6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, June 24, 2022
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com | CapitalPress.com/opinion
Our View
Research increases value of grazing
T
he use of targeted grazing as a
tool for raising livestock and
managing public and private
land continues to evolve.
Thanks to researchers, ranchers
and land managers at the U.S. For-
est Service and Bureau of Land Man-
agement are finding new ways to put
livestock to work reducing the fuels
that feed voracious wildfires and
eradicating weed populations.
For example, virtual fences that
use the global positioning system can
keep livestock away from streams
and other sensitive areas. Each cow
wears a collar that indicates where
it can graze. When the cattle need to
be moved to prevent overgrazing it
can be done by “moving” the virtual
fence on a computer or cell phone
screen.
At the same time, the cattle con-
tinue to grow and will ultimately pro-
vide high-quality protein from land
University of Nevada-Reno
Cattle graze on cheatgrass during a Uni-
versity of Nevada-Reno experiment.
that cannot support other crops.
New uses for cattle to help manage
land are also on the way.
In one experiment, researchers
at the University of Nevada-Reno
are training cattle to eat cheatgrass
during its dormant season. Cheat-
grass is a weed that has overtaken
about 11,000 square miles of the
West. Using supplemental protein
feeding stations to attract the cat-
tle to the areas where the cheatgrass
is established, they found that cattle
will also eat the weeds. This makes
room for native grasses to grow and
reduces the amount of wildfire fuel.
Anyway you look at it, that’s a win
for ranchers, land managers — and
even for environmentalists.
The value livestock brings to
land managers doesn’t end with cat-
tle. Goats are commonly used to eat
weeds and underbrush in pastures
and other areas where herbicides
would be difficult to use or cost-pro-
hibitive. Once they are on site, the
goats go to work, munching weeds as
though they are delicacies.
Whether goats, sheep or cat-
tle are used, the value of grazing is
self-evident.
The introduction of new technolo-
gies also creates new possibilities for
managing livestock — and beyond.
Using GPS-equipped virtual fencing
and collars, cattle can be moved to
new areas as needed to prevent over
grazing. Our hope is that, as technol-
How to help
Ukraine’s
farmers
Our View
I
USDA
Citing the high cost of operating in California, Smithfield Foods plans to close its Vernon, Calif., pork plant.
California’s high cost
of doing business
T
he Biden administration has decided to
“solve” the complex problem of low
cattle prices and high meat prices by
spending $1 billion to subsidize the construction
or expansion of small and medium-sized meat
processing plants.
Building capacity is one thing, making it via-
ble is another — particularly in states with overly
burdensome tax and regulatory regimes. In that
regard, California provides a prime example.
Last week, Smithfield Foods announced it
would close its only California processing plant,
a pork slaughter facility producing Farmer John
products with 1,800 employees in Vernon. It is
also looking at options to end its farming opera-
tions in the state.
The plant will close early next year.
Jim Monroe, vice president of corporate
affairs, told The Associated Press that company
operating costs in California are much higher
than in other areas of the country, including taxes
and the price of water, electricity and natural gas.
“Our utility costs in California are 3 1/2 times
higher per head than our other locations where
they do the same type of work,” he said.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the com-
pany also cited the state’s regulatory climate, par-
ticularly Proposition 12.
Officially the Farm Animal Confinement Act,
Prop 12 bans the sale of eggs, pork and veal prod-
ucts in California unless production facilities
ogy continues to evolve, ranchers and
land managers will be able to manage
not just livestock but predators —
such as wolves, cougars and coyotes
— that could be monitored real time
and kept away from livestock.
The nay-sayers will always exist.
Entire groups have grown up around
the unfounded concept that live-
stock is universally bad for the land-
scape, but ranchers and land manag-
ers know well-managed grazing is a
benefit to the land and livestock.
These are exciting times for ranch-
ers and land managers. They have
known the good that livestock can
bring to the countryside by reducing
wildfire fuels and weeds.
Now researchers are adding to
those realities with new possibilities
that will increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of livestock grazing to
improve the landscape even more.
meet animal-confinement standards dictated by
the state. The law applies to products produced
outside the state of California.
The law was passed overwhelmingly by Cal-
ifornia voters in 2018. It has been challenged in
federal court by processors and producer organi-
zations, and that case is awaiting review by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
The administration’s push to increase capacity
favors small- and medium-sized processors over
the four major companies that dominate the meat
processing industry. The idea is to create more
competition for livestock and drive up producer
prices while staving off potential bottlenecks in
the supply chain.
On its face that makes sense. But, it isn’t as
simple as it sounds.
Smithfield is one of the big players, with
40,000 employees and 46 facilities across the
United States. The Vernon facility only pro-
cesses hogs from company-owned farms, but still
couldn’t realize the efficiencies it needs to operate
in California.
If a big, vertically integrated operator can’t
make a go of it in California, how will a smaller
company buying hogs on the market be viable?
The feds can throw as much money at smaller
companies as taxpayers will borrow, but that’s
not going to help those processors become viable
in the face of high cost and regulatory burdens
imposed by some state governments.
am proud and happy
to serve as an ambas-
sador for the World
to Rebuild Rural Ukraine
project (www.WRRU.org).
What is the World to
Rebuild Rural Ukraine?
This is a program that
avoids corruption and
brings aid in rebuilding
small rural farms, homes,
sheds, and farming capa-
bilities to the small rural
farms within Ukraine.
This does not pro-
vide assistance above and
beyond what the small
rural farmers already had
prior to the war, which has
brought complete destruc-
tion and genocidal actions
of the Russian military to
the Ukrainian people.
We must do some-
thing. It is not an option
to allow the Russian mili-
tary to take over Ukraine.
As farmers, we have seen
what it has done for the
prices and availability of
products throughout the
world. Wheat prices will
remain high for at least the
next five years, shortages
of wheat and other crops
are occurring through-
out the world with mas-
sive starvation throughout
Africa due to the war.
We need to keep in
mind what would we
do if we were in a simi-
lar situation as Ukrainian
producers.
This is not about char-
ity. These small rural
farmers have lost not
only the ability to raise
crops for the people of
Ukraine but the loss of
their homes, their farming
equipment, ability to con-
tinue farming and family
members.
As farmers, grower
groups, the agriculture
industry and American
producers, we can make
a difference for the small
farmers within Ukraine
that have no way of get-
ting assistance.
What can we do as
Americans and farmers
within this global econ-
omy to help? I am one of
several ambassadors from
around the United States
who are asking for your
assistance to rebuild small
farms of rural Ukraine.
The ambassadors will
decide on the projects and
how the money is spent
to aid small farms within
Ukraine. You can become
an ambassador, too.
GUEST
VIEW
Stephen
Van Vleet
The value of your com-
modity, primarily due to
the unfortunate war in
Ukraine, is as follows:
• A typical yield of 80
bushels per acre at $6 a
bushel equals $480 per
acre prior to the war.
• The same yield of 80
bushels per acre at $10
or more a bushel equals
at least $800 per acre
because of the war.
Most likely in east-
ern Washington this year
yields will be above
average.
How to help/aid the
World to Rebuild Rural
Ukraine:
• Pledge a number
of bushels to go toward
rebuilding rural Ukrainian
farms.
• Alternatively, donate
1 penny per bushel of
this year’s crop toward
rebuilding rural Ukrainian
farms. For 1,000 bushels
this is only $10. That is a
smaller percentage than
the amount of grain typ-
ically lost on the ground
during harvest.
We can always make
excuses for why we can’t
afford to support these
farmers. However, there is
no excuse.
You can make a differ-
ence in the lives of rural
Ukrainian farmers.
Anyone that wants to
know more about this
well-developed program
can contact me anytime.
To find out what is hap-
pening in Ukraine, join
my friends and colleagues
from Ukraine on a live
bi-weekly online meet-
ing every other Friday
at https://www.wrru.org/
live/.
We will discuss the cur-
rent situation in Ukraine
— agriculture produc-
tion, exports. Hear World
to Rebuild Rural Ukraine
project achievements and
stories directly from farm-
ers we help and are suf-
fering through the war in
Ukraine.
Stephen Van Vleet,
Ph.D., is an ambassa-
dor for WRRU. He can
be contacted at stevevan-
vleet55@gmail.com or
509-595-5163.