Is there a middle ground for the greater good? Ultrasound operators still jailed, State provides some answers; Legal team responds

By Sherry Bunting, special for Farmshine, April 26, 2024 edition

HARRISBURG, Pa. — It has been two weeks since Rusty Herr, 43, of Christiana and Ethan Wentworth, 33, of Airville were arrested on April 10 and 11 and separately incarcerated in Lancaster and York County Prisons — their respective counties of residence.

As of April 24, both men are still in jail, without bail, and without seeing a judge.

“This is an unprecedented case of lawless persecution against two farmers who help other farmers with standard breeding practices, as is their right,” said Robert Barnes, Esq. of Barnes Law LLP, who accepted the case on April 17.

“The Pennsylvania Veterinary trade organizations conspired to protect their own monopoly in violation of the law and in a manner that has hurt farmers throughout Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of State (DOS), in a secret star chamber proceeding, ordered the unlawful imprisonment of Rusty Herr and Ethan Wentworth, who have still never seen an arrest warrant, heard the charges against them, had a hearing, or seen a judge,” Barnes continued in a statement provided to Farmshine Wed., April 24.

“In short, their due process rights have been obliterated. I will seek justice for Wentworth, Herr, and their families to the fullest extent of the law,” Barnes asserted.

The only dockets available for prior orders last week were two found on the website of the Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association (PVMA) as part of a package on their “advocacy” page asking members to file complaints with DOS by referencing the provided docket numbers, and then report back to PVMA so they can keep track. One was a 2010 docket with Herr as respondent and the other 2018 naming Wentworth. Both orders stated civil penalty, not criminal.

All other court and DOS system searches yielded nothing, and even those docket numbers came up “nonexistent.” 

In a PVMA press release dated April 19, the veterinary trade organization stated: “PVMA is unaware of the circumstances surrounding the arrest of two individuals on April 10 and 11 for contempt of court.”

And yet, in their 2020 Complaint that they had posted at their website before it was removed this week, the PVMA specifically stated: “Since these individuals continue to practice veterinary medicine without a license after their initial order to cease and desist, we request that the state file contempt charges with the Commonwealth Court. PVMA is able to supply additional witnesses upon request.”

Farmers, veterinarians and others in the dairy industry are discussing the case. Calls, texts and emails pour in from dairy farmers who appreciate NoBull Solutions and rely on them for breeding service.

Calls, texts and emails have also come in to make further accusations against the imprisoned men — none of which are mentioned in the PVMA complaint or their links to two previous civil orders, nor in any documentation provided now by the DOS.

After initiating a request for an interview on April 15 and submitting questions to the State Board of Veterinary Medicine on April 16, Farmshine received a few answers on April 24 from the Department of State (DOS).

On the current situation, the DOS responds: “We can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation or matter.”

On the question of what hearing process may or may not have been available to Herr and Wentworth regarding past civil penalties and cease and desist orders, dockets were provided, one with Herr as the respondent in 2010, and one with Wentworth and another individual who has not been arrested named together as respondents in 2018.

“Speaking generally, the Department reviews every potential license violation of which it becomes aware, whether that is through a complaint filed directly to the Department, a notification from local law enforcement or through media reports. After review, a determination is made as to whether formal action is warranted,” the DOS press office explained in their email response. 

The long and short of the DOS response here is that all respondents have due process at some point, which includes notice and an opportunity to participate in those original proceedings, call witnesses, introduce evidence, and testify on their own behalf.

Herr and Wentworth did so, on their own behalf, without legal counsel, in 2010 and 2018, respectively, according to the documents provided by the DOS.

However, they were not noticed since then by the DOS, and nowhere in the responses from DOS or the adjudications they provided is an automatic 30-day prison term without bail stated as a consequence for “continuing to violate the Act” by ultrasounding cows they do not own. No proof of the process has been shown in the responses from the DOS apart from the 2010 and 2018 actions.

On the question about where pregnancy and diagnosis are linked in the law or regulations, the bottomline is they are not. The State Board of Veterinary Medicine decides this through adjudication and orders as the legislature grants the Board this authority.

“The Board adopted the position that, ‘both the performance of a surgical procedure, such as the Gymer/Stemer Toggle Suture Repair, and the diagnosis of a physical condition, such as detecting through ultrasound whether an animal is pregnant, constitute practice of veterinary medicine,’” the DOS reported, adding that the Act contains an exception for any person or an employee of that person or agent while practicing veterinary medicine on his or her own animals. (What constitutes an ‘agent’?)

The DOS included a copy of an Amended Adjudication and Order, Docket No. 2296-57-09, which came before the State Vet Board with Herr as respondent in May of 2010. Performance of toggle on six animals he didn’t own and performing ultrasound for detection of pregnancy on animals he didn’t own were both listed specifically in the determination of civil penalty.

This was 14 years ago, and the docket from 2010 confirms that Herr responded to say he is “no longer toggling other people’s cows.”

The amended adjudication goes on to explain “should the respondent continue to violate the Act, he may be subject to the imposition of a $10,000 civil penalty per act or practice.” 

Nowhere does it mention automatic 30 days in prison for continuing to detect pregnancy through ultrasound.

For Wentworth, the docket history supplied by the DOS began Sept. of 2017 while he and another named individual, who has not been arrested, were previously employed by Select Sires. Docket No. 1928-57-17, simply states “Respondents engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine without being properly licensed to do so under the Act” and describes this as “performed pregnancy examinations on cattle using ultrasound equipment.”

Both responded, and this led to a formal hearing, eventually in April of 2018, when the state’s expert witness, a University of Pennsylvania professor, could be available. 

Both respondents appeared without representation. They testified on their own behalf and were cross-examined. In May 2018, the matter was closed and determinations were made that both men used ultrasound equipment to “determine pregnancy of customers’ cows” and to “determine if cows were in heat or had other medical issues.”

Noted in the history is this statement that begs more questions: “The economic savings to the cow’s owner, based on a positive pregnancy or negative heat result, are outweighed by the risk of harm to the cow posed by the unlicensed practice (of ultrasound).”

That brings us to April 2024, which the DOS will not comment on.

What we are left with on that is a downloaded copy of the PVMA complaint requesting contempt charges via the Commonwealth Court. Attached to the complaint were pictures from the arrested men’s facebook pages showing ultrasound pregnancy detection.

Bottomline, according to the DOS response: “The State Board of Veterinary Medicine is responsible for enforcing the Veterinary Medicine Act as enacted by the General Assembly. Questions about the provisions of the Act (including the exception in 63 Stat 485.32) should be directed to the legislature.”

This response makes the timing and manner of the arrests more curious, coming six months after the Pennsylvania House Ag Committee opened discussion to look at ways to address the statewide shortage of large animal veterinary practitioners, including the Veterinary Practice Act to see if modifications are needed for a “middle tier” to help Pennsylvania farmers cope.

For veterinary practices, the economics are increasingly difficult in attracting and keeping practitioners and vet technicians in the large animal domain. Their financial and time investments are significant, often graduating $250,000 in debt, and the trend is for more to go into small animal practice with pets to realize a return.

“No large animal practitioner is doing this — for the money,” said one central Pennsylvania vet.

Farmers identify with that. They have significant investments, see their costs rising, and in much of the state, see fewer large animal vets and prohibitive costs for basic services from consolidating companies on small farms vs. large ones, so they look for options, including doing more themselves.

“We have good vets, and I have done some ultrasounding with Rusty, but my vet comes in for herd health, and I keep a good relationship with my vet,” said a dairy farmer from Kirkwood in a Farmshine call April 24.

“Rusty is not trying to take work from vets. He is just trying to help the farmers and provide service for them. He has supported me 100% to help me make breeding decisions in my herd. He will even suggest a mating to a bull outside of his genetic lineup. Instead of just trying to get more business for himself, he highly encouraged and helped teach me how to inseminate my own cows. He’s a mentor and true hero. If anything, he’ll come out of this stronger,” the Kirkwood dairyman continued.

There must be middle ground here. Clarity, transparency and solutions are needed.

“As farmers, we put our bodies and souls into this. As everything consolidates in this industry, how do we compete? This is what extinction looks like,” said Ben Masemore, an eastern Pennsylvania dairy farmer and friend of Herr and Wentworth, who is involved in NoBull Sires, a separate business from NoBull Solutions.

He shared a partial statement written by Herr from his prison cell.

“To this day, we have never once had a farmer or caretaker complain to the state about any single issue. I know that we have a tremendous amount of support behind us, and I realize this will all get resolved. I will be a better husband, father, and person because of this entire experience, and for that I am grateful,” wrote Herr.

He expressed his hope that fair-minded people “can come together… to create a level playing field, one in which we can all work together for the greater good of the industry… I hope and pray that good can come out of this and that someday we can all look back on this time as a steppingstone for meaningful and lasting change.”

Thanking the NoBull team and supporters, and grieving what the families are enduring, Herr wrote: “Thank you all so very much for your coveted prayers and support. Thank you for your financial generosity. Keep the faith and be strong, God is always good. This will all be over soon.”

NoBull Defense Funds have been set up at two local banks to help with legal defense to get them home. Separately, an online fund has raised over $17,000 so far at https://www.givesendgo.com/nobull?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=nobull

-30-

‘Bird flu’ expands to 13 dairy herds in 6 states

CDC confirms one worker in Texas recovered with mild symptoms; Cow-to-cow transmission ‘cannot be ruled out’, biosecurity paramount

By Sherry Bunting, for Farmshine’s April 5, 2024 edition

WASHINGTON — Detections of highly pathogenic avian influenza in dairy cows — HPAI A(H5N1) — have expanded to 13 herds in 6 states as of Wednesday, April 3: Texas (7), Kansas (2), Michigan (1), New Mexico (1), Idaho (1), and Ohio (1).

Some states, including but not limited to Nebraska, Idaho and Utah have begun issuing import permit requirements for cattle and/or restrictions on non-terminal and/or breeding cattle coming from specific areas. These instructions are available from state authorities, not USDA APHIS.

USDA’s APHIS has a new landing page for daily updates and other resources at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock 

In addition, the CDC reported April 1 that a worker on a Texas Panhandle dairy, where HPAI was detected, has tested positive with mild flu symptoms, mainly conjunctivitis (pinkeye), and has recovered. The only other human case in the U.S. was a poultry farm worker in Colorado in 2022.

CDC ‘current situation’ screen capture April 3, 2024 at 4:30 pm ET

According to the CDC, their “human health risk assessment for the general public remains low. There continues to be no concern that this circumstance poses a risk to consumer health, or that it affects the safety of the commercial milk supply because products are pasteurized before entering the market,” and milk from infected animals is to be discarded.

New detections of the virus have not changed the primary belief that HPAI A(H5N1) is ‘seeded’ by migratory wild birds (emphasis on waterfowl and by association, vultures).

Cow-to-cow transmission questioned

Complicating the question of potential cow-to-cow transmission, it was reported that the two confirmed herds in Idaho and Michigan had recently received cattle from other states where HPAI A(H5N1) was detected.

APHIS officials stated on March 29 that, “Spread of symptoms among the Michigan herd also indicates that HPAI transmission between cattle cannot be ruled out; USDA and partners continue to monitor this closely and have advised veterinarians and producers to practice good biosecurity.”

During the April 3 Center for Dairy Excellence (CDE) industry call attended virtually by 189 people – the first such call to occur weekly on Wednesdays at Noon – the Pennsylvania State Veterinarian Dr. Alex Hamberg was asked: How is it being transferred?

Just minutes before the call, Dr. Hamberg had received word that a western Ohio dairy herd had tested positive, which he said “is a little too close for comfort.”

Still, his overall calm and practical demeanor comes from having dealt with Pennsylvania’s poultry industry that is well-acquainted with avian influenza at times through history since the early 1990s, and most recently in 2022-23.

“We’re operating under the bird-to-cow, largely waterfowl, migrating ducks and geese, and focusing on using biosecurity measures to keep them away from cattle,” said Dr. Hamberg. “They excrete virus in large amounts.”

He talked about the poultry farm pattern in Pennsylvania in 2022-23, which also suggests wild bird to farm transmission vs. farm-to-farm spread.

“There is some evidence that could suggest this could be cattle-to-cattle, but this would be novel and relatively new to the world,” said Hamberg, airing his doubts. “As we build a better picture of what it looks like and how it moves through a population, we can do more to protect our cattle. Either way, brush up your biosecurity plans.”

On transfer to people, Hamberg said: “What we know with this virus – as seen in birds – it can infect people, but rarely. Several dozen have been infected worldwide (over time), but what we don’t see is person-to-person transmission or concern for consumers.”

He noted that the Texas dairy employee confirmed positive this week makes two farm workers in history: “one from cattle and one from poultry.”

Wild waterfowl still the focus

The investigation so far has looked at a wide variety of data and didn’t find any common links, other than wild migratory waterfowl, said Dr. Hamberg, and it’s the same strain of the virus in these waterfowl in the Pacific and Central Flyways.

He also noted that the poultry industry’s experience has been that songbirds and starlings “are not effective transmitters. We’re focused on waterfowl.”

Dr. Hamberg advised:

1)  Keep a close eye on your cattle,

2) Ramp up your biosecurity,

3) Keep wild waterfowl away from ponds and standing water,

4) Keep cattle fenced off from water where wild waterfowl congregate,

5) Keep outdoor waterers clean and free of wild waterfowl,

6) Clean up roadkill and manage mortalities.

Penn State extension veterinarian Dr. Hayley Springer also mentioned roping off areas where wild bird feces proliferate to keep tractors from running through it between feed commodities and barn entry.

“There is no definitive evidence that this can move from cow to farm birds or vice versa, but still work on biosecurity to keep those populations separate on the farm,” said Hamberg. “If we get a case in cattle in Pennsylvania, we would quarantine that farm, with a minimum set of standards to ensure movement on and off farm does not cause increased risk to other farms in the community.”

For example, a quarantine may mean milk off farm might be permitted to go to a specific plant following specific biosecurity restrictions such as last stop on a run for the milk truck or feed truck – things of that nature. A quarantine would permit milk off the farm only for pasteurization. Such permits would be case by case IF a dairy herd in Pennsylvania would have detected HPAI A(H5N1).

Bottomline, said Hamberg, this virus deemed to be affecting cows is “remarkably unremarkable, and there is no evidence that it has become mammalian-adaptive,” he said. “Usually when we see spillover events, the transmission between animals tends to be very poor. There is no specific mutation identified in this strain to be mammalian adapted, and it is still unclear what that looks like going forward.”

Hamberg said department guidelines for cattle movement and biosecurity would be forthcoming for Pennsylvania and to find them at www.centerfordairyexcellence.com along with other resources, including advice from Dr. Hayley Springer, who gave practical tips for minimizing waterfowl risk on dairy farms.

Two days earlier, in the April 1 webinar put on by NMPF and attended virtually by around 1000 people, veterinarians noted that while HPAI is believed to be introduced by migratory wild birds, veterinarians do not yet understand the mode by which it entered dairy cattle systems for the first time in history, nor do they know how it may or may not be transferred between cows. (Listen to NMPF’s Jamie Jonkers who moderated the webinar discuss it on a podcast March 28.)

Investigations look for multiple ‘pathways’

It’s important to note that veterinarians are operating off the premise that they want to understand the entirety of the situation to be sure other pathways are not involved in the underlying illness in dairy cows causing decreased lactation, low appetite, and other clinical signs.

Toward that end, federal and state agencies continue to conduct additional testing in swabs from sick animals and in unpasteurized clinical milk samples from sick animals, as well as viral genome sequencing, to assess whether HPAI or another unrelated disease may be underlying any symptoms.

Dr. Mark Lyons, National Incident Health Coordination Director at USDA’s Ruminant Health Center, noted on the NMPF webinar that while HPAI A(H5N1) has been detected through the sampling, he suggested that it might not be the only disease or factor at play.

“I don’t think we have a clear picture to say that HPAI is causing the illness we’re seeing displayed in these cattle. I think there’s still a chance that we might be seeing multiple different pathways playing out,” said Lyons, adding that additional sampling needs to be done with the expertise of producers, industry persons, and veterinarians.

Because lateral transmission has been recognized, but the mode of transmission is unknown, biosecurity measures are the most proactive approach producers and industry personnel should be focusing on to protect herds, said Lyons.

When asked if the disease is being found in non-lactating animals, Lyons said that he was unsure of how much testing, if any, had been done on non-lactating cattle because it has been lactating animals that have exhibited clinical signs. 

On movement and biosecurity

While Dr. Lyons said USDA has no plans to ban or restrict cattle movement at this time, it is recommended to limit movements as much as possible and to test any animals destined for movement to be sure they are clear of HPAI at the time of movement. Animals moved should be quarantined.

USDA and its partners are now advising veterinarians and producers to:

1) Practice good biosecurity,

2) Test animals before necessary movements,

3) Minimize animal movements, and

4) Isolate sick (and new) cattle from the herd.

In the NMPF webinar, veterinarians said the focus of biosecurity should be protecting the dairy, preventing exposure to cattle and calves, and precautions for caretakers and veterinarians, including:

1) Manage birds and wildlife on the dairy,

2) Delay or stop movement of animals,

3) Quarantine animals for 21 days because the incubation period is unknown, 

4) Clean and disinfect trailers and equipment,

5) Delay or stop non-essential visitors,

6) Those who do come into the operation should wash hands, change clothes, clean boots, or use disposable boots,

7) Any equipment coming onto the farm should be disinfected before entering,

8) In “abundance of caution”, on farms where HPAI A(H5N1) has been confirmed or is suspected, milk intended to be fed to calves or other livestock (including pets) should be pasteurized or otherwise heat-treated,

9) The recommendation for caretakers and veterinarians working with confirmed or suspected animals is to wear gloves, N95 masks, eye protection and monitor themselves for respiratory or flu-like symptoms.

When asked about the safety of infected cows destined to be culled, Dr. Lyons said cows exhibiting signs should not be sent to slaughter. He noted that, “in an abundance of caution,” milk samples should be used to screen animals from affected herds before moving a cow to slaughter, whether or not signs are being shown.

With the strength of the federal meat inspection process, “we have no reason to believe the meat would be unsafe, and we have not found any virus presence in meat tissue. But, out of extreme caution, we want to do testing or limits. There are already parameters and buffers in place not to send sick animals into the slaughter system,” said Lyons. 

Experiences on affected dairies

APHIS reports that affected animals have recovered after isolation with little to no associated mortality reported.

Dr. Brandon Treichler, quality control veterinarian for Select Milk Producers has witnessed infected herds and has been in contact with others dealing with the disease firsthand. During the NMPF webinar, he shared the signs and symptoms of what they have experienced.

Initial signs are consistent among all the herds. Farms that have the monitoring capability to test conductivity in overall milk will see a spike because of the immune response occurring, he said.

Initially cows rapidly go off feed, stop ruminating or stop showing signs of chewing their cud, and their milk production is suddenly gone, he explained, noting that what milk they do have is thick and resembles colostrum. Not all four quarters are always affected this way, which is a curious finding in how the disease presents.

Other symptoms vary. Some cows have firm, “tacky” manure, which could be a secondary issue from dehydration or cows not being able to regulate fluid. Other cows exhibit systems of diarrhea. Various respiratory symptoms have been reported with the most common being clear nasal discharge and increased respiratory rate. Fevers have been reported in some herds while others have not. 

Secondary infections are also coming in behind the original HPAI A(H5N1), perhaps accounting for variability in reported symptoms.

Most severe cases are shown in older and mid-lactation cows, with some severe cases happening in first lactation or in fresh cows. There has been very little evidence of it impacting dry cows or young stock.

“That’s not to say they aren’t being affected, but the most obvious signs are decreased rumination and loss of milk production, so the signs might not be observed in non-lactating animals,” said Treichler.

This could also be why it doesn’t seem to be affecting beef animals whether cow/calf or feedlot. “It’s not to say they aren’t being affected at all, but it’s hard to see these severe cases in these (non-lactating) groups,” he said. 

“When people are talking about the 10-20% of the herd involved they’re talking about these severe cases. My personal clinical impression is that much of the lactating herd is impacted by this because when you look at things like rumination and milk production, they’re down overall on a herd level,” said Treichler. “At some point most of the cows in the herd are being impacted by this, so you’ll have mostly subclinical cows.” 

The reported production loss estimates range from 4 to 20 pounds/cow/day to 10 to 30 pounds/cow/day.

The worst of the cases appear to be within the first week of the outbreak. Affected cows begin to go back on feed within a few days, and herds go back to pre-infection milk production and SCC levels within a month of the initial outbreak. Some cows will recover, but there are some that will not recover, especially if secondary infections follow.

While cows might show clinical signs of mastitis or abnormal milk, it is not a mastitis pathogen that can be treated traditionally. It does not respond to antibiotics.

Additionally, abortions are being observed in herds that have been through the process, probably not due to the virus, but most likely from high fever in the immune response or metabolic stress that the cows went through. Future fertility or cyclicity problems could be expected. 

“Please don’t hesitate to report to your veterinarian. I know it’s scary, but it will help the whole industry if we can find out about it and learn from each case,” said Treichler.

Responding to a question about what treatment plans are working for sick cows, Dr. Treichler said supportive care includes keeping them hydrated and treating any obvious symptoms from secondary issues, and treating for fever if there is fever.

There is much yet to learn in this rapidly evolving situation. Biosecurity efforts are the best course to follow as more testing and epidemiological study is underway to understand all that is a part of it.

This story follows Farmshine’s coverage in the March 29 edition

-30-

Tribute to the legendary Snickerdoodle (1998-2017)

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Friday, October 13, 2017

She remains a favorite dairy cow with a worldwide legacy.

22361205_1788983801144277_1460351895_n

SARASOTA, Fla. — Legendary Brown Swiss Old Mill E Snickerdoodle died peacefully just shy of 19 on Monday, October 2, 2017 — the eve of the 51st World Dairy Expo, where she is the only cow in history, of any breed, to win her breed championship six times.

Snickerdoodle was also named Supreme champion at age 4 in 2003 and twice Reserve Supreme at age 9 and 10 (2008 and 2009).

In 2013, she stopped milking at over 14 years of age, with an impressive lifetime production of 261,000M 12,665F 9,895P having milked 3,629 days! That was the year she won the dry cow class with a huge show of respect from colleagues and spectators at the 2013 World Dairy Expo at nearly 15. And she produced her last few embryos in her final flush at over 16 years of age in 2015. Her lifetime total exceeds 400 regular embryos and 60 IVF.

SNICKERDOODLE&CHEESE

Of all her winnings on the colored shavings of Madison, most memorable for owner Allen Bassler was the 2013 Expo, where she competed as a dry cow to the applause
of the coliseum crowd.

aSnickerdoodle6411(Sherry)“She didn’t have an udder that year, she was there as a dry cow, and it was obvious that her work was complete,” Allen recalls. “The respect that she received that day was more than I realized, and it represented every year of building she had to get to that moment. Now her legacy lives on in her next generations.”

One of her A.I. sons, Supreme, was 2013 premier sire of the Expo’s Brown Swiss Show, and the sire of the grand champion Brown Swiss bred and owned by Wayne Sliker of Top Acres at this year’s show on Wednesday, Oct. 4.

Last classified EX-94 — the max for Brown Swiss of her time, which has since been increased — Snickerdoodle had a 97 point mammary. Two of the three EX-95 Brown Swiss in the U.S. today are daughters of her son Supreme.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is snickerdoodleworld2-1.jpg

Snickerdoodle’s legacy extends well beyond her bannered trail and notable 8 times unanimous All-American status. She has over 100 offspring in the U.S. and additional offspring in at least 12 countries across the globe, including around 22 Excellent daughters in the U.S. today and 8 in Switzerland, that Allen knows of.

In Switzerland, alone, Snickerdoodle had 15 registered sons and 16 registered daughters as of 2015. They love her there. Allen is moved by the tributes from around the world to Snickerdoodle’s facebook page since her passing, and particularly the comments from people citing her as the reason they started in Swiss.

Uniquely a very strong cow, what Snickerdoodle has been famous for is her predictability.

aSnickerdoodle-SwissChamp2008“Her sons transmit her udder qualities,” Allen notes. “Supreme and Snic Pack are making the udders and strength that is Snickerdoodle. What was special about her is that she would respond to anything you challenged her with. There was always a character of strength about her, never timid or weak.

487113_4906228777687_712375240_n

In 2015, Snickerdoodle retired to Florida when Allen took the job as cheesemaker at Dakin Dairy near Sarasota. She survived Hurricane Irma a month ago, but when Bassler returned from judging shows in Brazil, he saw that his girl was reaching her “time.”

“She was in a pasture with weaned calves and loved that,” he said, noting she was slower to get up in recent weeks.

“Sunday and Monday, Tammy and I just prayed,” he said. “She passed peacefully on her own Monday night and is buried on the farm with a headstone under four oak
trees.”

Snickerdoodle(2015)2