A Decisive Victory for Small Dairy Farms in California

“This ruling ends a cynical back door attempt to illegally take assets from dairy farmers.” – Niall McCarthy, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy

SACRAMENTO CA—A decisive victory for small family dairy farms was won this week in what has been called a civil war in the California dairy industry. In a proceeding before The California Department of Food and Agriculture, Administrative Law Judge Timothy J. Aspinwall issued a much-awaited decision on a petition that could have put hundreds of California family dairy farms out of business. Fortunately for those farms, the administrative law judge ruled that the petition, which sought to eliminate California’s milk quota system was “not legally valid” and recommends that Secretary of Food and Agriculture Karen Ross deny the petition in its entirety.

The petition sought to terminate the 50-year-old California milk quota system—a huge asset for the California dairy industry that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and owned by most of the state’s dairy farms, especially smaller family-run farms. The decision is a huge win for California dairy farms that have invested their revenue to purchase quota, and whose survival hung in the balance. As dozens of farmers testified at the hearing in June, terminating quota would have robbed them of their and their families’ decades of hard work seized one of their most valuable assets without paying them any compensation, forced them out of business, resulting in huge lay-offs, and thrown the state’s dairy industry into financial chaos. Examples of the testimony are:

Terminating quota would be “financially catastrophic” and is a “matter of life or death for our dairy.” – Maia Cipponeri, a fourth-generation dairy farmer from Merced County

“If quota were suddenly terminated, I would be immediately plunged into severe debt that I could not pay . . . . In addition to financial ruin, this would ruin my son’s dream of continuing the family of California dairymen.” – Frank Borges, a third-generation dairy farmer from San Joaquin County

A group of farmers who successfully opposed the petition throughout these proceedings were represented by the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre, and McCarthy, LLP.

“This ruling ends a cynical back door attempt to illegally take assets from dairy farmers.” – Niall McCarthy, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy engages exclusively in litigation and trials and has earned a national reputation for its dedication to prosecuting or defending socially just actions. To learn more about the firm, visit www.cpmlegal.com.

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:17:06-07:00July 29th, 2020|

2017 Fresno County Crop Report Totals $7 Billion

Fresno County’s Ag Value Increases Significantly in 2017 Crop and Livestock Report

The Fresno County Department of Agriculture’s 2017 Crop and Livestock Report (Crop Report) was presented to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors Tuesday. Overall, the 2017 agricultural production value in Fresno County totaled $7.028 billion, showing a 13.58 percent increase from 2016’s $6.18 billion.

“Once again, Fresno County farmers and ranchers have produced an agricultural bounty for the world,” stated Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner Les Wright. “While much of this food and fiber goes towards feeding and supplying our nation, the Fresno County Department of Agriculture also issued 18,604 phytosanitary certificates for 133 commodities destined for 97 countries around the globe in 2017.”

“This Crop Report is comprised of nearly 400 commodities, of which 73 crops exceed $1 million in value,” Commissioner Wright continued. “Crop values may vary year-to-year based on production, markets and weather conditions, but our farmers and ranchers, their employees and all those who support their efforts work tirelessly year-around to bring in the harvest.”

With the great diversity of crops in Fresno County and the many variables in agriculture, it’s a given that some crops will be up in value while others are down. Increases were seen in a majority of the Crop Report segments, including field crops, seed crops, fruit and nut crops, livestock and poultry, livestock and poultry products, apiary products and pollination services, and industrial crops. Decreases were seen in vegetables and nursery. Surface water supplies were significantly better in 2017, although many Westside federal water contractors received much of that good news too late to benefit them with additional annual plantings.

Fresno County’s Top 10 Crops in 2017 (Source: 2017 Fresno County Agricultural Crop and Livestock Report)

Too often, the Crop Report gets summarized down to just a single overall number, but it yields a significant amount of information, such as the ability to examine changes and trends in crop acreage and yields. Amounts in the report reflect the gross income values only (income before expenses) and not the net return to producers.

“The San Joaquin Valley is the food capital of the World, and Fresno County is the region’s heart,” said Fresno County Farm Bureau (FCFB) CEO Ryan Jacobsen. “Daily, millions of food servings unceremoniously originate within our backyard, the result of generations of families and agricultural infrastructure that has been built to furnish an unbelievably productive, wholesome and affordable food supply.”

“The annual Crop Reports are more than numbers,” Jacobsen continued. “They provide the industry, the public and policymakers, regardless of the overall number, the opportunity to salute local agriculture and give thanks for the food and fiber, jobs and economic benefits, agriculture provides Fresno County.”

One popular component of the report is the review of the county’s “Top 10 Crops” that offers a quick glimpse of the diversity of products grown here. In 2017, these crops accounted for three-fourths of the report’s value. Almonds continue to lead the way as Fresno County’s only billion-dollar crop in 2017, representing 17.4 percent of the total gross value of the Crop Report. Added to this year’s list was mandarins at number six. Dropping out of the “Top 10 Crops” was garlic.

This year’s Crop Report was a salute to the Fresno-Kings Cattlemen’s Association. The organization is one of 38 affiliates of the California Cattlemen’s Association, a non-profit trade association that represents ranchers and beef producers in legislative and regulatory affairs.

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:17:09-07:00August 21st, 2018|

Data Loggers Could Impact Cattle Comfort

Data Loggers Could be Hardship on Cattle Being Transported

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

Transporting cattle, or any livestock for that matter, has special nuances so drivers can get to the destination quickly for the animals’ comfort. Occasionally a driver can self-adjust the drive time beyond the mandated limit.

But now a new regulation regarding electronic logging devices by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in Washington D.C., may be implemented December this year, forcing drivers to stop.

“It would essentially require commercial truck drivers to use a electronic device to comply with the hours of service schedule that they’re required to meet, which limits both on-duty time and driving time,” said Justin Oldfield, a California cattleman and vice president of governmental affairs with the California Cattlemen’s Association in Sacramento.

“We not only have the cattle’s welfare that we need to take into account for, but we’ve got to get to that destination and make sure those cattle are off-loaded properly and safely,” Oldfield said.

Oldfield said they’re looking at some alternatives that would help the California Cattlemen’s Association members. “One of the things that we are concerned about is our distance to a lot of buyers, which would be in the Midwest,” Oldfield explained. “So any additional cost that this regulation might cause would probably be felt more significantly farther from the Midwest, which would primarily represent California, other states in the West and the Southeast.”

The current regulation is maximum on-duty time of 14 hours, with maximum driving time being 11 hours, with a 10-hour break. If a driver hauling cattle was only 100 miles from the destination, he would want to keep going for the comfort of the cattle. But with the electronic logger in place, he’d be forced to take that 10-hour break.

“Some of the issues that we have, for instance, is technically you’re on-duty even if you’re waiting to load cattle. So there are situations to where maybe there’s eight trucks waiting to load cattle, and you could be waiting in line for 2, 3 hours. And that entire time is counting against your on-duty time,” Oldfield said.

“We’re looking at where we can try to ensure that those hours are not counted against your maximum on-duty time,” he said.

And another area that’s being looked at is an exclusion for drivers hauling live animals, in order to have time to get to destinations.

“Our membership is basically past policy that asks us to look at everything, including that. There’s of course the challenge politically of making these changes on the regulatory side. I can tell you that nothing is off the table at this point,” Oldfield said. “Again, the reform is not necessarily the electron log-in device. The reform itself is the hours of service.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:17:10-07:00April 11th, 2017|

Cheryl Foster Talks California CattleWomen

Meet Cheryl Foster, President of California CattleWomen

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

Cheryl Foster is the President of the California CattleWomen and a sixth generation rancher. Her operation ranch house is in Siskiyou County, about seven miles from the Oregon border. It’s a cow-calf operation on deeded ground, as well as forest service leased ground.

“It all started back in 1871, with a livery stable in Yreka, and then when that burned down, my family went out and bought the ranch land. My grandfather, John Foster is the one who really expanded the ranch,” Foster said.

The cattle breed on the ranch is predominantly Hereford and Red Angus cross. “That cross helps a lot with the fertility and longevity of the cow,” Foster said. “It’s Northern California and pretty tough country, with hillsides and lots of rocks. You put cattle where you can’t have row crops, so it’s rough!”

Foster’s husband is a CPA; she runs the cattle operation with her brother. “My brother is responsible for equipment, and I’m responsible for the cattle and the irrigating our 450 acres of hay, so we have it divvied up well,” she said.

Foster focuses on the primary tasks of California CattleWomen. “We are trying to get the women to be engaged with the truth about the industry and keep pushing, because it’s a very, very important industry,” she said.

“We get out and tell a positive story, because I think sometimes we are afraid of what to say to counteract when people come in with wrong information. So, real important to get good information out and get the ladies confident to get out and say that we are doing a good thing for the land,” Foster noted.

Foster explained the traditional roles of the men and the women in the California cattle industry. “The men’s organization has been going for a 100 years and the women have been going for 65 years,” she said.

“Initially, the men and their organization were more on the production, and the genetics of the herd. The women started being the beef promoters, to get out there and say, ‘It’s not just about the production. People need to eat our product,’ ” Foster explained.

The CattleWomen are out and about wherever they can spread the positive word on the beef industry. They go to fairs and trade shows and participate in the California Agriculture in the Classroom, where they engage in K-12 audiences and improve agricultural literacy.

Patrick Cavanaugh2017-02-20T16:12:28-08:00February 17th, 2017|

California Cattlemen Challenge Illegal Listing of Grey Wolf

Ranchers Fighting to Protect Livestock

By: Jessica Theisman, Associate Editor

On January 31, the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) and the California Farm Bureau Federation filed a lawsuit challenging the California Fish and Game Commission’s June 2014 decision to list the grey wolf as an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. This decision went into effect on January 1, 2017, and has many farmers and ranchers upset.

“The organizations are represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nationwide leader in litigation aimed at ensuring limited government, private property rights and sensible environmental protections. The suit alleges that endangered listing of the gray wolf under the California Endangered Species Act was improper for three reasons,” the CCA said in a news release.

This subspecies of grey wolf originally descended from Canada. It is not native to the state of California, as the law requires, and definitely not an asset for California’s agriculture industry. Secondly, there is an abundant and healthy population of this species throughout the western United States. The Commission focused too much on the California populations, the CCA alleges. Lastly, the commission impermissibly listed the grey wolf based on the occasional presence in California by a single wolf at that time.

“The Fish and Game Commission took a big bite out of its own credibility with this unjustified listing,” said Damien Schiff, PLF Principal Attorney, in the CCA’s release. “The agency managed to label the gray wolf as ‘endangered’ only by myopically and illegally ignoring its population outside California.”

Ranchers’ livestock fall prey to these predators, and this new policy will cause a huge impact on the rural economies that depend upon agriculture. CCA president and Butte County cattleman Dave Daley said in the news release that the lawsuit is necessary for ranchers to ensure the humane treatment of their livestock.

“Under California law, you can’t even pursue a species that is listed as endangered,” Daley said. “If a rancher sees a wolf attacking one of his or her calves, he or she can’t chase the wolf away without breaking the law. Ranchers are not seeking open season on wolves, we just want sensible wolf management that also allows us to protect our livestock. That will require delisting the gray wolf.”

The case is California Cattlemen’s Association, et. al. v. California Fish and Game Commission, filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. Those interested in the case can visit www.pacificlegal.org for more information.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:17:10-07:00February 7th, 2017|

Livestock Economics for Western Producers

Livestock Economics: What Attributes Bring Higher Prices?

By Laurie Greene, Editor

At the 100th Annual California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) & California CattleWomen’s (CCW) Convention last week in Sparks, Nevada, Tina Saitone, cooperative extension specialist, UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, described her research on rangeland and livestock economics. “Primarily, my focus has been on cattle — beef cattle to date — but I’ve also started some projects recently with sheep producers and the predator interactions they have specifically with coyotes. I am examining whether or not [producers] can use nonlethal depredation methods to mitigate those losses.”

“Right now, I have been concentrating on marketing characteristics of cattle,” she said. “I study those practices employed by producers, such as when they wean their cattle; how many vaccinations they have; whether they market [their cattle] as natural, grass-fed, or organic; and the impact that [these choices] have on their prices.”

Tina Saitone, cooperative extension specialist, UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

Interestingly, Saitone and her colleagues have mainly been using satellite video auction data. “Western Video Market Auction actually held their auction this month here in Sparks, Nevada because they can do it at different locations all the time. So, we use that data to figure out cattle characteristics and then determine the marginal impact that each of those characteristics has on price,” said Saitone.

Characteristics such breed, frame score, flesh score, and weight, are definitely controls in Saitone’s research model because those are main drivers of price. “But what we want to do is figure out — holding all those things constant —if a producer raises their cattle natural, what kind of premium does that bring them? We’re really looking for that incremental difference.”

One might expect certain factors such as natural or organic, to deserve a higher price, but there always has to be a buyer. “Right now, when prices are low relative to 2014 and early 2015, ranchers do have some opportunities to get some higher prices in what we would call niche markets. Consumers are increasingly demanding a wider range of characteristics. They want grass-fed. They want organic. They want natural, no hormones. All of these are what we would call credence attributes. If you go to the grocery store and you taste a steak, you probably don’t know if it was raised natural.”

Accordingly, the industry has third-party certification to assure consumers that when they pay a higher price for that product they are actually getting those traits. “Farmers actually have the ability to fill some of those niche markets that consumers have created with their demand and possibly get higher prices than just selling into traditional commercial channels.”

The data that Saitone has been looking at from Western Video is focused on Western states, including California. Certainly, location places Western producers at a persistent disadvantage because the majority of the processing capacity is in the central part of the country, with Nebraska being the hub. Saitone said, “When you think about cattle being raised in California having to be transported all the way to Nebraska, some 1600 or 1700 miles, not only do you have the cost associated with that transportation, but you also have shrink; you have mortality.

California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA)

California CattleWomen

UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:17:11-07:00December 6th, 2016|

CULTIVATING COMMON GROUND: Water Use Efficiency Grants

Water Use Efficiency Grants: Beneficial or Double Jeopardy for California Farming? Or both?

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

Through a competitive joint pilot grant program, the Agricultural Water Use Efficiency and State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) jointly intend to demonstrate the potential multiple benefits of conveyance enhancements combined with on-farm agricultural water use efficiency improvements and greenhouse gas reductions.

The grant funding provided in this joint program is intended to address multiple goals including:

Water use efficiency, conservation and reduction
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Groundwater Protection, and
Sustainability of agricultural operations and food production

Agricultural Water Use Efficiency & State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program – DWR/CDFA Joint RFP Public Workshops

Are these competitive grants promoted by DWR and CDFA providing financial support for further compliance or insulting to farmers who have already met and exceeded these stockpiling regulations? Or both?

I would like to address each goal, one by one.

Water Use Efficiency

I challenge DWR and CDFA to find one California farmer who is using water inefficiently or without regard to conservation. Grant or no grant, many farmers in the state have lost most of their contracted surface water deliveries due to the Endangered Species Act, which serves to save endangered species, an important goal we all share, but does so at any cost.

In addition, DWR is now threatening to take 40 percent of the surface water from the Tuolumne River and other tributaries of the San Joaquin River from February 1 to June 30, every year, to increase flows to the Delta to help save the declining smelt and salmon. This will severely curtail water deliveries to the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) and Turlock Irrigation District (TID)—population centers as well as critical farm areas.

This proposal, which disregards legal landowner water rights and human need, would force MID and TID to dedicate 40 percent of surface water flows during the defined time period every year, with no regulatory sunset, for beneficial fish and wildlife uses and salinity control. The proposal disregards other scientifically acknowledged stressors such as predatory nonnative non-native striped bass and largemouth bass, partially treated sewage from Delta cities, and, according to the Bay Delta Fish & Wildlife Office of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region, invasive organisms, exotic species of zooplankton and a voracious plankton-eating clam in the Delta from foreign ships that historically dumped their ballast in San Francisco waters.

While many farmers have fallowed their farmland, other farmers across the state have resorted to reliance on groundwater to keep their permanent crops (trees and vines) alive. The new DWR proposal to divert 40 percent of MID and TID surface water will force hundreds of growers in this region—the only groundwater basin in the Valley that is not yet critically overdrafted—to use more groundwater.

In a joint statement, MID and TID said, “Our community has never faced a threat of this proportion. MID and TID have continued to fight for the water resource that was entrusted to us 129 years ago.”

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Have regulators forgotten Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, that requires the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent (back to 1990 levels) by 2050? Ag is already accommodating this regulation.

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Source: EPA)

Now Governor Brown has signed SB-1383, “Short-lived climate pollutants: methane emissions: dairy and livestock: organic waste: landfills” into law that mandates a 25 percent reduction in methane emissions from cow burps, flatulence and manure from all dairy cows and other cattle to achieve the 1990 statewide greenhouse gas emissions level by 2020.

Now CDFA and DWR are asking for grant requests to reduce greenhouse emissions even further. Really?

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Groundwater Protection

Ironically, farmers want to reduce their groundwater needs because groundwater has always functioned in the state as a water savings bank for emergency use during droughts and not as a primary source of irrigation. But massive non-drought related federal and state surface water cutbacks have forced farmers to use more groundwater.

Golden State farmers are doing everything possible not to further elevate nitrates in their groundwater. Some nitrate findings left by farmers from generations ago are difficult to clean up.

But the DWR and CFA grant wants California agriculture to do more!

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Sustainability of Agricultural Operations and Food Production

Virtually, no one is more sustainable than a multi-generational farmer. Each year, family farmers improve their land in order to produce robust crops, maintain their livelihoods, enrich the soil for the long term, and fortify the health and safety of their agricultural legacy for future generations.

California farmers will continue to do all they can to improve irrigation methods and track their crop protection product use.

And so, I ask again, is this beneficial or double jeopardy for California farming? Or both?

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:17:12-07:00September 26th, 2016|

Air Resources Board to Rein In Cow Flatulence

Public Enemy #1: Cow Flatulence

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

While not a popular or sexy topic of discussion, flatulence is a very natural activity. Who amongst us hasn’t occasionally burped, belched, or otherwise passed a little gas? When guilty of passing waste gases such as hydrogen, carbon dioxide, methane and other trace gases due to the microbial breakdown of foods during digestion, we may say, “Excuse me.”

But for dairy cows and other cattle, manners do not suffice; the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has a low tolerance for such naturally occurring and climate-altering gaseousness. The ARB is planning to mandate a 25% reduction in burps and other windy waftage from dairy cows and other cattle, as well as through improved manure management.

Anja Raudabaugh, CEO of the Modesto-based Western United Dairymen (WUD), said, “The ARB wants to regulate cow emissions, even though the ARB’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP) reduction strategy acknowledges that there’s no known way to achieve this reduction. The ARB thinks they have ultimate authority, even over what the legislature has given them: two Senate Bills—SB 32 and SB 1383—to limit the emissions from dairy cows and other cattle.”

“We have a social media campaign addressing the legislative advocacy components,” Raudabaugh explained, “to make the legislatures aware that this authority has not been given to ARB by the legislature, and to bring that into perspective.” Raudabaugh said while SB 32 is not that popular because it calls for raising taxes, SB 1383 is worrisome, “because if anybody wanted to achieve something of a win for the legislature this year with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, this is the only bill left,” she said.

Cattle Flatulence Social Media (Source: Western United Dairymen Facebook)

Raudabaugh said that in order for the ARB to achieve their mandated 75% reduction in total dairy methane emissions, they are proposing that 600 dairy digesters be put on the methane grid by 2030. According to the ARB’s own analysis that could cost as much as several billion dollars—more than $2 million, on average, for each of California’s remaining 1,400 family dairy farms.

“That is not only expensive, but digesters do not work for every dairy. They can be an option for some, but because of their expense and the reality that not everyone ‘dairies’ the same way, digesters cannot be a mandated solution,” noted Raudabaugh. “All dairy personnel and other interested Californians should contact your state legislature and urge them to veto both bills and not allow the ARB more powers than they actually have.”

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:17:12-07:00August 17th, 2016|

Drone Technology Benefits Agriculture

Drone Technology Useful for Calif. Ranchers and Growers

by Laurie Greene, Editor

Fifth-generation Parkfield rancher in southern Monterey County and 2016 Vice President of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Kevin Kester, was introduced to the viability of potentially beneficial uses of owning and using a drone on his ranch for agricultural purposes.

Yamaha Drone

As owner and operator of Bear Valley Ranch & Vineyards, the family’s cattle and winegrape operations, Kester anticipated the biggest benefits of drone ownership would be the capability to check on cattle and ensure their safety from a bird’s eye view, and to determine water levels in reservoirs—a task that in the past could be completed only on foot or by vehicle. Cattle safety is especially important for ranchers, according to Kester, as the cattle industry has been experiencing stagnation in production.

Kester said having a drone would also helpful for security issues. He wants to detect human intrusion on his land, a problem that he experienced recently. “There have been some hunter-related trespass issues and people coming onto the ranch,” he said. “We’ve actually had cattle and horses shot.”

Kester, who is also a member of the California Association of Winegrape Growers, Paso Robles Wine Country Alliance and the Central Coast Vineyard Team, will purchase a commercial drone package and believes this modern technology will give not only cattlemen, but growers in California, a new way of assessing safety, production and maintenance.

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:05:56-07:00June 9th, 2016|

Dry Weather Affecting Cattle Ranchers

Cattle Ranchers Hit Hard in the South Valley, Move to Greener Pastures

by Emily McKay Johnson, Associate Editor

Josh Davy, a University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Cooperative Extension livestock, range and natural resources advisor in Tehama County reported good news for the cattle industry despite dry weather conditions around the state.

Josh Davy, UCCE Tehama County livestock, range and natural resources advisor (Source: UCCE Tehama)

Heading into last fall, the feed year started off relatively dry, according to Davy; however the end-of-season crops produced a better forage than the year before. Though prices slid for the cattle farmer, Davy said optimisticly, “We’re happier on our range conditions—as compared to the previous years that we’ve had—by a long shot.” he said.

The drought that plagues California still directly impacts cattle ranges, and ranchers are not quite out of trouble. Davy had to resort to feed supplementation through the month of December. “We didn’t have to supplement as much as in the previous few years,” he said, “but we definitely did this fall.” Fortunately the winter months were short and the spring rainfall produced good growth—good assurances that will help Davy and his team make it through next year.

Davy has fortunately sidestepped hardship with a tinge of luck, but it hasn’t been as easy for ranchers in the south of the state. When cattle lack enough sustenance, a domino effect is felt all across the state of California; a lactating cow may not produce enough milk to feed her calves.

The cows like lush grass, a rarity in the Central and South Valley summer months. Winter options for cattle are either winter range ground or mountain meadow ground where greenery is still prevalent. Some ranchers haul their cattle to summer pasture feedlots to graze, while some prefer Oregon instead.

“We’re dried off here to where you might find a swell with a little rye grass in it that’s still green,”Davy said regarding the disappearance of lush land, “but pretty much everything else, the oats and all that stuff, they’re done here.”

Looking forward, Josh Davy is hoping irrigation water will sustain not only the beef cattle, but the pastures as well, to keep the herds stationary and munching on green grass.

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:17:13-07:00June 8th, 2016|

“This ruling ends a cynical back door attempt to illegally take assets from dairy farmers.” – Niall McCarthy, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

California Ag News…
At Your Fingertips!

“This ruling ends a cynical back door attempt to illegally take assets from dairy farmers.” – Niall McCarthy, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy

Fresno County’s Ag Value Increases Significantly in 2017 Crop and Livestock Report

Data Loggers Could be Hardship on Cattle Being Transported

Meet Cheryl Foster, President of California CattleWomen

Ranchers Fighting to Protect Livestock

Livestock Economics: What Attributes Bring Higher Prices?

By Laurie Greene, Editor

Water Use Efficiency Grants: Beneficial or Double Jeopardy for California Farming? Or both?

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

Water Use Efficiency

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Groundwater Protection

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Sustainability of Agricultural Operations and Food Production

The deadline for submitting public comments is September 30, 2016.

Public Enemy #1: Cow Flatulence

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

Drone Technology Useful for Calif. Ranchers and Growers

by Laurie Greene, Editor

Cattle Ranchers Hit Hard in the South Valley, Move to Greener Pastures

by Emily McKay Johnson, Associate Editor

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

California Ag News… At Your Fingertips!

California Ag News…
At Your Fingertips!