrition from weaning to breeding included alfalfa hay and three pounds of ground corn. Hay quality was poor in the 1996-97 heifer group which resulted in fewer heifers reaching target weight at breeding. The two years of data were pooled for analysis and are presented in Table 1 below.

Body weights of heifers showing estrus at the University of Nevada Gund Research & Demonstration Ranch on April 15 of 1996 & 1997

Table 1 Number of Heifers Number in Estrus Percent in Estrus

Marginally Not Ready Ready Ready < 600 pounds 600 to 650 >650 pounds pounds 23 head 0 0%

27 head 7 26%

70 head 50 71%

Results of the University of Nevada study are supported by similar trials conducted by Texas A&M University in 1979. The Texas study showed estrus as high as 90 percent in heifers exceeding target weight.

Those heifers not reaching target weight showed no estrus, while marginally developed heifers showed a 50 percent cycle rate. The Texas data suggest that if you are going to error, it is better to error on the high side of target weight rather than the low side.

It is important to mention that the heifers classified as marginally developed (600-650) in the 1996 Nevada heifer group did cycle and conceived within 45 days of the April 15 heat detection date. Not ready heifers (under 600) did not conceive within the 45-day breeding season. This was evident by the 45day calving period in 1997. This would suggest that the nutritionally high values of green grass plays an important role in bringing marginal heifers to target weight and estrus.

Conclusion Feeding heifers to reach target breeding weight (65 percent of mature weight) is the best management practice to follow when early conception of first-calf yearling replacement heifers is the goal. Starting the development phase early in the year allows ranchers to feed heifers to reach target weight with a less expensive ration that results in a lower ADG (more days on feed). Test weighing heifers in the middle of the development phase and adjusting the ration accordingly is recommended. For best results only those heifers that have attained target weight should be included in an artificial insemination and heat synchronization program. www.progressiverancher.com

CARE OF HYPOTHERMIC (COLD STRESSED) NEWBORN BEEF CALVES

by Ron Torell | Dr. Ben Bruce | Dr. Bill Kvasnicka, UNR Extension Specialists Surveys show that mortality in beef herds from birth to weaning ranges from 3 to 7 percent. The majority of normal deaths occur within the first 24 hours of life. Slow and difficult births (dystocia), and cold stress (hypothermia) are the leading causes of death during this period. Proper care and treatment of the hypothermic or cold stressed calf can prevent this.

Types of Hypothermia There are two types of hypothermia: exposure (gradual) and immersion (acute).

Exposure hypothermia is the steady loss of body heat in a cold environment through respiration, evaporation and lack of adequate coat, body flesh or weather protection.

This type of hypothermia affects all classes of livestock but particularly affects young, old and thin animals.

calf may be mistaken for dead. The pupils of the eyes will be dilated and fixed. The pulse may be undetectable.

Occasional gasps of respiration at a rate as low as four or five per minute may be the only clue that the calf is still alive. Heart failure may be the actual cause of death.

Treatment of Hypothermia The use of a thermometer is essential to determine the degree of hypothermia. Often a calf does not appear to be hypothermic, however upon taking its temperature, you find that the calf 's body temperature is below normal. This is often brought on by dystocia (slow births) which may have put the calf in an hypoxic (lack of oxygen) situation. The calf being hypoxic, is slow to dry off and nurse which allows hypothermia to set in.

Returning the calf 's core body temperature to normal (100° F. for newborn calves) is the immediate concern.

Immersion hypothermia is the rapid loss of body heat Maintaining the normal core body temperature is due to a wet, saturated hair coat in a cold environment. secondary. Floor board heaters of pickup trucks, Immersion hypothermia often occurs after the birthing submersion of wet calves in a warm bath, placing process because the calf is born saturated with uterine calves next to the heater in the house, or placing the fluids. Other causes of immersion hypothermia of calf under a heat lamp, are all methods which have young calves may include being born in deep snow been used over the years. or wet ground, falling into a creek or being saturated Feeding the hypothermic calf warm colostrum as from heavy rains followed by chilling winds. soon as possible speeds recovery and increases the probability of full recovery. Breathing the warm air Symptoms of Hypothermia Faced with a cold environment, the body tries to defend coupled with consumption of colostrum, heats the calf itself in two ways: shivering, to increase muscle heat from the inside out and provides the needed energy to production, and blood shunting, to reduce heat loss by overcome the trauma they just went through. diverting blood flow away from the body extremities to the body core. Mild hypothermia occurs as the body's core temperature drops below normal (approximately 100° F. for beef calves). In the early stages, vigorous shivering is usually accompanied by increased pulse and breathing rates. A cold nostril and pale, cold hooves are early signs that blood is being shunted away from the body's extremities. In the case of newborn calves, severe shivering may interfere with its ability to stand and suckle. This increases the chances for severe hypothermia. Erratic behavior, confusion and a clumsy gait, are all signs of mild hypothermia. Producers often refer to these as "dummy" calves.

Home-made warming and drying boxes have been used over the years with limited success. Most warming boxes are a 4 foot by 3 foot plywood box in which the hypothermic calf can be placed to dry and warm. Heat sources may include electrical heaters, heat lamps or propane. It is recommended that a fan be included in construction to circulate the warm air. Lack of ventilation and thermostatically controlled shut offs are often a problem with home constructed models. As the hair coat dries, moisture raises the humidity within the box. This often leads to pneumonia. Additionally, the calf is often left unattended and suffers from heat stress or scorching.

Below core temperature of 94° F. , the vital organs are beginning to get cold. As the brain cools, brain cell metabolism slows, resulting in impaired brain function.

The level of consciousness deteriorates from confusion to incoherence and eventual unconsciousness. Below 86° F., signs of life are very difficult to detect and the

The "ROY-L-HEAT" calf warming and drying box utilizes a 110 volt heater equipped with a circulating fan and automatic shutoff thermostat as the heat source. The circulating warm, dry air moves under the wet calf, (the calf sits on a mesh screen elevated four inches off the floor) up the sides of the calf and is recirculated through the heater. The accumulated moisture escapes through the attic vent. The heater is protected in a separate enclosure attached to the rear of the box and removes easily to make rinsing and disinfecting simple. The box is made of high density

Severe hypothermia results as the body temperature drops below 94° F. Shunting of blood continues, manifesting as cold and pale nostrils and hooves.

Paleness is due to poor oxygenation of the tissues near the body surface. Decreased peripheral circulation also results in a buildup of acid metabolites (waste products) in the muscles of extremities. After the shivering stops, it is replaced by muscle rigidity. The pulse and respiration begins to slow as the body core cools to 88° F.

www.progressiverancher.com

polyethylene. It's interior size provides adequate space for calves to lay down or stand up. Opposite the heater is a rubber "head boot" which permits the calf to breathe outside air when desired, yet holds the warm air in at all times.

The "Calf Saver" warming and drying box utilizes a hydro-flame propane furnace with thermostatically controlled spark ignition as the heat source. A 12 volt R.V. blower circulates the warm, dry air around the wet calf. A strong, light-weight polyurethane, prefabricated shell serves as the warming box itself.

The RV battery provides extended life over a regular 12 volt car battery. By using the 12 volt system, producers can take the calf warmer right to the hypothermic calf in the field. The cow stays close by because she can smell the calf in the box as it dries off.

Early treatment of hypothermic calves is important.

The severe hypothermic calf can be revived and saved.

However, they often are set back from the experience and their body defense system can be compromised.

This sets the calf up for pneumonia, scours and other calfhood problems.

Several commercially designed calf warming boxes are marketed nationally. Design and construction of these commercial products have overcome the ventilation, overheating and scorching problems of earlier homemade designs.

The Progressive Rancher

ROY-L-HEAT calf warmer is manufactured by Smucker Manufacturing, Inc., 22919 N Coburg, Harrisburg, Oregon 97446 (800-333-4503). Calf Saver calf warmer is manufactured

by Rotonics Manufacturing, Inc., P.O. Box 94, Jordan Valley, OR 97910 (208) 583-2441. Reference to a company or trade name does not imply approval or endorsement by the authors.

MAY - JUNE 2019 39

The 2019 Nevada Legislature has reached two important milestones; April 4th marked the halfway point of the 120-day Session and April 11th was the deadline for Committee passage out of the first House where the measure was introduced. Water bills that met the April 11th deadline include; AB30, AB62, AB95, AB163, AB265, SB140, SB150, SB232, SB236 and SB250.

is water available for appropriation to reserve 10 percent of the total remaining water. The water reserved by the State Engineer may only be used on a temporary basis in an emergency, including if the basin is under a declaration of drought. CNRWA was among the many supporters of this bill.

CNRWA has long advocated for local government land-use plans to be based on identified sustainable water resources.

A total of 247 bills failed to make it out of Committee by the April 11th deadline including two water bills; AB51 and SB499.

SB232 authorizes the trustee or trustees to designate a beneficiary of a trust to vote in certain elections, AB51 would have required the State Engineer The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, sign certain petitions and run for certain offices of to adopt regulations related to the conjunctive management of groundwater and surface water and Agriculture and Mining (NRAM) passed AB30 an irrigation district. authorized the State Engineer to levy certain special with a significant amendment that eliminated SB236 creates an exception from the requirement assessments related to conjunctive management problematic language while providing some clarity that the State Engineer can only approve 3M plans to file a change application where: both the original while SB499 would have created the Advisory to “avoid” conflicts and not to “eliminate” conflicts. place of diversion and new place of diversion are Board on Water Resources Planning and Drought Numerous individuals and groups opposed AB30 located on the same property for which water has Resiliency within the Division of Water Resources at the initial hearing, however, the Central Nevada already been appropriated; and the new place of of the State Department of Conservation and Regional Water Authority and Humboldt River diversion is located not more than 300 feet from the Natural Resources.

Basin Water Authority joined others in testifying original place of diversion.

The Legislature has also been reviewing budget neutral on the amended bill. NRAM also passed SB 250 provides that any right to appropriate water requests from the State Engineer’s Office. A AB62 which revises the time period for which that is dedicated to a county, city, public utility, subcommittee of the Senate Finance and Assembly the State Engineer may grant an extension for water purveyor or other public entity in order to Ways and Means Committees voted to create and the completion of work for the diversion of ensure a sufficient supply of water to one or more fund a new statewide water planning program water, and AB95 which provides that if the State parcels and in connection with the approval of any within the Division of Water Resources to improve Engineer orders a curtailment by priority rights in a groundwater basin he must allow a domestic well parcel map or permit must remain so dedicated water conservation, drought response, long-term to continue to withdraw 0.5 acre-feet of water per and must not be sold, leased or otherwise used for flood management and long-range planning. The year if the owner of the domestic well installs or has a purpose other than ensuring a sufficient water final budget must still be approved by the Assembly supply for the parcel or parcels, as applicable, and Senate. installed a water meter. until the modification or redevelopment of the AB163 and AB265 also made it out of NRAM by the parcel or parcels. An amendment provides that the With 49 days remaining in the regular Session deadline. AB163 as amended revises requirements dedication requirement must be the subject of an anything can happen. Remaining bills could be for water utilities to have water conservation plans ordinance, published rule, or regulation adopted by amended or not meet upcoming deadlines or be and revises minimum standards for plumbing the supplier of water and must be based on reliable vetoed by the Governor. Bills that do not meet fixtures in new construction and expansions and data and demand estimating procedures, and except deadlines could end up as amendments to other renovations in certain structures. AB265 requires in the case of mergers or acquisitions of a utility water bills. the Desert Research Institute to conduct a study water system or transactions by the water supplier You can view all bills and their status on the concerning water treatment, including desalination in furtherance of developing or maintaining a Legislative website at: www.leg.state.nv.us and reverse osmosis treatment systems, and sustainable water supply, the supplier of water is recycling. The Central Nevada Regional Water prohibited from conveying a water right previously The website also allows you to watch hearings live as Authority supports desalination as a water resource. dedicated for purposes of sale to a private person, well as archived hearings.

Sustainability needs to be the foundation of any private entity, or public entity.

You can also check out the Central Nevada Regional strategy for water management and Nevada, the The Senate Committee on Government Affairs Water Authority website at http://cnrwa.com/ for driest state in the nation, has a finite sustainable passed SB150 which requires counties and cities to information about water bills. water supply for its communities and ecosystems. develop a water resource plan.

Cities do not need Significant advances in desalination have made it a to develop a plan if they are included in a county potential water resource for the future. water resource plan. Nevada, the driest state in the by Jeff Fontaine, the Executive Director of the On the Senate side, SB140, SB232, SB236 and nation, has a finite sustainable water supply for its Central Nevada Regional Water Authority.

SB250 were all passed out of the Committee on communities and ecosystems, and therefore local Natural Resources by the deadline. SB140 requires government land use plans (master plans) should He can be reached at: ccjfontaine@gmail.com the State Engineer, in any basin in which there be based on identified sustainable water resources. or 775-443-7667.

40 MAY - JUNE 2019

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

RANGE PLANTS FOR THE RANCHER

By Paul T. Tueller, Ph.D., CRMC

For this issue I write of another desert shrub, Sarcobatus baileyi Coville or Bailey’s Greasewood. This plant is found mostly in western Nevada and is part of a characteristic plant community often with an understory of Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides). In general, the genus Sarcobatus is distributed in western North America, from southeastern British Columbia and southwest Alberta, Canada south through the drier regions of the United States east to North Dakota and west Texas, west to central Washington and eastern California) to northern Mexico(Coahuila). So far as is nown, Sarcobatus baileyi is endemic to Nevada, centering in the Lahontan Basin. It is often in monotypic stands or with Atriplex confertifolia. Bailey’s greasewood is allegedly a nonphreatophyte. (Phreatophytes are long-rooted plant that absorbs its water from the water table or the soil above it. I previously wrote about Sarcobatus vermiculatus or greasewood.

by the Flora of North America, which however lists it as a "discordant lineage" within the larger group of Chenopodiaceae and Amaranthaceae.

The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, does recognize this family. The family comprises the single genus, Sarcobatus. The species reproduces from seeds and sprouts. S. vermiculatus was discovered in 1806 by the Lewis and Clark expedition's westward exploration of North America. Sarcobatus baileyi Coville is a Nevada endemic.

This uncommon genus was formerly treated in the family Chenopodiaceae. The Sarcobataceae family name was published in 1997, and is not recognized

The flowers are unisexual, with the male and female flowers on the same plant and appear from June to August.The plants are sometimes red-tinged, intricately

These are low shrubs up to 1 m tall. Leaves hairy, 10– 16 mm long. Sometimes it is considered to be a variety of greasewood S. vermiculatus var. baileyi (Coville) Jepson. The plants occur in the 5-10 precipitation zone between 3, 500 and 6,500 feet elevation on gravelly and stony loam soils with more topography than the flats where Sarcobatus vermiculatus is found.

branched, evenly rounded, to 0.7-1 m, low; proximal branches in contact with ground. The leaves are mostly clustered on a cushion like base on older wood. The blades are dull green to grayish green, usually terete and arcuate, 0.5-1.6 cm, pubescent. The inflorescense are pistillate flowers with staminate spikes on shortened branches with 1-3 barely discernible internodes.

The staminate spikes usually up to 10 mm in length. The fruits are 6-12 mm long with the wings 1-2 cm in diameter. The seeds are 2 mm. Flowering is in spring with fruiting in the summer. Pants are found on alkaline soils in semiarid or arid plains, flats, or slopes, mixed shrublands in Nevada. Sarcobatus baileyi is apparently not as poisonous as Sarcobatue vermiculatus and most of the forage useful to livestock and wildlife is found in the understory. The plants are not very palatable and are of value because of the understory of perennial grasses often Indian ricegrass and other associated shrubs such as Shadscale (Atriplex confertifilia). This is a unique woody plant forming plant communities of interest to ranchers and botanists.

Bailey's Greasewood

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 41

Pitfalls in Contracting

by Bethany A. Gross | Associate Attorney | Falen Law Office A contract is easily created and can take many forms.

The most familiar is a formal written document, but with certain exceptions (such as a real estate contract for sale) a contract can be valid if made verbally or even if written on the back of a napkin. Any contract is valid so long as an offer is made and accepted, both parties have the mental capacity to make a contract, the contract has a legal subject matter, and the contract is grounded on some form of mutual benefit (i.e., "consideration").

Once a valid contract is made, however, it is not so easy to get out of. Without appropriate contract terms, the unwary may suffer unintended consequences. There is no limit to the different kinds of provisions that may be included in a contract. Nevertheless, some important contract provisions include land descriptions; liability and indemnity clauses; default, termination, and waiver clauses; venue and choice of governing law clauses; attorney fees; and contract terms providing clarity.

Land Descriptions. It is vitally important to include a detailed description of the land in any contract involving land or real estate. Such contracts may include leases, easements, and contracts for sale. Not only may it be required by law to include a description of the land (such as in contracts involving real estate), but it is also important to avoid confusion or unanticipated results. Fence-lines or other property boundary markers are frequently inaccurate. A detailed land description can help a landowner know where the true property boundaries are to prevent squatters and adverse possession claims. For easements, describing each parcel that is to benefit from an easement may prevent the easement from being lost as to certain parcels if they are later subdivided and conveyed to someone else. For leases, if a lease is too broad and the lessor does not specifically describe the land to be leased, the lessee may choose to use lands the lessor did not intend the lessee to use.

Liability and Indemnity Clauses. Clauses pertaining to liability or indemnity are also very important contract terms. Agreeing to indemnify someone is an agreement to accept liability for the other person's actions and without a provision to limit liability can result in being liable for simple negligence.

For example, a landowner may lease his or her land to a lessee to allow the lessee to graze cattle. If one of the lessee's cattle escape onto a roadway and causes a car accident, the car accident victim may include the landowner in a lawsuit to recover personal injuries.

If the landowner included an indemnity clause in the lease requiring the lessee to fully indemnify the landowner, the lessee would be fully liable for the lawsuit with the car accident victim. â&#x20AC;&#x192;42â&#x20AC;&#x192;MAY - JUNE 2019

On the other hand, a party to a contract may agree to be liable for only his or her own knowingly willful or intentional acts. Determining which degree of liability is appropriate will depend on the purpose of the contract and what each party is willing to accept.

Default, Termination, and Waiver Clauses. Default and termination clauses allow parties to terminate a contract for a breach of contract or other reason.

Without a default clause, parties to a contract may have to resort to the courts to determine what should happen if a breach of contract occurs. This can be time consuming and expensive.

Contract Terms Providing Clarity. Contract clarity is crucial to avoiding significant litigation. Misused or misspelled words can result in changing the meaning of an entire contract. It can be impossible to predict how any term in a contract will be interpreted, especially if definitions of key terms are not included in a contract.

For example, without a definition of what a "mineral" is, an oil and gas company could end up being entitled to valuable dinosaur fossils rather than the landowner.

Further, blank spaces should never be allowed to remain in a contract. There is no guarantee that the blank space will be filled in later, and will likely lead to considerable litigation if not filled in before a dispute occurs. This can be particularly true if a certain number or price is omitted, and the number or price changes over time or the parties have different expectations of what the number or price should be. Generally, a court will enforce the terms of a contract without resorting to outside evidence. However, if a contract is unclear, a court will require the parties to produce evidence of what their intentions were, which could also include the necessity of expert testimony. If an expert's testimony is needed, it can be expected that the party will spend a substantial amount of time and money on litigation.

Even in absence of a breach or default, a termination clause that allows the parties to terminate the contract within so many days after providing written notice may allow the parties to get out of a contract that suddenly becomes undesirable or the parties' relationship turns sour. In addition, a waiver clause should be included in a contract with a default clause. Without a waiver clause, a party may not be able to terminate a contract if the party accepts some cure of a default from the other party. For example under a contract containing a waiver clause, if one party fails to make a timely payment, the other party may accept a late payment without waiving his or her right to terminate the contract for a default regarding payments.

Conclusion. In the end, these are only some of the potential provisions and issues that can be encountered Venue and Choice of Governing Law. Designating in a contract and it is impossible to thoroughly a particular venue in a contract means that disputes discuss in this article every possibility. Every contract involving the contract will be heard by a particular term raises numerous pros and cons which will vary court; generally in a particular county and state. depending on individual circumstances, and which Moreover, a particular state's law can be designated should be discussed in detail with a qualified attorney. as the law governing the interpretation of a contract. Conferring with a qualified attorney before signing a These provisions can be especially important when contract can save thousands of dollars later down the each party to a contract lives in different states. road when unanticipated situations arise.

If no venue or choice of governing law is designated, a court may have to determine venue and law based on which state the defendant resides in. This can be very inconvenient and detrimental for a party who lives in the western part of the United States and who is suing a large company headquartered in Delaware.

Attorney Fees. The general rule is that each party bears his or her own attorney fees. Parties can deviate from that general rule by drafting a provision for attorney fees to be paid by the losing party, or by a particularly designated party. Often, such clauses are included in a contract in an effort to discourage litigation. However, caution should be taken by a party contracting with a much larger or more affluent party. In this regard, a modest landowner may not want to risk having to pay a large company's expensive attorney fees if the landowner happens to lose.

The Progressive Rancher

Bethany Gross and Brian Sheldon are Associate Attorneys with the Falen Law Offices, LLC with a primary focus on property, environment and natural resources law. Falen Law Offices, LLC, has attorneys licensed to practice law in Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. These articles should not be understood to state or imply that any lawyers of this law firm are certified as specialists in a particular field of law. Colorado does not certify lawyers as specialists in any field. The Wyoming State Bar does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Anyone considering a lawyer should independently investigate the lawyer's credentials and ability, and not rely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This article is informational and is not legal advice. Use of this article or contact with this law firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. www.progressiverancher.com

What To Know About Your Forest Service Grazing Permit

years of the purchase without prior approval. Violation of the “two-year” rule may result in a cancellation of the permit.

Operators should be aware that all the abovementioned requirements for qualifying for and transferring permits are strictly enforced by the Forest

by Brian Gregg Sheldon | Associate Attorney | Falen Law Office Service. The Forest Service has “seen it all” when it comes to creative attempts to finagle base property or The U.S. Forest Service has managed livestock Furthermore, every operator should be aware of livestock ownership, and any attempt to circumvent grazing on its portion of the public lands for over a the requirement to “validate” a grazing permit. these requirements will dealt with harshly by the century. Despite this long history, the agency’s actual Validation consists of a Forest Service employee agency. While certain isolated exceptions exist -- e.g., guidelines for day-to-day management of a public personally verifying that the permittee has turned for foreclosed mortgages and “escrow” waivers, as well lands’ livestock operation remain somewhat obscure out at least 90% of the livestock designated in the as the possibility of obtaining a conditional one-year to the average person. The process for acquiring, permit on the relevant allotment. The validation permit if base property or livestock requirements are transferring, and appealing permits and permit-related process need only occur once. While validation may not met through no personal fault of the permittee -decisions may seem a bit mystifying -- particularly for sound like a formality, it is nonetheless a crucial one the end result of trying to bend the rules may well be an operator who is more familiar with the system used – failure to validate one’s permit renders it subject to a cancelled permit. by the Bureau of Land Management. This article aims cancellation. Moreover, failure to validate a permit Appealing an Unfavorable Decision. If your permit to give a short overview of the practical operation of precludes an operator from transferring the permit, or transfer application is denied, or if your permit is the Forest Service’s grazing management authority, as described below. renewed with unfavorable terms, it may be necessary to along with some lessons garnered from experience.

Transferring a Grazing Permit. Transferring a appeal the decision. Unfortunately, those operators who Anatomy of a Grazing Permit. Every Forest Service Forest Service permit can be difficult because the are familiar with the Bureau of Land Management’s grazing permit is based on a standard form. It will state: transfer process is intertwined with the qualification appellate procedures will find that the Forest Service does things differently. Comparatively speaking, there the permittee’s contact information; a description of requirements described above. the range being grazed (e.g., a map of relevant public Strictly speaking, a permit is not transferred between are fewer due process rights available to an appellant.

Pursuant to the Forest Service’s grazing regulations and private land); the number, kind, and class of two different parties. Instead, the original permittee the Forest Service appeals process typically consists livestock being grazed; the period of use for grazing; “waives” his or her permit via a standard waiver form of a single appeal to the Forest Supervisor (assuming and the grazing allotment(s) with which the permit and, if the Forest Service accepts this waiver, issues a the original decision was issued by a District Ranger), will be associated. Typically, grazing permits are issued new permit to the new permittee for the remainder although a higher-level “discretionary review” is for terms of ten years and may be renewed thereafter, of the term period. Waiver forms will generally be sometimes available in rare instances involving largealbeit with the potential for new and potentially approved provided the new permittee is qualified and scale land management decisions. If the appeal is adverse terms. the prior permit was validated to begin with. However, likewise unfavorable, then one may seek judicial review Significantly, the permit will also contain language the approval of the new permit is conditioned on in federal court. stating that the permit may be cancelled or suspended, the new permittee purchasing the livestock and in whole or in part, for failure to abide by the terms base property of the previous permittee. If the new Based on our experience with Forest Service appeals, and conditions of the permit and/or for failure to abide permittee purchases both the land and the livestock a couple of points are worth bearing in mind. First, an by any applicable laws, regulations, or instructions of from the previous permittee, this presents no problem. operator should be aware that the Forest Service has the Forest Service. This includes penalties for making However, issues can arise when the would-be new very strict formal requirements for its appeals and is false statements to the agency, and for violating permittee acquires only the previous owner’s livestock known to reject appeals for not following formatting guidelines. This is why seeking legal assistance in environmental or wildlife laws. Also related: operators or the base property, but not both. the preparation of your appeal is often a good idea. should take care that some activity authorized by a According to the Forest Service Handbook on Second, if you are appealing a decision to cancel or to state permit of some sort (e.g., a hunting license) does grazing, if the party purchases only the base property, not renew a permit based on resource conditions and/ not interfere with federal laws and regulations such as the operator will need to have the new herd of or grazing practices, it is strongly recommended that the Endangered Species Act. For example, while it may livestock ready to graze with proof of ownership and you obtain the services of a rangeland consultant to be perfectly legal to obtain a license to trap coyotes that are harming your livestock, the traps you set branding information ready. Any livestock associated provide a technical basis to ground your appeal and for the coyotes could inadvertently trap and injure a with the previous permit must be removed and the rebut any claims by the agency. This is especially true wolf (or some other listed species). Even though your new herd put on within 30 days of the execution of if your appeal reaches the level of “post-decisional” agency review or judicial review in federal court, trap was otherwise lawful and any impact to the wolf the waiver form. was accidental, you could still face legal penalties for Conversely, the Handbook states that if the party as you will face an uphill battle owing to inherently violating the Endangered Species Act, including adverse purchases only the previous owner’s livestock, they must deferential standards of review in each instance. obtain the required amount of property necessary to Conclusion. The Forest Service’s grazing management consequences to your grazing permit.

Obtaining a Grazing Permit. To apply for a term support the permit. This may require re-designating authority is highly discretionary. Any applicant must grazing permit from the Forest Service, a would- nearby permit, which is a separate process that the own both the base property and livestock to qualify be permittee must meet a number of qualifications. Forest Service may, within its discretion, not approve. for the permit and must properly validate the permit Of primary concern here is the requirement that a Moreover, livestock purchased as part of a permit must before seeking to transfer it via waiver. Special care permittee own both the livestock to be grazed and be the same livestock that were permitted at the time must be given when acquiring a permit via waiver so that base property and livestock requirements are met the “base property” associated with a specific federal of the purchase. grazing allotment. While simple in concept, this In addition, operators should be wary of entering – particularly if new livestock or new base property qualification requirement can present a headache into any “buy-back” agreements – both with livestock will be designated. Permittees must be transparent for a permittee because it prevents leasing livestock and with base property. Livestock that has previously about their operational structure to avoid penalties or land or dividing ownership of same between grazed on Forest Service land may not be resold to from the agency. Finally, while a permittee is allowed different persons and/or corporate entities -- a notable the original owner within two years of the purchase an administrative appeal of any adverse decision, the difference from the Bureau of Land Management’s without prior approval of the Forest Supervisor. technical difficulty inherent in this administrative permits. Moreover, if a permittee disposes of all or a Similarly, base property purchased from a permittee proceeding means it is a good idea to seek the help of portion of the land or livestock in question, the permit in connection with issuance of a new permit must not legal counsel and rangeland consultants before filing may be subject to cancellation. be transferred back to the original owner within two your appeal. www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 43

Churchill County Cowbelles Update

Our Favorite Beef Recipes

Garlic Beef & Broccoli Noodles

By Pegi Witte “Times flies when you’re having fun!” It seems like yesterday that I was elected as President of Churchill County Cowbelles in September, 2017. Now that my term in office is coming to a close, I’d like to thank all the wonderful members of our Cowbelle group for the support I’ve received while in office. The Executive Board members all performed their roles in a manner that made my leadership an enjoyable task. A special thanks to former President Carla Pomeroy who was always there to help when I was getting up to speed in the office.

Looking ahead, an early reminder of the Churchill County Country Fair in late August. Cowbelles and Farm Bureau will have static displays the whole family won’t want to miss.

Churchill County Cowbelles do not meet June, July, or August, however we encourage all women who have an interest in the beef industry or a passion for agriculture to join us for our first meeting of the fall on September 9, 2019.

Time and place will be announced at a later date. Until then, we wish you all an enjoyable and productive summer!

Please contact us to join or learn more:

President: Pegi Witte 775-423-1571 | witteshorthorns94@yahoo.com Vice President: Karen Lawson 775-423-3272

Treasurer: Vella Torvik 775-217-1395 | v_torvik@yahoo.com

Flank steak is the best choice for this easy, all-in-one dish that has the most amazing garlic sauce.

Directions

8 ounces wide rice noodles 3 cups broccoli florets 1 tablespoon olive oil 8 oz flank steak, sliced against the grain 3 garlic cloves, minced 8 ounce mushrooms, sliced ¼ cup packed brown sugar ½ cup reduced-sodium soy sauce 2 tablespoons hoisin sauce 2 teaspoons sesame oil ¼ teaspoon ground ginger ¼ teaspoon crushed red pepper flakes ¼ teaspoon pepper 1 tablespoon cornstarch

In a large pot with boiling water, cook the noodles according to package directions. Add the broccoli the last 5 minutes of cooking and let them cook until tender. Drain the noodles and broccoli.

While the pasta is cooking, add olive oil to a medium sized skillet.

Cook the steak until no longer pink. Add the garlic, and mushrooms and cook for a minute more. In a small bowl whisk together the brown sugar soy sauce, hoisin sauce, sesame oil, ginger, red pepper, pepper and cornstarch. Add the noodles into the saucepan, then pour the sauce on top and toss until incorporated.

BEING OVER-RUN BY UNWANTED VEGETATION?

We Can Help!

OUR BULLHOG MULCHING QUALIFIES FOR THE NEVADA CONSERVATION CREDIT SYSTEMS (CCS), AND MANY FEDERAL SAGE-GROUSE INITIATIVE PROGRAMS.

CALL TODAY FOR AN ESTIMATE:

Lane Parker 435.757.4643 Jared Parker 435.881.0618

44 MAY - JUNE 2019

The Progressive Rancher

Retroscape www.retroscape.net www.progressiverancher.com

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 45

AG I S O UR MIDDLE NAME

Call 800.800.4865 today or visit AgLoan.com

We see things from the ground up, all of the small details that go into the big picture of farming. Because agriculture is what we know, it’s all we do.

46 MAY - JUNE 2019

A part of the Farm Credit System. Equal Opportunity Lender.

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com

23RD ANNUAL

September 20 and 21, 2019 Elko County Fairgrounds

★

Elko, Nevada

Friday

Saturday

— 12:00 pm —

— 8:00 am —

PREVIEW OF RIDING HORSES

PREVIEW OF RIDING HORSES

— 5:00 pm —

— 1:00 pm —

(3 and Up)

YOUTH BRANDING Friday and Saturday Previews, and the Sale will be Webcast Live.

(All)

AUCTION

Steve Friskup – Auctioneer Absentee Bidding via Phone and Internet available.

For more information contact Linda Bunch 775-756-6508 ••• [cell] 775-934-7404 ★ mrsbunch@rtci.net

www.VanNormanSale.com

www.progressiverancher.com

The Progressive Rancher

MAY - JUNE 2019 47

GREENWAY’S

GRAZING CORN Gra Yearl ze 1500 130 A ings on a c for 3 re Pivot 0 Day s

Per n i a G s. of N) 3.5 lb (69% TD e* Day t. Cattl 5-7 w * Jesse Norcutt, Currant, NV

Greenway Seeds Grazing Corn (GX80) is the No. 1 grazing corn in the nation because it is 5-6 days earlier than the competition.

This allows the rancher to plant 5-6 days later and still reach peak sugar content (pre tassel) before the frost shuts you down!

OVERSEED ALFALFA with Grazing Corn

Plant with a grain drill following second cutting on an older field of alfalfa. Ready to graze in early September.

“We planted GX80 following second cut alfalfa. If we had to do that over we would follow third cut. We grazed 400 head for two weeks on 20 acres” Cory Veterre - Greenriver, Utah

HERE’S WHAT RANCHERS ARE SAYING Coffin Butte Farm and Ranch - New Leitzigg, ND We planted 400 acres on dryland and turned out 800 pair. We grazed it from Oct. 20 to Nov. 24. The cows ate the corn almost to the ground. The corn was 7-1/2 ft. tall. The program was a success!

Garry Hess - McBride Cattle Co. - Alderville, WA We planted two pivots and grazed mother cows. Their body index rose from 5 to 6. It was incredible feed! My recommendation is to graze calves on this product. The weight gain would be tremendous!

Bob Strahley - McCook, NE We planted 105 acres on dryland and divided it into three 35 acre parcels. Two hundred head of bred cows were grazed on each parcel for about two weeks each. The corn was about 5 ft tall on the dryland acreage.

Winecup-Gamble Ranch - Montello, NV We planted GX80 on July 4 at 4900 ft. elevation. Corn made it by the second week of September. Very successful.

We’re planting more.

Greenway Seeds

Alan Greenway Seedsman

Caldwell, Idaho

www.greenwayseedandindustries.com Over 40 years Experience

Alan cell: 208-250-0159 Message: 208-454-8342

$58 per Bag - Free Shipping on 2000 lbs. or more!

48 MAY - JUNE 2019

The Progressive Rancher

www.progressiverancher.com