Brad Boner, ASI President
The Biden Administration and those who like to think of themselves as “animal rights” activists have been busy in the last several months.
From the new Conservation and Landscape Health Rule to removing the M-44 from the Wildlife Services toolbox to this fall’s referendum to ban all harvesting of animals and fur sales in the city of Denver, these efforts have the potential to significantly impact our industry. This doubling/tripling down at the end of this administration will negatively affect every sheep producer.
The Conservation and Landscape Health Rule allows for federal land permits/leases to be issued for conservation alone, thus placing conservation on a level playing field with all other multiple uses – including grazing – along with a huge expansion of the Areas of Critical Environmental Concern acreage. One-third of our nation’s ewe flock spends part of their production year on public lands. This one is particularly egregious for the American sheep industry and will undoubtedly serve as the conduit to remove all grazing on federal lands.
Conservation is not a “use,” it is an outcome of good management. This rule is proof positive that the Biden Administration is hell bent on advancing its agenda with little to no concern for the true health of this country’s grazing lands. Control is the only thing that matters to them. ASI is carefully considering joining together with other multiple use organizations to fight this rule in court.
The city of Denver has two referendums on this fall’s ballot that affect animal agriculture. One would ban slaughterhouses within the city limits. This is another extreme example of activism run amok. ASI is involved with multiple partners from within and outside our industry in an all-out effort to soundly defeat the slaughterhouse referendum. The initiative to ban slaughterhouses would force the closure of Superior Farms’ lamb processing plant in the city. It is the only business directly affected by the referendum.
At the request of the Colorado Wool Growers Association and other state agricultural groups, Colorado State University developed a report on possible impacts of the plant closure. We will have more to share on that report in the near future.
This brings me to the meat of this column. The ASI Guard Dog Fund is our only source of funds to fight these very important battles. Through the years, this fund has successfully funded court battles and won multiple efforts on behalf of our industry. It is only able to accomplish this through the graciousness of approximately 140 families who have annually donated their hard-earned money to the Guard Dog Fund. Charter members donate $750 or more, while supporting members contribute $250 to $749.
It is your leadership’s belief that we need to reach a much higher percentage of our members who are willing to contribute to this very important effort. If you are not familiar with the Guard Dog Fund, please turn to the story on pages 8-9 and take a look at the battles the Guard Dog Fund is helping to fight. You can also find information on the ASI website at SheepUSA.org/about-donate. Members of the ASI Executive Board and association staff can also share the valuable role these funds play in protecting our industry.
I would encourage you to donate as you are able. Every penny goes to help us successfully defend this great industry from the onslaught of uninformed detractors whose only goal is seeing that we go away.
Until next time, keep it on the sunny side.
Sheep and lamb slaughter – federally inspected – moved seasonally lower in April following the peak level of more than 44,000 head in mid-March. Through April and into the first part of May, weekly sheep and lamb slaughter has been averaging just under 36,000 head per week.
Comparison to a year ago is a little tricky due to the timing of the Easter holiday, which was earlier than in 2023. As a result, some weeks in April were lower than last year, but other weeks were higher.
Looking at weekly sheep and lamb slaughter levels on a year-to-date basis shows that through the first week of May, slaughter levels are tracking marginally higher – less than 1 percent – than during the same period in 2023. Although slaughter levels are tracking slightly higher, dressed weights have been averaging about 2 percent – 1.3 pounds – lower than the same four-month period in 2023. The lower dressed weights have more than offset the slightly higher slaughter levels leading to lamb and mutton production tracking about 1 percent below the same period of last year.
Imports in March were 27.2 million pounds, up 8 percent or
2 million pounds from last year and the highest total in two years. Lamb imports through the first quarter of 2024 totaled 71.2 million pounds, a 20-percent or 11.9 million pound increase from
the first quarter of 2023. During the first quarter, 75 percent or 52.7 million pounds of total imports were from Australia, up
24 percent or 10.1 million pounds from last year. The remaining 25 percent of lamb imports were from New Zealand with a total of 17.5 million pounds, an increase of 13 percent or 2 million pounds from the first quarter of 2023.
Although production in 2024 started marginally lower than a year ago and while imports posted a larger increase during the first quarter of the year, there does not appear to be a buildup of lamb and mutton in cold storage. In March, lamb and mutton in cold storage was 22.4 million pounds, which was 12 percent or 2.4 million pounds above February. But compared to a year ago, stocks are down 13 percent or 3.4 million pounds and 24 percent below the five-year average. Stock levels are well below typical levels and will likely remain low, assuming demand remains as strong as it has, and production continues to track below year-ago levels.
PRICES TRACK HIGHER
Prices for feeder lambs, fed lambs and lamb carcass values continue to hold strong in April and track above year ago levels. Feeder lamb prices – 60 to 90 lbs., three-market average in Colo., S.D. and Texas – have moved seasonally lower from the weekly average price of $308 per cwt. in March to $284 per cwt. in April for a decline of about 8 percent. Compared to a year ago, feeder lamb prices in April were – on average – about 35 percent higher than last year and 25 percent above the five-year average.
Fed lamb prices – national negotiated live – have been moving seasonally higher since the start of the year. Prices were $185 per cwt. at the start of the year and by the first part of May, the prices were over $210 per cwt. for an increase of 15 percent in four months. In April, weekly fed lamb prices averaged over $210 per cwt., which was 34 percent above last year and 22 percent higher than the five-year average.
The lamb cutout value has been moving seasonally higher and tracking well above last year’s levels. In April, the lamb cutout value averaged in the mid to upper-$470 per cwt. range but had slipped lower at the start of May. Compared to a year ago, the lamb cutout value in April was 7 percent – $30 per cwt. – higher than in 2023 and 16 percent – $65 per cwt. – above the five-year average. Support for the lamb cutout value has come from gains in the shoulder, loin and leg, which have gained 15 percent, 11 percent and 18 percent, respectively, from last year to $4.07, $7 and $5.25 per pound in April. The rack was just below $11 per pound in April, down 4 percent from the previous year.
SHEEP & LAMB OUTLOOK
The Livestock Marketing Information Center is forecasting commercial sheep and lamb slaughter to be fractionally –
0.1 percent – below a year ago to just under 2.2 million head. Average dressed weights are forecast to be down 2.6 percent from 2023. Lower dressed weights combined with a marginal decline in slaughter numbers are expected to result in a 2.7-percent decline in commercial lamb production to 127 million pounds in 2024.
LMIC is forecasting lamb imports to increase 3 percent to 293 million pounds. Prices are expected to remain strong through the remainder of 2024 with annual feeder lamb prices forecast 33 percent above last year at $245 to 253 per cwt. Annual average fed lamb prices are forecast 17 percent higher to $197 to $203 per cwt.
WOOL UPDATE
The wool market signaled a mixed-to-weaker tone through most of April with prices varying among the micron levels. While the number of bales offered during the month trended lower in Australia, multiple United States wool warehouses held sales in late April.
During the month, the number of Australian bales offered started at just more than 50,000 bales but fell each consecutive week with under 40,000 bales offered the week of May 3 – the lowest since early March. As the number of bales offered during the month moved lower, so did prices.
In April, prices for 17 to 19-micron wool were about 1 to
2 percent lower than the prior month and down more than
20 percent from the same period last year.
Prices for 20 to 22-micron wool were essentially even with those in March but down about 10 percent from last year. The price of 23-micron wool in March posted a 2-percent increase from the prior month but was down almost 4 percent from
last year. Prices for 24 to 32-micron wool were down about
1 to 2 percent from March and were generally lower than a year ago. Merino carding was about 1 percent higher than a month earlier, but the first few weeks of May were slightly lower than April’s price.
Current economic conditions in the United States and globally continue to impact the wool market. Slower domestic economic growth in the first quarter coupled with persistent inflation has dampened expectations for lower interest rates.
As a result, movements in the wool market during the last few weeks have been influenced more by movements in foreign exchange rates as demand remains rather static.
Global economic conditions continue to weigh on the wool market as demand remains lackluster, particularly for coarse wools. The market will need to keep supplies in check to support prices under these conditions.
Predators come in many forms for America’s sheep flock. While coyotes and wolves stalk lambs under the cover of night, the daylight hours present sheep producers with their own set of challenges – ones that often pit men in suits battling before judges and juries.
Just as producers put faith in livestock guardian dogs to protect their flocks, the American sheep industry has for two decades counted on ASI’s Guard Dog Fund to assist those fighting legal battles on behalf of the entire sheep industry. Such predators to the industry in recent years include an attempt to close one of the industry’s oldest and most important lamb processing plants, challenges to public lands grazing, restrictions on predator control and unregulated lamb imports.
“Dues to ASI are 100 percent spent lobbying in Washington, D.C., so there would be no opportunity to fight for the sheep industry through the court system if we did not have the Guard Dog Fund,” said ASI President Brad Boner. “While we all face challenges as producers, feeders, and lamb and wool processors, we need to come together to support our industry. State sheep producer organizations recognize this opportunity and are the primary requests of ASI Guard Dog Funds. All funding requests are reviewed by the Executive Board or, when possible, the full Board of Directors.”
ASI generally solicits donations for the Guard Dog Fund in the fall. Checks from producers, state sheep associations and industry advocates arrive at the ASI office through the ASI Annual Convention each January. Please review the names of the 140 producer families and other advocates who contributed during the 2023-24 campaign on pages 10-11. These families and businesses carry the entire load of supporting the non-lobbying battles of the sheep industry.
“ASI recognizes these contributors every year and we are grateful for their membership to the Guard Dog program,” said ASI Vice President Ben Lehfeldt of Montana. “My family – similar to the Boner family – has contributed since the program was born 20 years ago. Funding needs are out running finances this year given the raft of federal regulations issued that threaten the industry, as well as the animal rights attacks. We believe is it timely to ask the magazine readers to join the program this year. Please use the enclosed envelope or QR code to make a donation.”
“It is your leadership’s belief that we need to reach a much higher percentage of our members who are willing to contribute to this very important effort,” Boner wrote in this month’s President’s Notes. “I would encourage each of you to donate as you are able. Every penny goes to help us successfully defend this great industry from the onslaught of uninformed detractors whose only goal is seeing that we go away.”
BATTLES
Sheep ranches in Washington, Montana and Colorado can graze sheep on their U.S. Forest Service allotments today largely due to Guard Dog support of litigation to fend off shutdowns due to challenges over wild sheep. A huge share of sheep production could be threatened if the litigation angle is not met head on by the sheep industry. Fund support every year of the Western Resources Legal Center has been a game changer in the wild sheep fight.
Guard Dog support is allowing ASI to intervene in the Western Watersheds legal effort to shut down grazing over environmental analysis of grazing permits on Department of Interior lands. The sheep industry is carrying its share alongside cattlemen in the fight only because of the Guard Dog program.
A referendum in the city of Denver is threatening the lamb industry with a ban on slaughter of livestock within the city limits. The Denver lamb facility is the second largest plant in the country and is the target of animal activists sponsoring this November vote.
Organizers have admitted a successful ban in Denver could lead to similar efforts in cities throughout the country – which would affect lamb, beef, pork and poultry processors nationwide.
ASI’s Guard Dog Fund has committed one of the largest contributions to date to the campaign to defeat the ban. An important point is that the meat and livestock industry’s first question is, “What is the commitment is of the lamb industry?” So this early and significant donation is critical to the $1.5 million needed to fight the proposed initiative. Producers can learn more at StopTheBanProtectJobs.com.
The Guard Dog Fund is the sole source of funds in the legal intervention to secure delisting of wolves through the Endangered Species Act across most the United States.
“We are months down the road already with one of the top law firms to secure delisting of wolves from the ESA. The other side is continually suing federal officials, and as livestock producers we must be active,” said ASI Executive Director Peter Orwick. “This is such a broad issue that one or a handful of state sheep and cattle organizations would struggle to fund, but with the Guard Dog program, ASI can take state requests to a national level to sponsor alongside our livestock counterparts.”
At the May meeting of the ASI Executive Board, requests were analyzed to tackle the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management Conservation and Landscape Health Rule and prohibition of coyote traps and snares for 11 months of the year in grizzly bear habitat. The board agreed to tap the Guard Dog Fund for both legal actions to the commitment of $47,500. Both legal issues will impact multiple states and an outsized share of lamb and wool production if not successfully challenged.
In both cases, the sheep industry is partnering with multiple livestock organizations and/or livestock and energy development groups to fight the battle as is prudent. The point is, we need to carry our share and right now that share is funded by 140 operations.
The Guard Dog Fund has spent $129,178 this fiscal year and the commitment has grown to nearly $200,000. Income from contributors is $75,350, so the goal of this solicitation is clear.
The Guard Dog Fund also contributed significantly to labor fights in California and Nevada in recent years. Wage hikes in those states have shown a tendency to affect sheepherder wages in other states, as well as through the federal H-2A program.
At the request of several state sheep associations, ASI spent more than $110,000 the past four years investigating trade violations by lamb importers. ASI has a law firm monitoring trade conditions for another investigation.
SHEEP HERITAGE FOUNDATION
In addition, there’s always room for additional support to ASI’s Sheep Heritage Foundation.
The foundation plays a crucial role in providing financial support to students pursuing advanced degrees in animal and meat sciences as they pertain to the sheep industry.
Winners of the annual scholarship have gone on to work in key roles with university extension as well as with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service. In these roles, they provide daily educational and research support to sheep producers from coast to coast.
Memorial contributions – in the name of loved ones who have passed away – is one way that many choose to support the Sheep Heritage Foundation. It’s only fitting that the industry’s future pioneers rise up through the contributions of its past leaders.
CALL FOR SUPPORT
The Heritage Foundation is a tax-deductible contribution to a charitable entity and the Guard Dog Fund is a business expense (not used to lobby or candidate contributions).
ASI leaders urge you to use the enclosed envelope to support the Guard Dog Fund and the Sheep Heritage Foundation. Or you scan the QR code on page 8 to donate online through the ASI website.
“We thank the contributing members of the Guard Dog Fund for the opportunity to fight for this industry and we believe the effort is compelling for all of us that receive this membership magazine to join the program,” said Boner.
“We believe it’s an investment that will payoff for the American flock as a whole.”
CHARTER MEMBERS
John & Nina Baucus, Sieben Ranch – MT
Brad & Laurie Boner – WY
Ryan Boner, M Diamond Angus – WY
Stan & Ann Boyd, Boyd Livestock Services – ID
Robert & Becky Boylan, Boylan Ranch – SD
J. Paul & Debbie Brown, Reata Ranch – CO
Peter & Jackie Camino, Camino & Son – WY
Jeanne Carver, Shaniko Wool Company – OR
Colorado Wool Growers Association – CO
Mike & Jennifer Corn, Roswell Wool – NM
John & Mary Eagle, Eagle Suffolks – ID
Ben & Stella Elgorriaga, Elgorriaga Livestock – CA
Vernon, Terri, Dallas, & Whittney Fairchild, Fairchild Shearing & Fairchild Sheep Shearing – ID
John & Jodi Faulkner, Faulkner Land & Livestock – ID
Guy Flora – OH
Paul R. Frischknecht, Frischknecht Livestock – UT
William & Sherie Goring, Goring Ranch/NH Shadow Livestock – UT
Melchor & Karen Gragirena, El Tejon Sheep – CA
Michael A. & Vicki Guerry, Guerry – ID
Julie Hansmire, Campbell Hansmire Sheep – CO
Mike & Mary Ann Harper, Mike Harper Livestock – CO
Jay, Jo, Jeff & Cindy Hasbrouck, Double J Lamb Feeders – CO
John & Tom Helle, Helle Rambouillet – MT
Ryan & Beatriz Indart, Indart Ranch – CA
Kelly J & Kay C Ingalls, Round Grove Ranch – OR
Aaron & Katie Jones, CF – MT
Skye & Penny Krebs, Krebs Sheep – OR
Clint & Maureen Krebs, Krebs Livestock – OR
Terri Lamers, Steve Snyder, Todd Snyder & Jackie Thompson, Snyder Ranches – CO
Dean & Kathy Lamoreaux, Lamoreaux Sheep – UT
Ray & Randy Larson, R. Larson Sheep – UT
David & Bonnie Little, Little Paris Sheep – NV
Jim Magagna, Magagna Bros. – WY
Jack & Kathryn McRae, McRae Brothers Targhees – MT
Dan & Matt Mickel, Mickel Sheep – UT
Minnesota Lamb & Wool Producers – MN
Lorin & Mary Ann Moench, Thousand Peaks Ranches – UT
Frank & Elaine Moore – WY
Nevada Wool Growers Association – NV
Michael, Kelly & Katy Nottingham, Nottingham Livestock – CO
Jack & Cindy Orwick – SD
Brian & Gayenell Phelan, Superior Farms – CA
Larry & Madge Pilster, Pilster Ranch – MT
Joe Pozzi, Joe Pozzi Livestock – CA
Spencer & Connie Rule, Rule Feeders – CO
S. Martinez Livestock – WA
Jeff, Cindy & J.C. Siddoway, Siddoway Sheep – ID
Jack Smith, Cedar Livestock Association – UT
W.L. & Jamie Strauss – TX
Angelo, Karin, Anthony & Dani Theos, Theos Swallow Fork Ranch – CO
Tom & Deb Thompson, Thompson Farms & Feedlot – CO
Gary & Lori Visintainer, Visintainer Sheep – CO
Warren Ranch Company – WY
Clark & Ruth Webster, C & R Farms – UT
Western Range Association – ID
Brandon & Vickie Willis, Willis Ranch – UT
SUPPORTING MEMBERS
Larry Allen, Allen Livestock – CO
Joe & Carmen Auza, Auza Ranches – AZ
Bob & Sherry Benson – IN
Brian & Carolyn Bitner, BRB Livestock – UT
Jack & Lori Blattner, Blattner Suffolks – ID
Broadbent Family, JRB – UT
Curry & Bonnie Lou Campbell, Campbell Mayer Liveoak – TX
Steve & Pam Clements – SD
Tom, Ron & Cynthia Crane, Crane Family Ranches – CA
David & Theressa Dalling, Dalling Sheep – ID
Douglas & Julia Davis, The Homestead Ranch – SD
Renee & Lonnie Deal, Sperry Livestock – CO
Denis Ranch – TX
Rufus & Patty DeZeeuw, DeZeeuw Farms – SD
John & Bernie Dvorak & Family – MN
David & Janet Earl, Upper Creek Ranch – UT
Ted & Renae Edwards, Edwards Ranch – WY
Thomas & Leah Edwards, TLE Ranch – WY
Ellison Ranching Company – NV
Martin & M. Teresa Etchamendy, Etchamendy Sheep – CA
Ernie & George Etchart, Etchart Livestock – CO
Nick & Kimberly Etcheverry, Eureka Livestock – CA
Lorin & Waneta Fawcett, Joseph O. Fawcett & Sons – UT
Gerry & Gwen Geis, Geis Brothers – WY
Kevin & Bobbi Geis, Geis Brothers – WY
Helen Glass, JL Glass Ranch – TX
Keith & Linda Hamilton, Hamilton Ranch – WY
Hampton Sheep Company – WY
Thomas & Joni Harlan, Harlan Livestock – WY
Marlin Helming, Helming Hampshires – CO
Dwight Heser – MT
Larry & Angie Hopkins, Little Eagle Creek Valley Farm – IN
Lee & Peg Isenberger, Isenberger-Litton Livestock – WY
Matt & Sandra Jarvis, Jarvis Sheep – UT
Claire Jones, Bar 7 Ranch – TX
Gary & Gail Jorgensen, Legacy Lamb – KS
Bob, Marie, Ben & Jamie Lehfeldt, Lehfeldt Rambouillets – MT
Kris Leinassar, FIM – NV
Louis (Spud) & Thea Lemmel, Lemmel Ranch – SD
Randy & Penny Leonard, Leonard Farms & Livestock – CO
Dan & Kim Lippert – MN
Tim & Kim Mackenzie, Mackenzie Sheep – ID
William Mast – OR
Max & Joyce Matthews – SD
Janet & Michael Mawhinney, Blaker Ridge Farm – PA
Michael McCormick, McCormick Ranch – WY
Ken & Phyllis McKamey, McKamey Ranch – MT
Pierce & Betty Miller, VIP Ranches – TX
Ron & Elizabeth Moss, Ron Moss Sheep – ID
Will & Laura Nuckolls, Nuckolls Ranch – WY
John & Connie Olagaray, Five-O Ranch – CA
Dave & Holly Ollila, Flying O Sheep – SD
Bob & Jennifer Orwick, Orwick Ranch – SD
Pete & Rama Paris, Paris Livestock – NV
Dan & Kay Persons, Rafter P Ranch – MN
Burton & Pattie Pfliger, Roselawn Legacy Hampshires – ND
Doelene Pitt, Pitt Family Columbias – UT
Stan & Carol Poe, Poe Hamps – IN
James Powell – TX
Jewell Reed – WY
Warren & Carla Roberts, Open Heart Ranch – CO
Ward & Lynn Rouse, Rouse Farms – OR
Tom & Carol Schene, Schene Enterprises – CA
Louis Schmidt, Schmidt Ranch – CO
Maurice Short, Bullseye Ranch – OR
Bill & Susan Shultz, Bunker Hill Farm – OH
Sarah Smith, Valais Blacknose Sheep of Washington State – WA
William (Jr) & Margie Sparrow – NC
W. Keith & Kathleen Stumbo, Down Valley Farm – NY
Dean & Paula Swenson – ND
Bill & Jan Taliaferro, Green River Livestock – WY
Jean Tennant, Tennant Ranch – SD
Randy & Amanda Tunby, Tunby Ranch – MT
Lionel Valdez – CO
Marilyn Volpe & George Borkow, Sheep Ranch – ID
Cody Whitehead Burns, Dolan Creek Cattle – TX
Ray & Jeri Willoughby, Willoughby LTD Ranch – TX
David & Sara Winters, Winters Ranch Partnership – TX
W.L. & Tommy Whitehead Ranch – TX
It’s time to start sorting through those great photos you took the past few years and prepare to enter them in the 2024 ASI Photo Contest. Winning entries will be featured in the October issue of the Sheep Industry News.
“Submissions in the ASI Photo Contest continue to be of the highest quality,” said Sheep Industry News Editor Kyle Partain. “In addition, they are a valuable resource for the association as they provide ASI with photos that show a variety of breeds, regions of the country and production systems for use in publications throughout the year.”
Rules and prizes for the contest are the same as last year. Photographs entered in the contest will be judged on clarity, content, composition and appeal.
More than $1,000 will be awarded, with awards of $125 going to the first-place photographer in each of the five categories listed below; $75 for the runner-up in each category; and a $50 prize for third place in each of the five categories.
Entries must be received in the ASI office by 5 p.m. mountain time on Thursday, Aug. 1, to be considered. Only the top three photographers in each category will be notified of their winnings.
Photographers are advised to submit digital photographs in the largest file size possible. Also, judges and ASI staff encourage entrants to provide both horizontal and vertical photos. This will better assure these talented and creative photos can be shared in future issues of the Sheep Industry News, as well as in the 2025 ASI Calendar and other ASI publications.
The five categories in this year’s contest are:
1. Shepherd/Shepherdess – Photographs of producers, shepherds or others working with sheep.
2. Scenic (East) – Photographs of sheep outdoors located east of the Mississippi River. Photos entered in this category cannot include people.
3. Scenic (West) – Photographs of sheep outdoors located west of the Mississippi River. Photos entered in this category cannot include people.
4. Working Dogs and Protection Animals – Photographs in this category should show herding dogs, livestock guardian dogs or any other livestock protection animal in their natural environments. Photos must also include sheep in some fashion as proof that these truly are working animals.
5. Open – Photographs with subject matter that does not fall into the four above-listed categories.
Other contest rules:
• ASI can use or reproduce all entries at the discretion of ASI. In addition, entries will not be returned.
• ASI is not required to notify photographers when photos are used in materials.
• Photographs can be submitted via hard copy or electronically, but electronic submissions are preferred.
• All entries must be at least 3 inches by 5 inches, color or black-and-white, high-resolution photos (larger sizes encouraged).
• Entries must be submitted in the name of the person who took the photograph.
• Entries are limited to two per category per person.
• Only photographs that have been taken in the past six years can be entered.
• Photographs submitted in previous years cannot be re-entered.
• The following needs to be included with each submission: title of photo; category (from the five listed above) into which it is being entered; photographer’s name; mailing address; phone number; email address; and approximate location/date of photo.
• If there is a particular story that goes with the photo, please include that, as well, with the entry.
Entries should be emailed to Partain at [email protected] with the subject line of ASI Photo Contest. Those mailing photos should send them to ASI, Attn: Photo Contest, 9785 Maroon Circle, Suite 360, Englewood, CO 80112.
A May webinar provided public lands grazers and regulatory officials with an overview of how movement criteria and guidance documents for managing livestock during a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak were recently developed.
The project – a joint venture of ASI, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Public Lands Council – was funded by a grant from the National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program and designed to deal with gaps in food security programs such as the Secure Sheep and Wool Supply Plan and the Secure Beef Supply Plan. Both of these plans now include sections devoted to public lands grazers on their websites.
The project dealt specifically with sheep and cattle who are not infected with FMD, but fall in an FMD control area during an outbreak and require a permit to move. Animals could need to be moved for a variety of reasons, including: the end of a grazing permit or natural disasters such as wildfire, flood or blizzard. Public lands grazers might also find themselves in a situation where their base property is within a control area. For these and other reasons, contingency planning is vital to managing livestock movement during an outbreak.
Movement restrictions of susceptible livestock species is one strategy for the control and containment of a disease outbreak. A 72-hour national movement standstill of susceptible species, semen, embryos and wool has been recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during state/national exercises. During this time, regulatory control areas around infected premises will be designated. The infected, suspect and contact farms will be managed under the guidance in the USDA FMD Response Plan. Livestock operations affected by movement restrictions yet not infected with the disease will need to restart movement as soon as possible to support business continuity that is consistent with mitigating the risk of disease spreading. The guidance in the Secure Food Supply Plans are for operations with no evidence of the disease infection located in a control area to prepare to meet movement permit requirements while reducing the risk of spreading the virus.
Federal land is substantial in the 11 Western states where public lands grazing takes place, with much of that overseen by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. For instance, 80 percent of Nevada’s land is owned by the federal government. Utah and Idaho are both above 60 percent. BLM has 18,000 permittees on 21,000 allotments, while USFS has 6,000 permittees on 7,200 allotments.
What that means for public lands grazers is that multiple agencies – from federal to state to local – will be involved if there is a disease outbreak, even if their animals are not infected.
The NADPRP-funded project had three main objectives: create an advisory group; develop guidance documents; and conduct exercises.
The advisory group included seven public lands ranchers from Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Utah. It also included representatives from BLM and USFS, USDA’s Wildlife Services, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Veterinary Services. State animal health agencies from Colorado, California and Nevada also participated with staff from ASI, NCBA and PLC.
“Bringing together all these stakeholders with the goal to better prepare our industry in the event of an FMD outbreak was the most important objective and was critical for the success of this project,” said ASI Director of Analytics and Production Programs Erica Sanko.
The group was assembled in April 2022 and started with virtual meetings. Interviews with the advisory group and others provided the basis for the document Management Practices and FMD Exposure Risks for Sheep and Cattle Grazing Federal Public Lands. An additional document – Roles of Agencies in Non-Outbreak and FMD Outbreak Situations: Permitting Sheep and Cattle Grazing Federal Public Lands – was also developed.
Subsequently, a seminar and workshop were conducted in November 2022 and August 2023, respectively, to discuss movement scenarios. Through these efforts, the Movement Decision Criteria for Industry and Regulatory Officials Managing Cattle and Sheep Grazing Federal Public Lands During an FMD Outbreak was developed.
This guidance document describes three movement options and five decision criteria for industry and regulatory officials to consider when managing cattle and sheep grazing federal public lands that are affected by movement controls – quarantine, control areas – during an FMD outbreak, but are not infected with the disease. This is for guidance only, but it aligns with the USDA FMD Response Plan (Oct 2020), and is cognizant of BLM and USFS jurisdiction, referring to the Code of Federal Regulations, instructional memorandums, manuals and directives.
ASI is aware of at least one state that partnered with some others on a NADPRP grant proposal to modify and exercise the movement guidance at a state level. More information on future projects will be announced as it becomes available.
Visit SecureSheepWool.org/producers/public-land-grazing to learn more.
SCOTT HUBER
To increase livestock producer understanding and support of predator control efforts, producers should be encouraged to become involved in the process. This can be accomplished by having producers help locate coyotes during aerial operations and/or having producers check equipment. It is imperative that producers and trappers maintain communication between them to keep both parties informed on any changes in coyote activities.
One of the most effective things sheep producers can do to help alleviate coyote problems is to have at least one good tight woven wire fence on the side of the pasture where predators are most likely to approach from. Cable devices placed in holes dug by coyotes under these fences are effective at preventing coyote problems or removing problem coyotes once predation starts unless small lambs and guard dogs are present. Again, producers and trappers must communicate on techniques used. For instance, holes dug under a tight fence in feral hog range will only encourage hogs.
In certain situations, guard dogs can be effective in reducing coyote predation. Guard dogs are limited in their effectiveness based on the number of sheep and how well those sheep band together, the roughness of the terrain in and around the sheep pastures, and the number of coyotes in a particular area. Guard dogs are limited in their effectiveness when sheep are spread out in rough country with a medium to high coyote population in the immediate and surrounding area. One of the biggest disadvantages to guard dogs is that their presence impacts the ability for trappers to use lethal predator damage management measures. With some effort, guard dogs can be trained to avoid traps and M-44s with rat traps baited with the same baits being used at trap sets and/or M-44s. Caution still needs to be taken with traps and particularly M-44s, even with guard dogs that have been trained to avoid them.
Herding and night penning can be helpful in alleviating predator problems but is labor intensive and can become cost prohibitive in many cases. Trail cameras can be used to help identify predator damage and what times predators are returning.
KILL ID & LOCATING PROBLEM COYOTES
It is important for both trappers and livestock producers to have a good understanding of identifying livestock kills versus other forms of livestock mortality. Both trappers and livestock producers need to put their biases aside in determining accurate reasons for livestock mortality so the correct measures can be taken when necessary. Coyotes usually attack sheep in the throat region and kill by suffocation. This can be determined best by skinning out carcasses to see canine puncture wounds, tooth spacing as well as hemorrhage in the neck area. Another thing to look for is signs of a struggle on the ground as well as fresh blood in the area. Livestock that died from other causes and were fed on do not bleed like an animal that has been killed.
Often coyotes will pull the rumen out of the carcass and tear the shoulder blade away from the ribs. Ribs will often be chewed off to a certain length. The hides can be pulled away while feeding on the carcass, but are often still attached to the carcass. Coyote predation can sometimes be determined long after the fact based on carcass rib length and chewed rib bone ends (coyote feeding behavior). This feeding behavior is usually in combination with jaw bones with canine chips or puncture holes in them, and hemorrhage stains on the neck vertebrae bones. Sheep band behavior can also indicate predation when sheep become nervous and tend to avoid certain parts of the pasture.
Calf kills can be somewhat different than sheep in that calves are usually taller than lambs, so coyotes will often attack calves in the flank area and often bite the tail of young calves. Bobtail calves can be a sign of coyote predation on calves. Again, the presence of blood at the kill site will usually indicate the difference between a calf killed by coyotes and one that died of natural causes and was fed on by coyotes. Cow behavior can also be indicative of a kill as compared to a calf that was born dead. A cow that has fought coyotes after and/or during calving is generally stressed and excited. Calves can also be indirectly killed by coyotes when cows step on their calves while fighting off coyotes.
Both livestock producers and trappers should be on the constant lookout for coyote tracks and listening for howling activity particularly during denning season (April to May). The best time to listen for coyote activity is when the yard lights start coming on in the evening. This is when locations of coyotes – based on howling – has the most value because coyotes are often near the den at this time as opposed to morning locates where coyotes can still be traveling to and from the den area while hunting.
Locating with sirens or electronic calls should be limited so those methods are not abused to the point they are ineffective when needed.
Problems can occur when livestock producers allow private callers to work the same ground at the same time as designated PDM trappers. There is a time and place for private coyote trappers and hunters to kill coyotes without interfering with the PDM activities, and that is during the prime fur season when coyotes are moving everywhere – typically late November to the middle of February. After February, those pursuing these activities and the producers allowing it should consider how they are going to impact the PDM activities of those designated with that responsibility for that area.
The use of decoy dogs has become popular among the private sector, but can create a worse livestock loss problem when only one coyote out of a breeding pair is killed and the den is not taken and removed. PDM specialist efficiency can decrease significantly when coyotes that could be removed by calling and shooting have been recently exposed to the same techniques and are now educated to those methods.
POLITICAL ANTAGONISMS
One example of a Catch-22 situation is that many PDM programs have based the success of their trappers on the number of coyotes removed while the goal of any PDM program should be to reduce the number of coyotes in a given area and consider the number of livestock protected. This is especially true in range lambing sheep operations, where killing lots of coyotes can go hand in hand with lots of dead lambs.
This is why it is far more important to monitor and compare livestock losses than the number of coyotes killed, which can vary greatly between different trapper districts with different coyote populations. The goal should be to reduce coyote numbers so there are less coyotes to remove in a historic problem area.
Another common situation is when livestock losses are not occurring due to an effective PDM program. Some livestock producers might forget the reason why livestock losses are not occurring. On occasion, livestock producers have been heard saying (paraphrasing), “I don’t know why we are paying a trapper when so few lambs are being killed by coyotes.” In many cases, the reason losses are so low is because of the trapper’s effective efforts. This is where the number of livestock protected is important to identify as it is an easier number to document.
EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT
It is important that PDM trappers utilize all the tools available to them and are knowledgeable about where each method can be used. Here are the following methods utilized by PDM programs and some of the limitations of each of them.
Foothold Traps. These are a very effective means of removing problem coyotes. They are probably the most effective means of removing problem animals, but have limitations that can discourage their use under certain circumstances. Foothold traps can be limited in their effectiveness of coyote removal due to the presence of other wild nuisance animals in the area.
The use of foothold traps must also consider the presence of domestic dogs, guard dogs and other pets in the area. Foothold traps can be negatively impacted by snow and muddy conditions. Foothold traps need to be checked in a timely manner, which restricts the number of complaints that can be addressed at any given time. With that, under the right circumstances that consider these limitations, foothold traps can be highly effective in removing problem coyotes.
With properly modified foothold traps with thicker jaws, domestic dogs and livestock guard dogs can be released unharmed when traps are checked regularly.
Cable Devices. These are effective in removing problem coyotes where dog, livestock and wildlife concerns can be avoided. Both fence snares and trail snares are equally as effective in their respective situations. Both dispatch snares and restraining snares can be utilized depending on the situation.
One of the best assets a PDM trapper who is protecting sheep can have is miles of good woven wire fence to snare and remove coyotes as they disperse into historic problem areas. Cable device use must consider livestock, deer, antelope and other non-target potential animal problems.
M-44. These are an effective tool for coyote removal, but should not be set in the presence of domestic dogs particularly when those dogs have not been trained to avoid M-44s. This would include stock dogs, livestock guardian dogs, bird dogs, dogs that are pets, hounds, etc. The presence of domestic dogs is one of the biggest limiting factors on the effectiveness of the devices. M-44 success requires a thorough understanding of any potential domestic dog problems in the area and notification of local dog owners of M-44 use.
The EPA has 27 use restrictions that accompany the use of M-44s that limit the problems that could potentially occur with their use. M-44s have proven to be highly selective for eliminating problem coyotes. M-44s are also very weather resistant and require weekly checks allowing more complaints to be handled in a given period of time. M-44 success can be enhanced by the use of strategically placed baits used as draw stations, or working with ranchers to locate historic dead animal pits, which coyotes visit frequently and will concentrate coyote activity.
Certain baits are more effective for M-44s and fish-based baits should be avoided around livestock. M-44s reach their peak effectiveness in the months of March and April by removing bred female coyotes prior to denning.
Unfortunately, recent legislation has taken M-44s out of the toolbox for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including Wildlife Services.
Calling and Shooting. This is effective in removing problem coyotes and probably the most selective ground method of all. Many problem coyotes have been removed by calling and shooting with or without the aid of decoy dogs. Recent developments in thermal scopes, night vision and longer distance shooting capabilities have increased the effectiveness of shooting coyotes during complaints.
Night calling obviously requires additional hours beyond normal daytime predator control activities, which requires good time management.
Aerial Hunting. Both fixed wing and helicopter hunting are highly effective, selective and cost-effective methods of coyote removal. Aerial hunting operations are greatly enhanced by trappers that are proficient in locating coyotes before and during aerial operations. Trappers also utilize tracking dogs to aid in coyote removal during aerial operations. In some cases, efficient predator control trappers will locate 30 to 50 percent of the coyotes taken during aerial operations, particularly in rougher country with more rocks and sage.
One limiting factor to the effectiveness of aerial PDM operations is the fact that it is only effective in daylight hours. With coyotes having more nocturnal habits, some coyotes are difficult to locate during the daytime. Aerial hunting is regulated by the Federal Airborne Hunting Act and only allowed for livestock protection. Aerial hunting is not allowed for recreation or for fur harvest.
It is important to understand that, like a mechanic can’t fix a vehicle with a 9/16-inch wrench only. A PDM specialist needs the entire bag of tools to be effective at his/her trade, and the utilization of those tools at the appropriate times of the year and under the right conditions to be as prudent as possible.
SEASONALITY OF PDM METHODS
For coyote damage management, most effective PDM programs start removing coyotes in February after most of the fur harvest has slowed down. This is the time to get equipment up and running to remove denning pairs of coyotes in the critical months of March and April from historical problem areas. All efforts should be made to remove any and all coyote pairs within four to six miles of sheep as time allows while also removing coyotes on calf kill complaints as well as in historical problem calving areas. These coyote population reduction efforts are based on when calves are being born (spring or fall).
The theory that some individuals have of only removing coyotes that are actively killing sheep is bathed in ignorance and unsupported by actual field experience of PDM men and women who know the consequences of such a notion. The primary differences between situations where coyotes are actively killing sheep and where they have not killed sheep yet is opportunity, natural food availability, and the age and/or confidence level of an individual coyote. Coyotes are opportunistic predators and there is no strain of coyotes genetically predisposed or selectively bred to not kill sheep. Given the opportunity, very few coyotes won’t kill sheep. That has been proven time and time again by the knowledge of coyote pairs in close proximity to sheep that eventually start killing them.
Calf predation is somewhat different than sheep killing behavior with older adult coyotes being more prone to killing calves than younger coyotes. Another common occurrence with calf complaints is the presence of multiple coyotes, which usually consist of mature adults and yearling coyotes that are traveling with the older coyotes. Those who calve earlier in the spring – prior to denning – tend to have the most problems by congregating coyotes from surrounding areas.
Most coyote predation on sheep is related to coyote pairs feeding pups at a den, which requires removal of these coyote pairs prior to denning or after denning. Removing denning pairs of coyotes before they den or removing the coyote den after pups are born are the most effective predator control methods to reduce sheep predation that would occur otherwise.
BOUNTY PROGRAMS
Numerous bounty programs have been implemented through the years in different states in an effort to reduce coyote numbers. Nowhere have bounty programs been proven to successfully reduce coyote numbers, therefore most bounty programs were eventually eliminated. The intent of most bounty programs is to reduce coyote numbers by creating a financial incentive to pursue them.
Unfortunately – in many cases – the concept changes from a motive of coyote population reduction to a motive of coyote population perpetuation to create more bounty eligible coyotes. Some livestock producers would actually restrict hunting and/or trapping activities on their property so they could collect the coyote bounty money themselves.
Much like bounty programs, coyote calling contests have also been initiated based on the perceived incentive to reduce coyote numbers, but winning these contests is often determined by the team that kills the most coyotes. This fact has led to the perpetuation of coyotes in order to win these contests, having the opposite effect of reducing their numbers.
There was no greater incentive to reduce coyote populations than the years when coyote hides were bringing averages of close to $100 per hide. Yet coyote predation in most places remained the same in following years. Professional, accountable predator damage management programs have been proven time and again to be far more cost effective and efficient at reducing problems with coyotes than bounty programs.
The same funds that are wasted on the broad based shotgun approach of a bounty program could be used for aerial hunting to target specific problem areas at certain times of the year and kill more coyotes for less money in the process.
Scott Huber is from Kadoka, S.D. He worked for the S.D. Department of Game, Fish & Parks as a state trapper from 1986 to 2011. He also worked as a county trapper in Campbell County, Wyo., from 2012 to 2016. This is the second in a two-part series of articles on predator damage management programs. Look for the first article in the May 2024 issue of the Sheep Industry News.
Prior to the second week in May, the Dutch Spotted Sheep Society U.S. had more human members than registered sheep. That anomaly took a step toward correcting itself when six Dutch Spotted Sheep were born on MKVT Farms in Glover, Vt., from May 5-8.
“You’d have thought that six embryos put in within a two-hour window could have done better than spreading out over four days,” said Mark Rodgers, who owns MKVT Farms with his wife, Karen. “They just wanted me to get up every two hours every night for a week.”
Apparently, some things are universal in the sheep industry, regardless of the breed’s origins. Spotties – as they are known – originated around 1,800 according to the Dutch Spotted Sheep Society U.S.
“Generations of farmers and old documentation confirm that Dutch Spotted Sheep were kept in an area in the west of the Netherlands, commonly covered in lakes, bogs and swamps,” according to the association’s website. “Farmers reclaimed the area using connecting embankments and needed a hardy breed of sheep to maintain the grass but more importantly to eat the saplings.”
Rodgers admitted he was originally attracted to the sheep’s spots. He frequently sells lambskins and said the black-and-white hides sell out quickly when they are available.
“When I saw a picture of a black-and-white sheep, I made an inquiry to figure out where I could get them. They’re cute, and that was certainly the first thing that attracted me to them,” said Rodgers, who serves as vice president of the Vermont Sheep and Goat Association. “But the more I learned about them and the more I talked to people over there who have them, I learned about the husbandry of the breed, the maternal instincts, the easy lambing. They thrive on grass. I’m here in northern Vermont and if you tick off all the boxes – good legs, good mouths, thrive on grass – it’s like they were made for this area.
“They apparently have good milk production and raise some really good babies. I don’t have enough money to get involved in something like this just because they are pretty. I need them to be productive.”
After inquiring overseas about the breed, Rodgers was told a breed association was forming in the United States, so he took part in the organizing call and was promptly named vice president. He was promoted the following day when the original president decided he didn’t have time to tackle the challenge of starting a new breed registry.
Eventually, Rodgers made arrangements to import eight embryos.
“And we got seven pregnancies, which is unheard of in embryo transfer,” he said.
One embryo was promised to producers in New Jersey, so MKVT Farms welcomed six lambs – four rams and two ewes – in May. Now that lambing is done, Rodgers is already looking ahead to when he can breed the first Dutch Spotted Sheep in the Western Hemisphere.
“The embryos were from two different breedings,” he said. “The sire of two of my lambs and the one in New Jersey is the grand sire of the other four lambs. So, we don’t have a breeding group. We’ll import semen to breed the ewes that are here and collect semen on the males that we have. I’m sure some people will be interested in using them as terminal sires. According to the folks in the United Kingdom, these sheep bring top dollar the sale barns. I’ve had a number of people call me looking for when a ram might be available.”
Rodgers is also planning to import 60 to 80 more embryos for himself and additional supplies for other producers who have shown interest.
“They’re born spotted,” he said. “I’ve got one that looks like a Dalmatian, one that has coloring more like a Holstein cow and everything in between. I didn’t do this just to introduce another breed to the United States. I did it because I believe they are a better breed.”
Five years ago, Tucker and Emily West didn’t know what to think about sheep. They’d raised cows, goats and chickens, but sheep were an enigma to the young couple. They put their concerns aside and purchased 10 ewes to tackle pastures overgrown with fescue. And the rest – as they say – is history. The cows and goats are gone now, replaced by roughly 500 sheep on the couple’s Liberty Farms Livestock operation in Crawfordville, Ga.
OTHER PRODUCERS TOLD US WE SHOULD TRY SHEEP. But I was kind of scared of them. I really didn’t know what to do with sheep. But we bought 10 in the winter of 2019. We put them on those fescue fields, they ate them down, gained weight and did great. I thought, there’s something to these sheep. Now, we’re 100 percent sheep on the pastures. The first load I sold, I sent off 60 head to a processing house in north Georgia. We did good on them, for what they were. But it got me to thinking that there had to be some more money to be made.
A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE SELLING BEEF AT THE FARMER’S MARKETS, but there wasn’t a lot of lamb. Labor Day 2021, we sold our first packaged lamb at the farmer’s market. We thought we’d process two or three lambs to see how it went. But we decided to do a pre-order to see how much interest was there. We posted it on Facebook and had so much interest that we processed five lambs and sold every bit of it – from one Facebook post. That’s when we realized that social media could play a huge role in what we wanted to do. In our business, social media is just as important as me going out and feeding the sheep every day. That’s the kind of impact it has had for us.
WE HAD A FAMILY FRIEND WHO IS TECH SAVVY AND SHE HELPED EMILY GET STARTED with the website and social media. Emily just took off with it from there. We do a lot of brainstorming, a lot of trial and error. Let’s see if this works, and if it doesn’t we don’t do it again. There’s definitely things we can improve on in how we handle social media. We hired an ag-based marketing group in south Georgia to do a complete audit of our website and social media. We got an 11-page document back about what we were doing right and what we were doing wrong, how we could improve and get noticed more.
IF I WASN’T FOR THE FARM, I WOULDN’T HAVE SOCIAL MEDIA. But we saw the impact it could have early on. We raise broiler chickens and Emily did a post about the steroid and hormone issue in chickens. It blew up and we reached more than 300,000 people with that post. We live in the most sparsely populated county in Georgia. There’s only 1,700 people in the whole county. There’s no way we could reach hundreds of thousands of people without social media. We felt like it was a tool we could use to market our products, so we created the website and Instagram and Facebook accounts and saw a lot of growth in our meat sales. It’s helped us build a connection between the farm and the consumers without physically having them on the farm every day.
WE RUN A KATAHDIN EWE BASE. We use Dorpers as terminal sires, but breed with Katahdin rams for our replacement ewes. We also sell some Dorper-Katahdin cross replacement ewes to other producers. We personally like the straight Katahdin ewe better, from a durability standpoint. They’ve got great maternal traits and can survive on lesser-quality forages than a lot of sheep. We turn them out on some our wooded areas, and they can forage those spots and still make great milk and produce good lambs.
WE’RE A DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER OPERATION. We have our own U.S. Department of Agriculture label. We get the lambs processed and bring the meat home to sell online and through a farmer’s market. We also sell to some restaurants and some small grocery accounts. We’re also trying to get into the replacement ewe side of things. We see a demand for that in this state. We also buy feeder lambs. There are a lot of ethnic markets in Florida that want what I think of as a lightweight lamb compared to most of what we produce. So, we put loads together to send down there.
THE NEXT BIG THING WE’RE LOOKING AT IS A PROCESSING PLANT. We’ve talked about a partnership with a beef producer, but that’s something we’re going to have to have at some point to continue to grow our meat business. We’ve even talked about building just a fabricating facility, where we get the lambs harvested and then bring the carcasses back to cut up on our own. It’s much cheaper to get into that than building a kill floor.
WE’VE BEEN BLESSED as far as finding our way into this at a young age. We don’t have kids at this point, so we can put a lot of time into it.
CARL STEPHEN MENZIES, 1932-2024
Dr. Carl Stephen Menzies passed away May 2, 2024, while resting peacefully and is now in a better place. He was 92 years old at the time of his passing. Born in Menard, Texas, on March 6, 1932, he was the son of Alexander Littleton Menzies and Margarite Watson Menzies. Carl had two brothers, the older being A.L. ‘Sonny’ Jr. and the younger being Jim, who both preceded him in death.
Carl grew up in Menard and attended school with his future wife, Shirley White Menzies, beginning in the first grade. Carl lived on the family ranch doing chores, hunting and playing football and other sports through high school while Shirley was a twirler in the band.
They were selected high school football king and queen their senior year. They were married on Sept. 2, 1952, and celebrated 63 years of marriage. Shirley passed away in 2014.
Carl graduated from Menard High School in 1950 and attended Texas Tech University earning a bachelor’s degree in animal science in 1954. After graduation, he worked in Brownwood, Texas, for a short time as assistant county extension agent before moving the family to Manhattan, Kan., where he received a master’s in animal science from Kansas State University while overseeing the sheep research barn and teaching undergraduate students.
He finished his education in Lexington, Ky., earning a Ph.D. in animal nutrition from the University of Kentucky and returned to Kansas to continue his work as a college professor.
In the winter of 1969, he moved the family to frigid Brookings, S.D., and served as head of the Animal Science Department at South Dakota State University for three years. In 1972, the family moved back to Texas where he served 25 years as director of the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center in San Angelo, Texas, leading research projects in range management, brush control, sheep nutrition, breeding and wool production. He authored and co-authored more than 36 scientific research papers in his area of expertise.
Carl was internationally known for his efforts in animal science, interacting with scientists from Australia, New Zealand, Russia and others.
He retired in 1996 and maintained homes in San Angelo and Menard, where he enjoyed golf and his Cheers Sunday School Class. He ranched on the C&S Menzies Ranch, where he raised cattle, sheep, goats and grand kids. Other interests included friends and neighbors, Mac the dog, Billy the goat and rain.
Carl achieved many things during his career and earned many accolades from various organizations. As a senior in high school, he was on the Texas state championship livestock judging team and earned a trip to Chicago to compete in the national show. That was just the beginning of his participation in judging events. At Texas Tech in 1953 he was on the national championship livestock judging team and while at KSU he coached several national championship wool judging teams.
He was the 1988 recipient of the American Sheep Producer Council’s Silver Ram Award. The ASPC was the forerunner to ASI. In 2018, he was selected as the Wool Excellence Award winner by ASI’s Wool Roundtable. He was also selected to the Menard High School Hall of Fame and as a distinguished alumni at Texas Tech. He earned the Fred T. Earwood award from the Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers’ Association in 1996 and went on to serve as the association’s president in 1998-1999.
Survivors include his son Dr. Steve Menzies and wife, Kay; his daughter Linda Crocker and husband, Dr. Scott Crocker; his granddaughter Lauren Napier Harris and husband, Madison; his grandson Harris Napier III and wife, Shannon; granddaughter Bryce Menzies Sirmons and husband, Jeremy; granddaughter Cara Crocker and fiancé, Shaun McCleese; granddaughter Dr. Megan Crocker Esch and husband, Matt. Also surviving are seven great grandchildren and one pending. Also, Pat Revell, Carl’s special friend.
The family asks that in place of flowers please make donations to the charity of your choice.
A celebration of Carl’s life was on May 9 at First United Methodist Church in San Angelo with the Rev. Cyndi Young officiating.
I often get questions like, “What should I supplement at this stage of production? I have first-cutting alfalfa,” from producers looking to build a ration for their sheep. But without forage analysis data, it can be a guessing game.
Whether you buy or raise your own forages, many factors can impact forage quality. Did it get rained on? Did it sweat? Was there a drought? Was the first-cutting hay harvested in April or July? And even though you can make assumptions about forage quality, sometimes traditional wisdom doesn’t prove true.
If you guess the hay is better than it is, you might under-supplement animals, wasting their genetic potential and falling short on breeding season success or lambing rates. If you guess the hay is lower quality than it is, you might over-supplement, wasting money on unnecessary nutrients.
A forage analysis is a low, upfront investment that yields high value for your bottom line. The following tips can help you learn about the value of a forage analysis, the logistics around ordering a test and how to interpret the results.
PROTECT AGAINST CHALLENGES
Forage analysis results don’t just fine-tune your supplement program, but can also help support the productivity and profitability of ewes through all stages of production.
Protein and energy requirements increase significantly for ewes during late gestation, throughout lactation and leading up to the breeding season. Understanding your forages’ exact protein and energy levels can help you provide the right amount of nutrients to meet ewes’ needs without over-supplementing.
A balanced ration can also help support ewes through key lambing season challenges, such as ketosis or milk fever. When the diet is truly balanced, it helps minimize many traditional nutritionally based lambing season challenges.
FORAGE ANALYSIS LOGISTICS
Different forage analysis laboratories will offer different sampling packages, depending on the type of information you’re looking for. When building a supplement program, look for a baseline of crude protein, total digestible nutrients and neutral detergent fiber.
Your local extension service or nutritionist can help you take samples with a hay probe, find a forage lab and submit samples. Grab samples aren’t recommended as they don’t provide a complete picture of your forages. Take samples from multiple bales in the lot or each cutting with a hay probe for best results. Forage analysis can cost as little as $20 per sample, and results are typically returned within one week.
When purchasing forages, you might be able to request a forage test before buying or look to purchase hay that has already been tested. This allows you to buy what you need, not just what’s available.
INTERPRETING RESULTS
Once you receive your results, consult with your local nutritionist to interpret the data and build a supplementation plan to fill any nutrition gaps in your forages. A tailored supplementation program complements your forages and is customized to each production stage of your sheep.
Many producers focus on the protein content in hay. But, if you don’t have enough energy in the diet to utilize the protein effectively, you can waste protein or have energy deficiencies in your flock. If your forage lacks energy, work with your nutritionist to build a ration accordingly. Corn is a common energy source, but as ruminants, sheep can utilize many different feedstuffs. Look for what’s local and cost-effective.
Forage analysis results might also show mineral content. However, results won’t indicate how bioavailable those minerals are. Data suggests animals can digest anywhere from 20 to 80 percent of the mineral in forage. That’s why providing a mineral and vitamin supplement year round is recommended, regardless of forage analysis results.
Understanding your forages’ protein and energy levels is essential for ensuring your sheep receive the nutrition they need to be productive without wasting dollars on over-supplementation.
Visit PurinaMills.com/sheep-feed to learn more.
I often get questions like, “What should I supplement at this stage of production? I have first-cutting alfalfa,” from producers looking to build a ration for their sheep. But without forage analysis data, it can be a guessing game.
Whether you buy or raise your own forages, many factors can impact forage quality. Did it get rained on? Did it sweat? Was there a drought? Was the first-cutting hay harvested in April or July? And even though you can make assumptions about forage quality, sometimes traditional wisdom doesn’t prove true.
If you guess the hay is better than it is, you might under-supplement animals, wasting their genetic potential and falling short on breeding season success or lambing rates. If you guess the hay is lower quality than it is, you might over-supplement, wasting money on unnecessary nutrients.
A forage analysis is a low, upfront investment that yields high value for your bottom line. The following tips can help you learn about the value of a forage analysis, the logistics around ordering a test and how to interpret the results.
PROTECT AGAINST CHALLENGES
Forage analysis results don’t just fine-tune your supplement program, but can also help support the productivity and profitability of ewes through all stages of production.
Protein and energy requirements increase significantly for ewes during late gestation, throughout lactation and leading up to the breeding season. Understanding your forages’ exact protein and energy levels can help you provide the right amount of nutrients to meet ewes’ needs without over-supplementing.
A balanced ration can also help support ewes through key lambing season challenges, such as ketosis or milk fever. When the diet is truly balanced, it helps minimize many traditional nutritionally based lambing season challenges.
FORAGE ANALYSIS LOGISTICS
Different forage analysis laboratories will offer different sampling packages, depending on the type of information you’re looking for. When building a supplement program, look for a baseline of crude protein, total digestible nutrients and neutral detergent fiber.
Your local extension service or nutritionist can help you take samples with a hay probe, find a forage lab and submit samples. Grab samples aren’t recommended as they don’t provide a complete picture of your forages. Take samples from multiple bales in the lot or each cutting with a hay probe for best results. Forage analysis can cost as little as $20 per sample, and results are typically returned within one week.
When purchasing forages, you might be able to request a forage test before buying or look to purchase hay that has already been tested. This allows you to buy what you need, not just what’s available.
INTERPRETING RESULTS
Once you receive your results, consult with your local nutritionist to interpret the data and build a supplementation plan to fill any nutrition gaps in your forages. A tailored supplementation program complements your forages and is customized to each production stage of your sheep.
Many producers focus on the protein content in hay. But, if you don’t have enough energy in the diet to utilize the protein effectively, you can waste protein or have energy deficiencies in your flock. If your forage lacks energy, work with your nutritionist to build a ration accordingly. Corn is a common energy source, but as ruminants, sheep can utilize many different feedstuffs. Look for what’s local and cost-effective.
Forage analysis results might also show mineral content. However, results won’t indicate how bioavailable those minerals are. Data suggests animals can digest anywhere from 20 to 80 percent of the mineral in forage. That’s why providing a mineral and vitamin supplement year round is recommended, regardless of forage analysis results.
Understanding your forages’ protein and energy levels is essential for ensuring your sheep receive the nutrition they need to be productive without wasting dollars on over-supplementation.
Visit PurinaMills.com/sheep-feed to learn more.
