Beltway Beef

By J.D. Alexander, NCBA President, and Brice Lee, Public Lands Council President

A recent study published by a journal called Environmental Management has called for the end of grazing on public lands due to climate change. With funding from the Wyss Foundation, a radical environmentalist, foreign-based organization, researchers produced "Adapting to Climate Change on Western Public Lands: Addressing the Ecological Effects of Domestic, Wild, and Feral Ungulates," which proclaims that global warming necessitates the end of livestock grazing—in fact, any grazing—on public lands.

The study makes a series of claims and citations, each of which can be countered by credible studies. As elected officers of organizations dedicated to representing cattle producers and public lands ranchers, we feel it is important to dispel some of the many myths put forth in this agenda-driven research study, and focus on the facts regarding the benefits of public lands grazing to the environment, to communities across the West and to the country.

The authors of the study, led by Oregon State University professor emeritus Robert Beschta, claim that livestock grazing is a leading stressor on rangelands already suffering from climate change; that livestock are contributing to greenhouse gases; and that the removal of public lands livestock grazing would have only minimal effects on Western communities. The authors add that greater populations of large predators such as wolves would improve ecosystem health; anything that will put producers out of business, it seems, will do.

Before going any further, let’s take a look at who funded this propaganda passed off as research. The founder of the Wyss Foundation, Swiss multi-billionaire Hansjorg Wyss, has donated millions to organizations like Defenders of Wildlife, Greenpeace and Center for American Progress. The foundation had a hand in creating five million acres’ worth of national monuments under the Clinton administration. According to RANGE Magazine, the Wyss Foundation has also pushed for federal ownership of private land across the West. If the organization’s goal of federal land acquisition and "protection" is better management of Western rangelands, they’re in for quite a disappointment. Private lands are consistently better managed than federal lands. The Wyss Foundation has done its part to bring economic suffering to Western rural communities that have relied on public lands resources for generations. Its role in funding this "study" comes as no surprise.

The study claims that for most rural economies and the West in general, "the economic impacts of managing public lands to emphasize environmental amenities would be relatively minor to modestly positive." This line alone portrays ignorance of what it takes for "environmental amenities" to even exist. Range scientists have written volumes on the benefits of grazing and what happens in its absence, including devastating wildfire and a decline in plant growth and wildlife.

The study’s authors claim that a "minor to modestly positive" effect would be seen if grazing were eliminated from federal lands. The 22,000 public lands ranchers who actually care for and live off of that land would disagree. Public lands supply about 20 percent of the forage in the Western states, where approximately half of the land is federally owned. The Department of the Interior reported this year that in 2011 grazing on Bureau of Land Management lands alone contributed $1.41 billion in economic impact and added 16,954 direct jobs to the economy.

The tax base for our rural communities and schools depends on the jobs and commerce created by federal lands grazing. Without it, the historic and heralded American West would be forever transformed. Without grazing, open spaces would be lost. Public land ranchers own nearly 120 million acres private lands that are intermingled, often unfenced, with the 259 million acres of public rangelands where they graze their livestock during part of the year. Losing public lands grazing would render many ranchers incapable of continuing their operations, thereby taking their private base properties out of production and forcing them to sell them for uses more profitable than ranching, such as farming or industrial and residential development.

Even on undeveloped rangelands, the loss of grazing would hurt plant systems, wildlife, air quality and water quality, which impacts non-federal lands as well. Well managed grazing is proven to be linked to wildlife diversity and habitat. Grazing also stimulates plant and root growth, enriches and aerates the soil, and helps seeds germinate and grow. Benefits from grazing are reaped by wildlife, watersheds and the overall environment. On the other hand, un-grazed grass increases the risk of wildfires. One small fire of 3,000 acres is estimated to emit as much carbon dioxide as would driving more than 100,000 cars for one year, according to the Evergreen Institute.

This year alone, wildfires have decimated over 7.2 million acres of grasslands and forests, along with homes lying in the path of destruction. Grazing as a means of fuel reduction is one of the only tools the federal land management agencies have at their disposal to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires. Meanwhile, the study’s authors rely on previously debunked research inaccurately naming livestock as responsible for 18 percent of the nation’s manmade greenhouse gas emissions—but, the EPA estimates that number to be closer to three percent.

It’s disappointing that in this day and age of advancing range science and continually improving grazing practices, Environmental Management would give this misleading study such a platform. Those of us who know better have an obligation to spread the truth about grazing. 

By Congressman John Carter (R-Texas)

The Presidential debates highlighted varying national opinions on how best to secure the troubled southern border. Our Governor Rick Perry pointed out that fencing the entire 2,000 mile border with Mexico was not the way to go, and that more boots-on-the-ground was the correct approach.

Governor Perry may be out of the Presidential race, but he was dead right on this issue.  The difference in opinion is largely from the fact he knows the border. 

The new border fence already completed in the Arizona desert, El Paso, Del Rio, and elsewhere is a tremendous tool in securing our border, and I thoroughly support constructing additional fencing in similar areas where we know it will be effective. But to be effective, it must protect our sovereignty without undermining our economy. No one knows that better than ranchers on the Rio Grande.

The fence works exceptionally well in two scenarios, when properly supported. It is the most practical means to curb illegal crossings in urban areas, and in isolated remote desert areas. In both instances, it must still be supported by adequate personnel within immediate response distance to be effective.

But to build it along many miles of the Rio Grande is not necessary, and would damage much of the valley’s economy. Ranches adjoining the river would be severely impacted if livestock access to water in this arid region were restricted. 

The major attraction to Big Bend National Park – canoe and kayak trips down the Rio Grande – would be a thing of the past. Waterfront homes, docks, fishing, and water sports on Lake Amistad and Falcon Lake would be rendered next to impossible.

There are other ways to better protect those areas. It comes down to boots-on-the-ground, patrol boats on the water, aerial assets, and better intelligence. None of these measures will significantly impede our ranchers, homeowners, or marinas, and still provide the added measure of protection we need.  

As we examine what can be done, we must reluctantly acknowledge a change in what’s happening at our southern border. It has become far more dangerous than at any time since pioneer days.  

If you’re from Texas you know the border has always been a challenge with illegal immigration and smuggling, which has ebbed and flowed in severity over the decades.   Like all criminal activity, vigorous law enforcement efforts have controlled the problems, but will never totally eradicate it. 

But where just a few short years ago we dealt primarily with non-violent folks crossing illegally to look for work, we now deal with the most vicious drug gangs in the world, who have killed over 60,000 people on the Mexican side of the river. And the killings are now spilling over onto our side.

I personally have friends who have sold their border property after it became just too dangerous to work anymore. Many have to carry arms suitable for a war zone on their own land. The drug cartels are becoming more aggressive every year, with many no longer fearing being spotted. And it’s not just ranches adjoining the river, the cartels are impacting farms and ranches 60 miles and more inside our country, as the drug caravans make their way past Border Patrol check-points.

This is not tolerable for free Americans in their own country in their own homes and on their own land. Defending the borders of the United States is the duty of the federal government, and in spite of our fine Border Patrol officers doing their jobs, we have not provided adequate resources to protect our citizens. 

Last year I introduced two specific bills to beef up – no pun intended – border security without undermining our border economy. The Border States Security Improvement Act,H.R. 2025, would allow our border Governors to call out the National Guard, highway patrol, Texas Rangers, state Defense Force and whoever else necessary to secure our border at federal expense for up to 180 days at a time, with the ability to renew the deployment an additional 90 days if needed.     

The Southern Border Sheriff’s Community Impact Aid Act, HR 2217, would provide federal funding for border county sheriffs to increase their in-the-field deputy manpower by 30 percent, to provide the additional boots needed to keep the cartels off-balance full-time.

I am working for improved resources for all law enforcement agencies who are partners in protecting our border, including the U.S. Border Patrol, National Park Service law enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard, and local and state agencies.

We won’t have much ranching left along the Rio Grande unless we find a way to restore border security for our ranchers. We also won’t have much ranching left along the Rio Grande if we fence off our ranchers from the river. 

With the solutions we have available, there is no reason we can’t restore ranch security without destroying the ranch first.

By U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
 

International trade bolsters job creation here at home and helps foster economic activity in communities across the country. The beef industry plays a big role in the United States' trade portfolio.

Last year alone, U.S. beef producers exported to countries around the world nearly $5.5 billion worth of product. And, it's generally agreed upon that increasing exports are the key to increasing demand for U.S. beef products.
Unfortunately, our own government is hindering progress in opening new markets for these products.

The problem lies in a comprehensive BSE rule for beef imports that would make the United States compliant with international trade standards set by the World Organization for Animal Health. The rule has been caught in the federal bureaucracy for several years, starting in 2004 shortly after BSE was discovered in a Canadian cow brought into the United States. Earlier this year the rule finally cleared the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS as most cattle producers call it, but is now sitting at the Office of Management and Budget waiting for approval.

This continued inaction is hurting our producers. So I led, along with Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a bipartisan group of senators in pressing the Office of Management and Budget to release a final comprehensive rule as soon as possible and help give U.S. trade negotiators a stronger bargaining position.

As it stands, the lack of a comprehensive BSE rule for beef imports puts our trade negotiators at a disadvantage when negotiating with other countries. At this time, a number of countries have placed non-science-based restrictions on U.S. beef imports. For example, some countries don't allow U.S. beef over 30 months old into their country. Some of these nations use the fact that the United States has not formally adopted a comprehensive BSE rule to justify their own unfair trade barriers.

One example is Mexico, which has traditionally been one of the top export markets for U.S. beef. Since 2004, Mexico has not allowed the importation of U.S. cattle that are over 30 months of age. Estimates show that beef producers in the United States are losing $100 million every year due to this restriction. By not having our own comprehensive BSE rule in place that would abide by the science-based criteria set forth by the World Organization for Animal Health, our trade negotiators are in a difficult negotiating position to press Mexico to eliminate their trade barrier.

By placing our own trade barriers on other products, it only serves to hurt the hardworking producers raising a quality product. It doesn't meet the common-sense test to create additional hurdles for our own producers.

By having a comprehensive BSE rule in place, the United States will show leadership on a global scale and give the U.S. Trade Representative and the Department of Agriculture a stronger position to press other nations to follow the World Organization for Animal Health's guidelines and adopt science-based BSE policies.

As a result, when nations base their decisions on sound science, we are confident more markets will be expanded or opened to U.S. beef. U.S. producers can compete in every market for every sale.

It's time the United States shows leadership and gives our international trade negotiators a stronger footing for dealing with beef issues.

By Daren Williams, NCBA Communications

A recent commenter on this blog asked why farmers and ranchers were opposed to Meatless Monday. I guess I thought the answer was obvious given the very name of this anti-meat marketing effort aimed at getting people to eschew meat in favor of plant foods. But since she asked, allow me to elaborate…

Meatless Monday, the latest attack on meat eaters, may seem less salacious than a PETA protestor proselytizing on a street corner in a lettuce bikini or less threatening than the high-paid lawyers and lobbyists at HSUS working the back halls of state capitol buildings to force feed their animal equal rights agenda down our throats. But make no mistake: Meatless Monday is a sinister plot to drive farmers and ranchers out of business by convincing Americans that meat is bad for your health and bad for the planet.

By asking Americans to stop eating meat on Monday this insidious effort drives the extreme vegan agenda forward with a reasonable sounding request. "Just one day a week," is their message, "and you are doing your part to save the planet and improve your own health." No need to work up a sweat at the gym, go for a run or walk around the block. No need to conserve water usage in your own home (the average American household uses 400+ gallons of water per day) or reduce, reuse and recycle the 670,000 tons of trash we produce every day in the United States (84% of which could be recycled, including food scraps, paper, cardboard, cans, and bottles). All you have to do is give up your hamburger or steak one day a week.

They’re not asking us to stop wearing leather or give up our cheeseburger forever. Just don’t eat meat one day a week. No big deal, right? So what’s wrong with Meatless Monday?

For starters, the entire premise, that meat is bad for our health and bad for the environment, is just plain wrong. Contrary to what the clever marketers behind Meatless Monday (founded by Sid Lerner, the former Madison Avenue advertising exec who came up with the "Please Don’t Squeeze the Charmin" ads) want you to believe; today’s beef is both good for you and environmentally sustainable. That’s not my opinion, that’s according to peer reviewed science published in respected scientific journals within the past two months!

According to a study published in the January 2012 edition of American Journal of Clinical Nutrition shows that eating between 4.0 and 5.4 oz. of lean beef daily as part of a cholesterol-lowering diet can help lower LDL ("bad") cholesterol by 10 percent. The Beef in an Optimal Lean Diet (BOLD) study concluded that "beef can play a role in a cholesterol-lowering diet, despite commonly held beliefs."

Lean beef also provides more than 10 percent of 10 essential nutrients and vitamins for less than 10 percent of our daily calories (based on the average 2,000 calorie per day diet). That makes beef a nutrient rich food (high in nutrients, low in calories). Other nutrient rich foods include eggs, dairy products and vibrantly colored fruits and vegetables and whole grains.

So what about the claim that eating less meat would be good for the environment? Not surprisingly, this relatively new attack on animal agriculture is being propagated by the same old cast of characters behind those lettuce bikinis and synthetic fiber suits. Even the United Nations, which once claimed that global livestock production creates more greenhouse gasses than transportation, has recanted that statement. And never once, by the way, did they ever say that applied to American agriculture.

The fact is American farmers and ranchers do a better job of raising animals for food using fewer natural resources than any other country in the world. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we raise 20 percent of the world’s beef with 7 percent of the world’s cattle. That means we raise more beef with less land, water, and fuel than any other country. And we’re getting better every year.

According to a recent study published in the December 2011 Journal of Animal Science, the environmental footprint of beef has shrunk 16 percent since 1977. By allowing every farmer and rancher to manage their resources to the best of their ability we are using 33 percent less land, 12 percent less water and 9 percent less fuel to raise beef than we did just 35 years ago. As our population grows and land available to raise food shrinks, we must keep finding ways to use fewer resources like land and water to produce food. That’s what American farmers and ranchers do.

Does raising animals to produce food have an environmental impact? Absolutely. So does growing fruits and vegetables. Raising and growing ALL food requires land, water, and fuel. The question we should be asking is whether the food we are producing is worth it.

Making Twinkies requires land, water and fuel. Twinkies are made in factories, individually wrapped in cellophane, packed in boxes and shipped around the country to grocery stores where they are purchased and consumed by willing consumers who want to enjoy a tasty treat from time to time. Do Twinkies provide ANY nutritional value in our diet?

For the record, I don’t have a beef with Twinkies. But if we are going to tell people what NOT to eat, what would be more responsible, Meatless Monday or Twinkieless Tuesday? Which would truly improve our health and the health of the planet?

 By NCBA President Bill Donald

One reward of ranch life in rural Montana is that after a hard-days’ work, I get to fall asleep listening to the bawl of mama cows near the house. Iimagine farmers and ranchers across the nation can relate to that calming sound. While there are many sounds that come from farms and ranches, one thing we don’t expect to hear is the sound of our farm equipment exploding outside our windows. Unfortunately, for the men and women who make their home at or near the Harris Ranch feedyard in Fresno County, Calif., that is no longer a foreign sound. This past Sunday night, they were awaken to the sound of 14 cattle trucks exploding and burning near the feed yard.

I thank God that no person and no animals were injured in this senseless act. But make no mistake – this was a horrific act of terrorism against a fellow agricultural producer. Whoever is responsible – be it an individual or a group of people – they must be brought to justice and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

America’s farmers and ranchers are some of the most honorable men and women around. We work seven days a week, 365 days a year regardless of weather extremes caring for our animals and our crops. We take pride in our chosen way of life because, after all, we’re feeding and clothing the world.

Opening Christmas presents or celebrating birthdays is often put on hold until after our animals are fed, watered and cared for – that’s a fact for my family and for many others as well. That is why I was extremely alarmed to learn that animal rights extremists are taking credit for the Harris Ranch attack. How can anyone who claims to care about the health and safety of animals commit such an act that could very easily have harmed or killed many animals?

Harris Ranch is working with the local Fresno County Sherriff’s department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine who committed this heinous crime. While there is no concrete evidence that an animal rights group is behind this arson, I sure hope everyone – including all animal-welfare organizations – will follow Harris Ranch’s lead and cooperate during this investigation. It’s the only right option.

While farm and ranch life can sometime leave us a days’ drive from the city, we’re all aware of the horrific, cowardly acts of terrorists to inflict economic, physical, psychological and emotional harm and pain on victims. No one, farmers and ranchers included, should have to fear attacks against them, their family, their animals or their property. While we can all step up surveillance and take precautions on our farms and ranches, we should not have to live in fear. Terrorist acts have no place – not in America and not on farms and ranches.

America’s cattlemen and women stand with me and offer our support to Harris Ranch. We stand unified in our efforts to produce the safest, most wholesome and abundant food supply in the world. We owe it to ourselves, to our fellow agricultural producers and to the millions of people who purchase our products to feed their families to continue doing our jobs. We cannot stand by and allow crimes like these to stop us from caring for our animals.