California Milk Production in 2013

Sources: CDFA Dairy Marketing and Milk Pooling Branches

In 2013, 33 California counties recorded milk production, indicating that a total of 41.2 billion pounds were produced.

This statistic represents a 1.3 percent decrease in overall milk production compared to that of 2012.

The top 10 milk producing counties were responsible for 94.9 percent of total California milk production; among the top three counties were Tulare, Merced and Stanislaus counties.

They alone were responsible for 52.9 percent of all the milk produced in California.

Fresno County showed the largest increase in milk production with a 2.02 percent increase, whereas, Southern California counties San Bernardino and Riverside showed the largest decrease.

Compared to 2012, milk production in San Bernardino went down 21.36 percent and decreased by 9.28 percent in Riverside, respectively.

Patrick Cavanaugh2017-09-03T00:40:07-07:00March 5th, 2014|

UCCE on YouTube: Drought Mitigation in Livestock Production

UCCE’s Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center has posted the entire January 29^th seminar, “Drought Mitigation in Livestock Production” on YouTube. To access all 14 seminar videos, visit: https://www.youtube.com/user/ucsfrec?feature=watch.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:53-07:00March 4th, 2014|

West Side Farmer/Rancher Says Drought is Tragedy

John Harris, owner of Harris Ranch, recently weighed in about how the drought is affecting his farming operation in Coalinga.

“This is probably the most depressing time I’ve seen in agriculture on the West Side,” he said. “We have employees that have been here for 30 or 40 years who are facing getting laid off.”

Harris said he and his crew have spent a lot effort to develop trees, which are doing well, that are facing the chance of being taken out.

Harris lamented, “You drive around and there’s nothing green.”

“It’s just a tragedy,” he said, “but we’re just trying to sort out how best to cope with it. We’re looking at drilling more holes and trying to buy water here and there.”

“There are just a few things we can do but nothing that is a real silver bullet,” Harris commented. “We’re probably 70% fallow right now.”

In terms of a bright side, Harris said, “If there’s anything good about it, this makes it so bad that it becomes so evident that the Endangered Species Act needs to be changed. It brings it home that you just can’t live with that.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:55-07:00February 27th, 2014|

National Beef Rejects General Offer from Community, Still Plans to Close

NATIONAL BEEF WILL CLOSE, LEAVING BRAWLEY IN A LURCH

Source: Lloyd Miller, The Desert Valley Review

The Imperial Valley Ad Hoc Committee met on February 21^st to inform the public that after three weeks of proposals with National Beef, the processing plant chose to continue with their April 4th closing date.

Ryan Kelley, supervisor district 4, was the spokesman of the committee present. Others were Don Wharton and George Nava of the Brawley City Council, Matt Dessert, Imperial Irrigation District director, and cattlemen Bill Plourd of El Toro Exports and Bill Brandenburg, Meloland Cattle Company, absent was Paul Cameron of Mesquite Cattle Feeders.

Kelley mentioned that National Beef never gave any figures they had to have to stay, but said they had lost many millions of dollars yearly at the Brawley plant.

Bill Plourd said the cattlemen met many times, with the ad hoc committee and with all the Imperial Valley Cattle Feeders. Last January 2013, the feedlots had agreed to a reduction of $15 million, on top of that they promised another $9 million reduction in prices.

“We have to be competitive, too. We buy cattle, we have to buy feed. To be successful and continue attracting customers there has to be a profit. Otherwise our customers will leave and ship their cattle where they can make money,” Brandenburg explained to the room.

Matt Desert said they cut their electrical rates to the historical contract that they had given when the plant first opened. This totaled $2.1 million in savings.

Wharton said the city of Brawley spent many hours combing through rates looking for ways to save the plant.

George Nava said that there was still reason to hope. “The door isn’t closed completely. It may just be a crack, but it is still open. We will continue our dialogue with National Beef CEO Terry Wilkinson in Kansas City, Mo. and chief financial officer Simon McGee.” He also added that National Beef did go from saying the plant would be moth-balled, to they would consider any reasonable offer.

Kelley said, “If you know of anybody interested, give me their name. I’ll call them.”

Plourd said that the cattlemen would now adjust their herd size. Many had recently expanded to meet the needs of the market, but now would downsize until the market reached its equilibrium.

Brandenburg added that through all of this the cattlemen remained united in trying to save the cattle industry and this would reverberate all through California, not just the Imperial Valley.

“We have clients that buy bull calf Holsteins from dairies and now that market is disappearing.

Ryan said that they wanted to give special recognition to Senator Ben Hueso and Assemblyman Manuel Perez and how they made calls and met with local officials. In the end, the State of California didn’t move in their regulations.

“In fact, the state didn’t seem to care,” Ryan said.

“But the cattlemen, they did not shy away. They gave their all.”

National Beef released this statement on February 21, 2014:

National Beef would like to thank the City of Brawley, Imperial County, the State of California, the regional cattle feeding industry and other community leaders that participated in developing and submitting a proposed incentive package in an effort to keep our Brawley processing facility open. The response was quick, thoughtful and well organized across many agencies. We have listened to the feedback and are grateful to all who were involved in the effort to support the continued operation of the facility.

We have considered all of the alternatives, but unfortunately, the barriers to profitably operate the facility continue to exist. Even with the proposed incentive package, the declining supply of fed cattle available for the Brawley facility remains the key driver of our decision to close the plant.

“We truly regret the impact this may cause to our employees. Their loyalty and dedication has been remarkable, and we will be offering assistance to help them transition to other opportunities,” said Tim Klein, chief executive officer, National Beef.

National Beef will continue to operate through this transition period until the last day of production, which is currently anticipated to be April 4, 2014.

National Beef:

We are a leading American beef supplier dedicated to providing fresh, chilled and further processed beef and beef by-products for our customers. Our focus is to expand our branded boxed beef, case ready beef, portion control beef and wet blue leather businesses to continue to meet and exceed the growing needs of our customers.

National Beef^® has grown from a single beef plant in 1992 to the fourth largest beef processor in the U.S. Our goal is to ensure that our customers have the tools they need to drive their own growth in the marketplace.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:55-07:00February 26th, 2014|

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OVERREACHES HUMAN RIGHTS

The Endangered Species Act Turns 40

A Statement by Rob Rivett, President, Pacific Legal Foundation.

This year the Endangered Species Act turns 40. President Richard Nixon, on December 28, 1973, signed into law one of the nation’s most powerful environmental laws. The law vested authority in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to enforce a wave of new regulations, and create a new relationship between homo sapiens and other species.

Soon after its passage, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it the most comprehensive law ever passed for the protection of species and that ESA enforcement must occur “whatever the cost.” Federal officials have used their power under the Act to regulate private property as if it were public land.

The degree to which the ESA has been successful is a matter of debate. Of the estimated $3 billion of taxpayer funds necessary to fund the annual operation of the ESA, less than 1 percent of the species in North America have been recovered out of more than 1,400 that have been listed. One undebatable fact is the law has created a flood of lawsuits, those filed to seek government acts, and those filed to limit them.

Since its founding in 1973 — the same year the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted — Pacific Legal Foundation has been America’s watchdog in the courts to check and reverse government abuse of this and other environmental laws.

PLF has enough experience with the ESA to know that a well-intentioned law can completely turn the tables on common sense, sound science, and the fundamental freedoms of people. PLF believes in responsible stewardship of our land, water, and air for the benefit of people, the environment, and the species that inhabit it. The trouble comes when a law designed to help species harms the people who care for the environment — including farmers, ranchers, and foresters — those living and working in America’s “environment.”

The protection of the environment is only one of many competing and important social values in America. In an orderly society, no single value can be exalted “whatever the cost.” Environmental laws can and must be administered so as to safeguard, and not thwart, fundamental human needs and rights. Therefore, Pacific Legal Foundation has assumed a leading role in protecting constitutionally established limits on governmental power and ensuring individual freedom.

Nearly 40 years after its enactment, the Federal Endangered Species Act remains one of the nation’s most potent threats to our constitutionally protected property rights. Crafted by the Congress with the noble goal of saving species from extinction, and helping them to return to health, the law today has led to controversy and regulatory creep across our nation’s landscape.

Because Pacific Legal Foundation supports a balanced approach to environmental regulations — like the ESA, we’re taking the opportunity in 2013 to examine aspects of the law, with particular emphasis on past and current cases we’ve litigated.

During the course of the year, this landing page will feature PLF opinion articles, videos, podcasts, and news and information about current PLF cases.  Whether you are part of the “regulated community” or just a concerned citizen who values liberty and a thriving environment, I invite you to check in regularly on this page to see our latest postings and to give us your feedback.

Of course, as a nonprofit legal charity, Pacific Legal Foundation welcomes your charitable donations.

If you believe, as we do, that in protecting our nation’s environment, our constitutional rights should not be threatened or endangered by government agencies and activist groups, I invite you to become a supporter of PLF’s legal program.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:06:03-07:00August 22nd, 2013|

ANOTHER BIOLOGICAL OPINION CHALLENGE

New Biological Opinion for Yuba River Dams!

According to the Association of California Water Agencies, a federal court ordered a new biological opinion (BiOp) for Daguerre Point and Englebright Dams this week.

U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England set a May 12, 2014 due date for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to issue a new biological opinion, and told the federal government to not utilize the existing 2012 BiOp in the preparation of the new opinion or in any Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing processes for the two dams.

Yuba County Water Agency, Nevada Irrigation District, Pacific Gas & Electric and other plaintiffs challenged the 2012 BiOp, which identified dam removal and other fish passage improvements as the preferred approaches to improve conditions for spring run Chinook salmon, steelhead and green sturgeon.

The local water agencies argued that fish passage improvements or dam removal would negatively impact water deliveries and hydropower generation, and imperil the award-winning Lower Yuba River Accord, a regional agreement benefitting agriculture and fisheries. Furthermore, the plaintiffs said the 2012 BiOp was flawed and violated key elements of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.

England issued a stay of proceedings until the new biological opinion is done, and he denied a related lawsuit from a local environmental group seeking enforcement of the 2012 BiOp. He also ordered the Army Corps of Engineers, which maintains the two dams, to continue taking steps to improve fish habitat on the river.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:06:03-07:00August 17th, 2013|

Tulare County Ag Value Just Behind Fresno!

Tulare County 2012 Crop Report Production Value Up 10 Percent

Tulare County’s total gross production value for 2012 is $6.22 billion. The report, released today, showed an increase of $581 million, or 10 percent above the 2011 value of $5.6 billion.

Dairy products continue to be the leading agricultural commodity in the County, with a total gross value of $1.8 billion, a decrease of 12 percent.

“Milk represents 29 percent of the total crop and livestock value for 2012,” said Marilyn Kinoshita, Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner. “Total milk production in Tulare County remained relatively stable,” she said.

Possibly, if milk prices were a little higher during the year, Tulare County would have beat Fresno County for the first time!

“Livestock and Poultry’s gross value of $661 million represents an increase of 5.8 percent above 2011, mostly due to an increase in value for turkeys, cattle and calves,” noted Kinoshita.

Fruit and nut commodities were valued at $2.8 billion representing an increase of 29 percent. “The majority of this gain was the result of an excellent year for our grape category,” Kinoshita noted.

The total value of all field crops was $776 million, an increase of 24 percent from 2011. “Local demand for dairy feed continues to keep high values for our field crops. Nursery products were valued at $67 million, representing an increase of 2.5 percent over last year. “This minor increase is a reflection of the continued uncertainties in both the housing and agricultural markets,” Kinoshita explained.

Vegetable crops were valued at $20 million in 2012, representing a less than one percent increase.

“The 2012 report covers more than 120 different commodities, 43 of which have a gross value in excess of $1 million. Although individual commodities may experience difficulties from year to year, Tulare County continues to produce high-quality crops that provide food and fiber to more than 84 countries throughout the world,” said Kinoshita.

Kinoshita expressed appreciation to her staff, particularly Lea Pereira, Jacqui Balderas, and Dennis Haines for their contributions to the report.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-08-31T13:28:59-07:00July 23rd, 2013|

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

California Ag News…
At Your Fingertips!