Southwest (U.S.)

How Three Ranches are Using Horses Today

Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:29:20 GMT

The use of horses on the ranch is a tool that continues to be essential on many ranches today. Though it is a time-honored tradition for many, it is also how large ranches with diverse terrain manage daily cattle operations.

Horses are used in a variety of ways depending on the location and size of the ranch. At K4 Ranch, located 35 miles north of Prescott, Ariz., horses are used daily on their nearly 1 million acres where they manage cattle. In business since 1941, horses have been a staple to their functionality resulting in the addition of raising quarter horses.

“We raise a large number of horses to be used primarily for ranch work and secondly our production sale, The Legacy Ranch Horse Sale,” says Sarah Kieckhefer of K4 Ranches. “It is very important to us to raise performance horses that we use first and foremost as ranch horses for a solid foundation before we go into the arena or for breeding.”

Using horses to check and gather cattle is typically their only option with the rugged terrain.

“We use horses for everything involving cattle,” Kieckhefer says. “Our country in Arizona and California is rough terrain with mountains and ravines so motorized vehicles just don’t work.”

Their Diamond A Ranch, a division of K4 Ranch is the largest ranch in Arizona, running their largest number of cows and employs a large crew with seasonal cowboys and eight camps with full-time cowboys. They also have ranches in California and Oklahoma that they run cows and stocker cattle on.

“On our large ranches with rough or brushy terrain, a good horse can go where a pickup, ATV or side-by-side can’t,” Kieckhefer explains. “Horses can cover long distances, cross canyons and handle steep or rocky country, and a horse allows you to move quietly, ease cattle along and reduce stress, which leads to fewer wrecks and better weight retention.”

(Courtesy of Poss Angus)

Gathering and Sorting

Poss Angus, a registered Angus operation in Scotia, Neb., uses horses to gather, sort and pull heats during the breeding season. In the summer months they doctor and gather cattle on grass.

“Most of our pastures are rough clay hills with ponds and trees, so having a horse to get to where the cows are is definitely necessary,” says Nathan Poss, head cowboy. “Ninety percent of the time, if there is cattle work being done of any kind, there is a horse or two being saddled.”

Poss Angus manages roughly 800 head with a bull sale every February and occasionally a female sale in the fall.

“I don’t typically use a horse in the picture pen but always to video bulls,” Poss adds. “By using a horse in the video pen, it is easier to move the bulls back and forth across the pen. Videoing can also turn into a long couple days, so it’s nice to have a young horse putting in the steps instead of me.”

Poss’ main responsibilities are the health and care of the cattle, including feeding, doctoring, calving and processing.

“I enjoy taking the ranch work and utilizing it to make young horses better through the work. Another great benefit in my mind is when working cattle horseback, the cattle gain respect for you and your horse, over time I feel like those cattle work and handle much easier,” Poss explains. “In my opinion, if it comes down to catching a single animal, a horse must be used. By using a horse instead of a four-wheeler, it keeps the environment quiet, and you can always go the same pace as the animal to help steer them in the direction you need to go. Four wheelers and rangers are also used very heavily on our ranch. Quickly moving a group to another pasture, tagging, putting out salt and mineral, those are all equivalent times to use a four-wheeler or ranger.”

(Courtesy of The Pitchfork Ranch)

Branding and Moving

The Pitchfork Ranch in Meeteetse, Wyo., uses horses heavily during branding seasons and moving cattle on and off mountain pasture. Primarily a commercial cow-calf operation focused on pounds of beef produced per acre, they also retain some cattle every year for their beef program that sells directly to consumers.

Their cattle have to thrive at elevation and harsh winters, then range calve in the spring. The Pitchfork Ranch also hosts an annual ranch horse sale in the spring.

“We use horses in all of our cattle work. In the spring we calve in an 8,000-acre pasture where we then pair cattle out into our branding groups,” says Lindsey Anson, who manages The Pitchfork Ranch. “We head and heel calves at branding and then start working our way up country where cattle summer at 10,000' elevation in the Absaroka range. In the fall as cattle come off the mountain, they are then paired out again horseback into contemporary sex groups until we ship in the first half of November.”

Similar to K4 Ranch and Poss Angus, using horses is often because of the terrain.

“Our terrain also doesn’t allow for the use of motorized vehicles very often so the work has to be done on a horse. Part of our summer range is also in a wilderness area where we still have to pack in salt and mineral horseback,” Anson explains. “Our cattle seem to handle better horseback. In the subtleties of reading cattle, you can make minor adjustments on horseback that you aren’t able to do with something motorized.”

The Cost of Coexistence With Wolves

Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:52:24 GMT

Wolves continue to cause ranchers havoc, including significant income loss. Recent research estimates the wolves are causing some impacted ranchers in the Southwest to lose 28% of their income potential.

“While the expansion of gray and Mexican gray wolf populations is often hailed as a conservation success, the consequences for ranching families can be gruesome, costly and complex,” says Daniel Munch, American Farm Bureau Federation economist. “They are threatening the safety of ranch families and their pets and livestock, as well as the long-term survival of multigenerational ranches and the rural economies they anchor.”

Munch summarized a recent University of Arizona study that focused on the Mexican gray wolf and analyzed both direct livestock depredation and indirect effects such as stress-induced weight loss and elevated management costs based on 2024 cattle prices. Findings are based on survey responses from impacted ranchers, modeling of herd-level financial outcome and county-level livestock performance trends.

“In areas with wolf presence, even a moderate level of impact, such as 2% calf loss, 3.5% weight reduction and average management costs, can reduce annual ranch revenue by 28%,” Munch says.

While the study focuses on Mexican gray wolves in the Southwest, the core challenges it identifies — livestock depredation, herd stress and weight loss, increased management costs and difficulties accessing timely compensation — are not unique to that region. Ranchers across the northern Rockies, Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes states report similar experiences as wolf populations have expanded.

“Because these economic stressors stem from common predator-prey dynamics and livestock production systems, the study’s findings provide a credible framework for estimating broader impacts,” he says. “This Market Intel draws on that foundation to illustrate the tangible financial risks associated with predator recovery and highlight the need for responsive, producer-informed wildlife policy in all regions affected by wolf activity.”

Key statistics shared by Munch in his article, “ Wolves and the West: The Cost of Coexistence ,” include:

$1,336 average value loss per calf due to wolves. Whether the calf was a day old or nearly ready for market, the rancher loses its full market value, estimated at $1,336 in 2024 for a 525 lb. calf.
A 2% loss of calves could reduce a 367-head ranch’s net income by 4%, or about $5,195, for that year. At higher loss levels, such as 14% of calves, net income could fall by as much as 34%, or roughly $42,599, in that same year.

When a cow is killed, the financial hit extends over multiple years.

“The operation not only loses that year’s calf, but also future offspring, along with the revenue and herd stability that cow would have provided,” Munch explains. “Ranchers then have to retain or buy replacements. This means fewer animals are available for sale, working capital must be used to buy additional replacements and herd development is ultimately delayed. Excluding these long-term impacts, the revenue loss associated with the loss of a single cow was estimated at $2,673.”

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

Figure 2 displays the calculated value of calves lost under this scenario, assuming each calf is valued at $1,336. This generates a loss of 13,514 calves out of an inventory of 1.87 million calves valued at $18 million in wolf-occupied counties. The states with the highest number of calf depredations under this scenario are Montana ($3 million; approximately 2,307 calves) and Idaho ($2.7 million; approximately 2,044 calves).

Keep in mind this method assumes static wolf presence at the county level. Wolves regularly traverse dozens of miles per day, crossing county and state borders, so county-level presence can vary widely year to year.

58% of those surveyed had stress- or depredation-related wolf impacts on their operation (compared to just 38% reporting depredation).
3.5% reduction in average calf weaning weight (18.4 lb.). According to Munch a figure supported by published field research — can significantly reduce revenues across an entire herd.

At the $2.54 per lb. value reference in the study ($1,336/525 lb. average), a ranch that markets 80 head would lose out on $3,738 in marketable weight value.

“Weight loss can be much higher in regions with elevated wolf activity,” Munch says. “If that same ranch experienced a 10% reduction in weaning weight, the loss would exceed $10,600 before even factoring in additional impacts like reduced conception rates.”

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

Using these assumptions about ranch exposure to wolf presence and average weight loss, Figure 3 presents the estimated revenue loss by state. In total, more than $50 million in potential calf weight value was lost due to wolf presence, including $8.6 million in Montana and $7.6 million in Idaho alone.

Ranchers reported an average cost of $79 per cow for conflict avoidance measures and associated labor.

Wolf presence forces ranchers to change the way they manage their operations — often at a steep cost. In wolf-occupied areas, ranchers routinely implement additional strategies to deter predation, respond to attacks and monitor herds across expansive rangelands.

“These management efforts are both labor- and resource-intensive,” Munch says.

Even before accounting for any depredation or stress-related weight loss, these management expenses alone reduced net returns for the average ranch by 19%. Through interviews and surveys, producers indicated they spent anywhere from several thousand dollars to over $150,000 per year on these efforts.

“For our analysis, we convert the $79 per cow figure to $55.30 per calf based on their 70% calf crop assumption,” he explains. “We then apply this per-calf cost to estimate statewide wolf-management expenses, using the study’s finding that 58% of ranchers in wolf-occupied counties experience wolf-induced stressors. Based on these assumptions, ranchers nationwide spend over $60 million each year on efforts to mitigate the impacts of gray wolves.” (Figure 4)

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

All combined, on a ranch experiencing a modest 2% calf depredation and 3.5% weight loss that also spends the average reported amount on conflict avoidance, annual ranch revenues are reduced by 28% ($34,642). These combined costs, reflecting $128 million in annual costs to U.S. ranchers, are displayed in Figure 5.

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

45% drop in the ranch’s long-term earning potential. The study projected what repeated losses from wolves would do to a ranch’s profitability over 30 years. Even a moderate level of impact — losing 2% of calves and 3.5% lower weights — would reduce the ranch’s net present value by more than $191,000.

“In plain terms, that’s a 45% drop in the ranch’s long-term earning potential,” Munch says.

The study estimates that, without wolf impacts, the ranch would generate about $420,000 in long-term profits (in today’s dollars). With average wolf-related losses, that shrinks to $228,000.

“While a single year’s loss might seem manageable, the effects compound over time,” Munch says. “Smaller calf crops mean fewer replacements and fewer animals to sell, while lower weights reduce revenue year after year. These cumulative impacts ripple through herd management and finances, steadily eroding profitability and increasing the odds that the operation may not be financially sustainable in the long run.”

Munch summarizes if predator recovery efforts are to be economically sustainable, they must be accompanied by policies that recognize the people on the front lines: those whose livelihoods now depend not only on their animals but also on a system that values and supports the cost of coexistence.

“That’s the heart of the issue,” Munch explains. “For many ranching families, the return of wolves is not just a wildlife management question, it’s a daily reality shaped by decisions made in distant urban centers, often by voters and officials who will never have to look into the eyes of a mother cow searching for her calf. Ranchers are the ones bearing the real-world costs of policies shaped far from the range. And they’re doing so while continuing to care for livestock, steward the land and feed a growing world.”

Another Sign of Trouble in the Ag Economy: Farm Bankruptcies Are on the Rise

Wed, 23 Apr 2025 14:03:46 GMT

It’s no secret there’s trouble in the ag economy. As AgWeb reported in March , the Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor found 62% of ag economists think the row crop side of agriculture is currently in a recession, and 85% think the situation will accelerate consolidation on farms and among agribusinesses. A new report from Bloomberg Law shows family farm bankruptcies are also on the rise.

Bloomberg Law’s Alex Wolf and Skye Witley recently reported that family farm bankruptcies had already increased by 55% last year compared to 2023. And there’s no sign of that slowing down, as Wolf and Witley report bankruptcies are trending even higher this year. That’s as farmers continue to grapple with depressed agricultural commodity prices and high input costs.

Farm bankruptcies are on the rise in the U.S.

(Bloomberg)

“And while much of the industrywide distress predates his second stint in the White House, (President Donald) Trump has quickly nudged more farmers closer to the brink of going under and created turbulence for producers trying to make ends meet,” Wolf and Witley reported in the Bloomberg Law story. “Unpredictable tariffs, immigration overhauls, federal program cuts and frozen Agriculture Department funding are now part of the discussions farmers are having as they seek financial help.”

The report shows the last time farm bankruptcy filings soared was in 2019, which was the height of the previous trade war with China. The previous Trump administration sent farmers more than $20 billion in Market Facilitation Program payments (MFP) to help cover export losses.

Following that financial aid to farmers, the report shows family farm bankruptcies, filed under Chapter 12 of the U.S. bankruptcy code, declined each year until 2024.

According to court records, the number of new cases in 2024 jumped to 216 from a near 20-year low of 139. The report also shows those filings have continued to speed up this year, with 82 cases filed over the first three months of 2025, which is nearly double the figure for the same period a year ago.

$10 Billion in ECAP Money to Farmers

More help is on the way, if not already on farm. That’s because the American Relief Act of 2025, which was passed by Congress late last year, authorized the $10 billion for ECAP payments to help offset losses growers incurred during the 2024 crop year. Those payments are being dispersed now, and farmers have until August to sign up.

According to Joe Glauber, former USDA chief economist and a current emeritus fellow with the International Food Policy Research Institute, direct payments have helped farmers. But the threat of farm bankruptcies, and the reality of financial pain if markets don’t improve, is still there

“Remember, we are getting a ton of money put into the sector this year from the bill that was passed by Congress in December,” Glauber told “AgriTalk’s” Chip Flory. “So that’s $31 billion coming in with $10 billion of that going out to farmers as direct income support to offset low margins. So, I don’t think we’ll see a lot of farms going out of business. But certainly, if these short, tight margins persist for a long time, then that’s going to affect people.”

Rural Bankers Show Concern

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, the number of farm loans at risk of defaulting is the highest it’s been since 2020 as demand for non-real-estate farm loans has surged while repayment rates dropped. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago serves the Seventh Federal Reserve District , which includes Iowa, and most of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Ag lenders are also concerned. The most recent Rural Mainstreet Index (RMI) shows for the 19^th time in the past 20 months, the RMI sank below the 50.0 growth reading in April. This specific index surveys bank CEOs in rural areas of a 10-state region dependent on agriculture and/or energy.

While tariffs and Trump’s focus on trade are causing uncertainty, Ernie Goss, MacAllister chair in regional economics at Creighton University, says ag lenders are actually supportive of Trump’s tough stance on trade.

“The economic outlook for 2025 farm income remains weak, according to bank CEOs. Despite the negative fallout from tariffs, 75% of bankers support the tariffs on China, and 79.2% back the 90-day pause on other tariffs,” Goss told “AgriTalk’s” Chip Flory. “I’m an economist and we economists, we’re not very keen on tariffs and trade restrictions. Nonetheless, the bankers, three out of the four bankers are supportive of what the president’s doing there, and I would argue that the farmers are on the president’s side as well.”

The RMI also found rural bankers remain pessimistic about economic growth for their area over the next six months. The April confidence index increased to a weak 36.0 from March’s 30.4.

“Weak grain prices and negative farm cash flows, combined with downturns in farm equipment sales over the past several months, pushed banker confidence lower,” Goss said.

Cotton Hit Especially Hard

Cotton farmers are especially feeling the pain with younger farmers already having difficulty getting financed for this year. Cheap cotton prices and dwindling demand are just part of the problem. Input costs have climbed, and there’s no safety net to be found from a new farm bill. One Georgia farmer told Farm Journal that the current farm bill is irrelevant and worthless, and if a new one doesn’t get passed this year, the cotton industry is doomed.

“We’re going to plant cotton and don’t even have a clue if we’re going to get our money back,” says Franz Rowland, who grows cotton in Boston, Ga. “There’s no farm bill to support us, and the reference price is so low that it’s not anything that we can depend on. So, we’re going to put several million dollars in the ground and don’t even know if we’re going to get it back.”

As president and CEO of National Cotton Council (NCC), Gary Adams sees and hears the somber situation for U.S. cotton farmers from coast to coast. Adams says the outlook for 2025 is even worse than 2024.

“We’ve gone beyond just losing money now that we’re to the point of losing the farm,” he says. “Unfortunately, where the industry is, that’s what it looks like as we’re going into 2025.”

Darren Hudson is the Larry Combest endowed chair for agricultural competitiveness and director of the International Center for Agricultural Competitiveness at Texas Tech University. Hudson focuses on cotton, and on “AgriTalk” this week, he described why cotton farmers, and the entire cotton industry, is feeling the pinch.

“Cotton is fairly input intensive anyway, and so urea, nitrogen costs, all these chemical costs, they’re facing those just like every other farmer out there, but we’ve had three consecutive really bad moisture years,” Hudson told “AgriTalk.” “So, we have a long way to go to get back to what you think of as normal growing conditions.”

Hudson says three consecutive years of declining production due to drought isn’t just a problem for producers, it’s also the cotton infrastructure that relies on that crop.

“We’ve had three years, you know, that processing infrastructure all that stuff is strained and disappearing, and it’s getting harder and harder to farm as a cotton farmer out here,” says Hudson, who’s based in Lubock, Texas. “We’re not unusual compared to everybody else. We don’t want to sing a sad story, but I think all of ag is in a squeeze at this moment with [commodity] prices versus inputs.”

Is the Ag Industry Ripe for Consolidation?

Another reality for U.S. agriculture, while the majority of farms in the U.S. are small family farms, that sector doesn’t represent the majority of farm production today.

USDA ERS data shows while 88% of U.S. farms are considered “small family farms,” those farms only represent18.7% of the total U.S. value of farm production.

(Ben Brown, University of Missouri )

USDA ERS data shows while 88% of U.S. farms are considered “small family farms,” those farms only represent 18.7% of the total U.S. value of farm production.

On the other hand, while 3.4% of U.S. farms are “large-scale family farms,” that sector represents 51.8% of the total value of U.S. farm production.

Goodbye, La Niña? Eric Snodgrass Dissects What the Shift Means for Weather This Spring and Summer

Fri, 14 Mar 2025 21:12:49 GMT

La Niña is weakening, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) expects neutral conditions to develop in the next month . But even with La Niña fading, meteorologists are still concerned about drought this spring and summer.

NOAA this week said forecasters expect ENSO-neutral conditions to develop in the next month and persist through the Northern Hemisphere’s summer. According to NOAA, La Niña’s signature is cooler-than-average surface water in the east-central tropical Pacific, stronger-than-average trade winds, and drier conditions over the central Pacific.

ENSO-neutral means conditions could be close to average, but Eric Snodgrass, Nutrien’s principal atmospheric scientist, says that doesn’t mean the weather will be normal this spring and summer.

“I do expect changes,” Snodgrass says. “Think about it like this: The previous winter was an El Niño winter, and it was very mild and very wet. So, we got into spring ’24 with tons of moisture. I mean, Iowa, Minnesota and South Dakota flooded out. Then we had this incredibly dry fall as the La Niña began, and it reached a peak twice. It actually hit a peak in December, and then a secondary peak about a month later at the end of January. It’s been fading ever since. The big question is, as we go into neutral conditions for this upcoming growing season, is it going to be one that paints a picture of precipitation extremes? Did it leave us with any sort of kind of problems from winter that are carrying over?”

Snodgrass says the severe weather outbreaks on Friday, that brought high winds, dust storms and wildfire warnings across the Plains, is a reminder how dry it is in the Southwest.

“We’ve got major pockets of the country that are still dealing with some pretty big drought conditions. It is fading, and that is a signal we have to pay attention to,” Snodgrass says.

USDA meteorologist Brad Rippey is also concerned about what impact the shifting pattern will have on farmers this spring. But it’s not just the dryness. It’s also the fact areas are getting inundated with rains that could pose problems.

“With this stormy weather pattern in place, that is going to create some difficulty for spring field work in some areas. It looks like the primary storm track may be through parts of the middle of the country extending into the lower Midwest and eventually the interior northeast. That is one area where we already have fairly wet conditions,” Rippey says.

How sea surface temperatures in the Niño-3.4 region of the tropical Pacific changed over the course of all La Niña events since 1950 (gray lines) and 2024-25 (black line). This shows the traditional calculation for Niño-3.4, the monthly temperature compared to the most recent 30-year average (1991–2020 for the 2024 line). By this measure, the La Niña threshold was crossed in December 2024, but La Niña remains weak.

(NOAA)

La Niñas and El Niños Are Strongest in the Winter
Snodgrass points out La Niñas and El Niños are always strongest in Northern Hemisphere’s winter, which means they fade in spring and summer.

While La Niña-like conditions were a trademark in late fall, we didn’t reach the official definition of La Niña until January.

“The atmosphere way back in November was already treating our winter timeframe like a La Niña,” Snodgrass says. So, we were getting the influences of it as it comes in and goes out. And now the question is, what’s it going to do?”

February 2025 sea surface temperature compared to the 1985-1993 average. The surface of the east-central tropical Pacific is slightly below average temperature, but much of the global ocean remains warmer than average.

(NOAA )

“This is a great map to look at,” Snodgrass says, referencing the map above. “If you focus right in the middle, you see the large area of the cooler colors. Our line is now shifting to the central and West Pacific and behind it over by South America. All of the warmer water is beginning to emerge. And that’s what’s killing it because there’s a trade wind across that area from the east to the west. We’re going to watch this fade carefully during the spring. But the question is: Do we get winter’s leftovers?”

What Fueled the Dryness This Winter?
During the winter, Snodgrass points out there was no subtropical jet. That’s what fueled drought in the Southwest and Northwest.

“I’m actually kind of worried about the beginning of April having another shot at cold air after what we’ve been experiencing in March, which has been so very, very mild. Then you say, well, we’ve had so much dry air in place. Are we still worried about more dry air coming back? To be honest, these big storm systems coming through the central U.S., if we could get four, maybe five more of those by early April, we’re going to hate it. It’s nasty weather. It’s not fun, and it’s dangerous, but it returns moisture. That could be part of the mix of things, including the fading of La Niña that could help bring us away from these major early season drought risk scenarios.”

55% of corn production, 46% of soybean production, 33% of the cotton growing area and 27% of the winter wheat production are currently experiencing drought.

(U.S. Drought Monitor )

Growing Drought Concerns
What if it doesn’t? What if we don’t see more of this severe weather hit the Southwest and Plains, and moisture remains absent as we get into the height of spring? Well, the area will enter into the height of the growing season dry and reduce their chances of seeing moisture this summer.

“That’s a box we check every spring,” Snodgrass says. “If the drought monitor saw a reduction in drought over winter, then that gives us a different look for spring. But what we see here is two-thirds of the country in some stage of drought, including the abnormally dry category. But it’s the epicenters of drought that are so concerning. Look at the Western Corn Belt. Look at the Southwest. We just wonder if that funnels into the Mississippi Valley as we go forward.”

At the same time some areas are seeing drought, Kentucky, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, Tennessee, Arkansas and the boot heel of Missouri are all experiencing heavy rains and flooding.

“By May 11, I want to know what the drought monitor map looks like. If it looks no different, then I’m going to be sounding alarms going into summer with concerns this will start to creep and move because as soon as we get into the summer weather, all we get is convective storms pop off. And what do they do? They just locally deliver rain - not big broad swaths of it,” Snodgrass says.

Tale of Two Weather Scenarios
He says the forecast leading up to May 11 is a tale of two weather patterns, with the Mississippi River being the dividing line for moisture.

“If you are along it and east of it, I think we’re going to have tight windows to plant. You could include a little bit more of Missouri, Iowa and Minnesota in that as well,” Snodgrass says. “I think we’re going to see repeated storm systems. The best moisture is east. It keeps avoiding that southern plains area.”

What to Watch: Where the Storm Chasers End Up
Snodgrass says if storm chasers are busying chasing severe weather across the Ohio Valley, the mid-south and the southeast, but not in Kansas and the Plains, that’s a key indicator there’s a problem with the moisture getting back into the plains.

“If it’s not there by the time we start June, it’s very difficult to rely on the atmosphere to return it once you get into the summer months if you live in the central plains, which is where they could build from,” he adds.

To watch the complete discussion with Snodgrass, visit Farm Journal TV and take advantage of the free trial.

Your Next Read:
Ag Meterologists Worry More Drought Lies Ahead For Spring

Arizona Border Rancher Accused of Killing Migrant, Now Held With $1 Million Bond

Wed, 15 Feb 2023 20:02:26 GMT

An Arizona rancher has been arrested in connection with the death of a Mexican national who was shot and killed on the rancher’s property, literally yards north of the Mexican border.

(Farm Journal)

George Alan Kelly, 73, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Gabriel Cuen-Butimea, 48, from Nogales, Mexico. Authorities say Cuen-Butimea was shot Jan. 30 in a remote desert area near Kino Springs, a tiny hamlet in Santa Cruz County. Kelly is being held on a $1 million bond.

Law enforcement have not divulged a motive for the shooting, and details remain sketchy. The incident, however, could develop into a powder keg and further escalate the tense political issue regarding the U.S.-Mexican border.

Here’s what we know. Kelly lives with his wife on their ranch – Vermilion Mountain Ranch – and routinely see migrant trespassers. The couple have reported they fear members of the drug cartels and their heavily armed soldiers trafficking people and drugs.

On the day of the shooting, a sheriff’s dispatch reported a call at around 2:40 p.m. from U.S. Border Patrol about a “possible active shooter” in the area of Sagebrush Road, which is Kelly’s address. CBP apparently received a report from a witness about a “group of people running” and said he was “unsure if he was getting shot at as well.”

At around 5:50 p.m. on the day of the shooting, sheriff’s deputies received another report of shots fired at the property. By 6:42 p.m. they recovered Cuen-Butimea’s body. Authorities have said there was no weapon on the victim at the time, and investigators had collected two assault-style rifles from Kelly’s property in the aftermath to determine whether either was used in the shooting.

Cuen-Butimea was identified by authorities from his Mexican voter card, and his body was found approximately 150 yards from Kelly’s home. News outlets have reported U.S. federal court records “show Cuen-Butimea has had a history of illegal border crossings and deportations in and around Nogales, with the most recent documented case in 2016.”

While an investigation into the shooting is ongoing, officials have said they don’t have a clear motive and that they don’t think Kelly and Cuen-Butimea knew each other.

Under Arizona law, deadly force is allowed on one’s own property if the homeowner believes it “immediately necessary” to prevent trespassing. Other statutes — known as the “stand your ground” laws — also defend the use of physical or deadly force when a homeowner fears a threat and believes force is necessary.

At a preliminary hearing Jan. 31, Kelly asked a judge to reduce his bond so he could help his wife.

“She’s there by herself … nobody to take care of her, the livestock, nor the ranch. And I’m not going anywhere. I can’t come up with a million dollars.”

A GoFundMe account was established to help with Kelly’s legal fees, but the account was quickly taken down, FOX News Digital reports.

“GoFundMe’s Terms of Service explicitly prohibit campaigns that raise money to cover the legal defense of anyone formally charged with an alleged violent crime. Consistent with this long-standing policy, any fundraising campaigns for the legal defense of someone charged with murder are removed from our platform,” a spokesperson for GoFundMe said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “Donors who contributed to the fundraising campaigns for George Alan Kelly’s legal expenses have been fully refunded.”

An active fundraiser for Kelly remains on the Christian crowdfunding platform GiveSendGo which had raised over $16,000 on Friday morning.

“Neighbors say that he had been having difficulty keeping invaders out and say that Mr. Kelly would have acted in good faith,” the fundraiser’s organizer, Shannon Pritchard, wrote. “It is a tragedy that a simple farmer, who should be protected by the government, has been abandoned and had to defend himself.”

Devastating Drought: Texas Farmers Say 2021 Drought Already Rivals 2011

Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:01:26 GMT

The latest U.S. Drought Monitor shows from North Dakota to Texas, all the way west to California, the most severe levels of drought didn’t ease across the U.S. this past week.

While 62% of the country is seeing some level of dryness, a 2-point improvement in a week, the most extreme level of drought grew, now covering more than 9% of the country.

(Farm Journal)

Texas Extremes

All levels of drought are painted across the Texas U.S. Drought monitor. Only 8% of the state is drought-free, with 8.5% in the exceptional drought category. Around one-quarter of the state is seeing extreme drought conditions.

West Texas farmers are preparing themselves for a possible devastating impact to the 2021 crop.

“We’re extremely dry,” says Blake Fennell, a farmer in Earth, Texas. “I would say we’re giving 2011 a run for its money, but we’re probably drier than 2011 at this point.”

2011 is a year that sticks in many farmers minds in the West Texas and Texas Panhandle area. That’s when consecutive days of 100-degree temperatures, with no rainfall, meant pivots couldn’t even make it a full circle without crops shriveling up. And the dryland crop was nil.

Too Dry to Plant

The West Texas farmer says his area hasn’t’ seen significant rain fall in nearly two years.

“We’ve still got to give that crop every chance we think we can get, but at the same time, we also can’t waste a lot of money on a crop that we don’t think we’re going to have going into it,” he says.

(Farm Journal)

Cotton Crop Worries

From monitoring inputs closely, to parked planters just waiting on Mother Nature to possibly produce moisture to even get the crop out of the ground, it’s a battle that farmers in the area say will be fought all year.

“If we don’t get any significant rainfall within the next two, three or four weeks, it’s going to have a very significant impact on the cotton crop in West Texas,” Fennell says . “A 1"or 1.5" rainfall event is not going to cure the problems we’re facing today.”

Fennell says the expectations for the West Texas cotton crop are also grim.

“Abandonment looks like it’s going to be pretty high this year, just for the simple fact that there is no ground moisture to get this crop emerged,” he says.

Anger Over Anaplasmosis

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 02:24:22 GMT

Jason Lewis discovered the first dead cow in September of last year. It was the beginning of an odyssey that left him, the ranch owner and several other area producers questioning their management, relationships with suppliers, and even government oversight on how medicated feeds are produced and the new Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD).

Over the next few weeks the number of dead cows on the 5,200-acre Division Ranch, near Strong City, Kan., where Lewis has been manager for 23 years, had grown to 13. As with any sudden loss of cattle, the deaths were at first a mystery. Initially he thought the deaths were due to blue-green algae, but an analysis of pond water was negative.

Risk of Cattle Contracting Anaplasmosis Grows

This interactive map shows the greatest risk areas for anaplasmosis infections. Every state, except Hawaii has reported cases of anaplasmosis in cattle. An experimental vaccine from University Products LLC has been approved for veterinarian use in 26 states and Puerto Rico. Roll over each state to see more information. (Produced by Lori Hays)

Lewis then called on Tom Jernigan, DVM, to investigate with a necropsy and blood samples from other cows.

The diagnosis was anaplasmosis, a disease prevalent in the Kansas Flint Hills area. Lewis and Division Ranch owner Guy Pickard were well aware the ranch was in a high-risk anaplasmosis area. But that only deepened the mystery of the cow deaths because they were feeding mineral with an antibiotic designed to prevent anaplasmosis. The mineral was purchased from a local feed company that mixed chlortetracycline (CTC) into the product under a VFD written by Jernigan.

“We knew anaplasmosis was prevalent in this area,” Lewis says. “But we thought our preventative measures were protecting us.”

Over the next few months, Lewis and Pickard searched for answers to the tragedy they say cost the ranch north of $35,000. What they found is a system they believe is flawed, and now they hope their experience will serve as a warning to other cattlemen to be more vigilant.

Anaplasmosis is a disease caused by the blood parasite Anaplasma marginale. It is transmitted from animal to animal by biting flies, ticks and contaminated needles or surgical instruments. Once infected, an animal’s immune system attacks the invader, but also destroys infected red blood cells. In an acute infection, the loss of red blood cells inhibits the animal’s ability to provide adequate oxygen to tissues, and death occurs due to suffocation at the cellular level.

Producers have long known about anaplasmosis, and the most popular means of prevention is the use of mineral mixes with CTC.

Veterinarians say feeding CTC at a rate of 0.5 mg per pound of body weight will prevent anaplasmosis infections.

When Pickard and Lewis began to suspect a problem they contacted the Kansas Department of Agriculture. A KDA representative visited the ranch, collected samples and sent them to two different labs for testing, KDA and the South Dakota Agriculture Laboratories.

While KDA found no evidence the mineral batch to be faulty, they reported “the amount of CTC available to the cows was deficient by 56 mg to 151 mg per head per day, or 9.5% to 24.3% of the required amount to control and prevent death loss caused by anaplasmosis.”

“That appeared to be the answer at first,” Pickard says. “But the deficiencies of CTC in the mineral were within the allowable limits. So, while we were paying for a CTC-mineral mix that we thought would prevent anaplasmosis, what we were getting was a product that could legally be 30% short of the VFD as written.”

A 30% allowable variance (meaning the CTC amount could be from 70% to 130% of the VFD) is one few producers—or even many veterinarians—know about, a crucial piece of information Pickard and Lewis want to make known to other producers.

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine is the federal agency with oversight regarding the use of antibiotics in food animals. As a member of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Pickard was counseled by NCBA to contact the FDA. He was referred to the FDA’s medicated feed specialist, Dragan Momcilovic, DVM. He confirmed to Pickard the FDA allows a variance of 30% for CTC in mineral mixes, a regulation that dates back at least 50 years.

In correspondence with Pickard, Momcilovic wrote regarding the justification for the variance, “the issues boil down to stating that the assay limits take into account the inherent variability in the feed assay method and give some extra allowance for variability due to mixing/sampling.

“As I would put it,” Momcilovic wrote, “the assay limits are a result of necessity dictated by and laws of physics/chemistry.”
For cowboys like Pickard and Lewis, however, the allowable variance still seems excessive. After all, both labs that tested the mineral samples from the Division Ranch indicated their tests to be 99% accurate or better.

“It’s not that simple,” says Gary Sides, beef cattle nutritionist with Zoetis, the manufacturer of Aureomycin (CTC), the only product approved by FDA for feeding as free choice in mineral to beef cattle and one many veterinarians say is the best tool for anaplasmosis prevention.

“There are valid reasons to have a 30% variance because you can have such variation when you sample,” Sides says. “How many samples were taken? Were there any weather events such as heat and humidity? There’s just so many variables that if we reduced the variance there would be horrible ramifications for the feed companies.”

Also, it’s important for producers to understand assay variations do not predict the effectiveness of the product, says William McBeth, DVM, director of veterinary medical information and product support for Zoetis.

“It’s a pass/fail system,” McBeth says of testing samples. “There’s real variability across all free-choice pasture mineral programs. The product is either within the allowable variance or it’s not. The assay limits are not a random number. They were developed by analytical chemists who run hundreds of samples each week.”

There’s also the crucial factor of daily intake. A VFD for CTC does not guarantee that the medication will be consumed by the cows at the recommended rate.

“The producer has to make sure the cows are consuming the product at the recommended rate or it can’t be effective,” Sides says.

As for the feed company that provided the CTC-mineral mix to Division Ranch and others, no one believes they intentionally shorted the product. Indeed, even one of their competitors that spoke with Drovers about this story calls them “a good competitor with a good reputation.” He says like any other business, misrepresenting a feed or mineral product is a quick way to ruin their business.

“I don’t know any company that deliberately puts in 70% of what’s required,” Zoetis’ Sides says. “It’s just not done.”
Yet, the whole episode has left Lewis and Pickard feeling bitter. They provide their cattle with excellent care and management, they have a close working relationship with their veterinarian and they played by the rules of the VFD.

“We still lost 13 cows,” Pickard says. “What I want to emphasize to other producers is to be vigilant about anaplasmosis. You may be providing CTC, but it’s not a guarantee against the disease.”