SPEC WLJ V83 N21.Pdf (13.81Mb)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The National Livestock Weekly March 8, 2004 • Vol. 83, No. 21 “The Industry’s Largest Weekly Circulation” www.wlj.net • E-mail: [email protected] • [email protected] • [email protected] A Crow Publication Mexico reopens border, partially By Steven D. Vetter The announcement — Beef that Mexico was par- WLJ Editor U.S. Beef Exports to Mexico tially reopening its from 30- In a significant, and unexpected, change of events, Mexi- (Since 1998; annual volume in metric tons) border to U.S. beef co, last Wednesday, reopened its border to some U.S. beef, ef- 350,000 means the second month-and- fective upon the implementation of a U.S. certification pro- largest beef export gram for beef from cattle 30 months of age or younger. That market is now avail- younger certification program was expected to be completed by the end able to U.S. beef ex- 300,000 porters. Several an- cattle of the business week, meaning U.S. beef could be back in Mex- alysts projected that ico sometime over the weekend. if Phase I of the bor- accepted. That announcement, by Mexico Ag Secretary Javier Usabi- der reopening re- aga, contradicted earlier plans to send a team of Mexican in- 250,000 mains in effect — Live spectors into several U.S. plants before opening the border through the rest of at all. the year that the U.S. cattle ban Sources with USDAsaid the U.S.’second largest export mar- will end up shipping still in ket opened its border to U.S. beef under similar stipulations 200,000 55-60 percent of last the U.S. has had against Canadian beef the past several year’s beef total to Mexico in 2004. — place. months. The primary focus of Mexico’s “Phase I” border re- Data courtesy of opening is on boneless boxed beef from cattle 30 months of 150,000 U.S. Meat Export See Mexico on page 11 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004* 2004 for trade volume *Projected Federation Suit filed against CA ag water exemption Supreme Court by several envi- strictest water quality laws in the But, Thomas also feels the Re- charge to do. By Sarah L. Roen ronmental groups. If successful, nation. Bill Thomas, an attorney for gional Water Quality Control Board Historically, Thomas said all WLJ Associate Editor the already stringent water quali- several ag interests, cattle produc- has come to the realization they types of water discharges, from air Making every single California ty control laws could become even er and chair of the California Cat- can’t manage, oversee, and enforce conditioners and swimming pools producer accountable for their agri- more rigorous and nearly impossi- tlemen’s Association water and en- against more than 25,000 differ- to agriculture return flows and cultural runoff and any practice ble for many producers to stay in vironmental quality committee, ent individuals, which is the num- storm water draining from land, that may negatively impact the en- compliance. said in some ways California wa- ber of producers estimated to be in have been granted waivers by the vironment is the goal of a lawsuit Producers in California already ter quality laws are parallel to the the Central Valley. Therefore, they regional board. Nonetheless, the just filed in the Sacramento feel as if they have some of the federal Clean Water Act. But, in approved a program that would al- environmental community is say- other ways the state laws have the low them to provide waivers for ing these waivers violate state laws potential for interpretation above coalitions of farmers under a wa- that would have required a more and beyond that act. tershed group. Those waivers are intensive program to cut back on Feds hit $85, $137 One of the more regulated issues what sparked environmentalist the pollution source. is non-point source pollution. groups to sue the Regional Water “The waiver doesn’t require Thomas says this topic is where Quality Control Board and the agribusiness to reduce a single before Mexico news California can be very much more State Water Resources Control pound of pollution, implement a detrimental to ranching commu- Board in this Sacramento Supreme single pollution prevention meas- — Spike in boxed beef rallies feds $2-4. nity than federal law. As part of Court lawsuit. ure or meet a single water quali- Fed cattle sellers last week were able to pull another $2-4 per cwt California law, anybody discharg- The environmental community ty standard,” said Bill Jennings, out of packers’ pockets Wednesday, and that was even before news ing water, run-off or otherwise, in- is saying strictly regulating and Waterkeepers of Northern Cali- broke that Mexico had partially reopened its border to boneless U.S. to state waters, needs to have a monitoring every single producer is fornia. “The Water Boards seem to beef. permit. exactly what these boards are in See Suit on page 9 Prices were mostly $85 live, $136 dressed, but there was some dis- gust on the part of producers last Thursday that they didn’t hold out an extra day to get their original asking prices of at least $87 live, $138 in the beef. USFS plans to impound NM cattle “Perhaps they (packers) got wind of something in the works and numbers from 1,188 to 300 head. clear the forest reserve does not in- decided to ante up $85 instead of having to pay another $2 on top of — Producers fight decision saying The Laney’s disagreed with the clude stock watering or stock graz- that,” one Midwest market analyst said. “I’ve heard some disappoint- USFS decision, refused to sign the ing,” said Laney. “And, therefore, the ment from sellers that they didn’t stick to their guns, however, they it’s illegal. grazing permit, and kept grazing forest (Gila National Forest) does- are crazy, in my opinion, to complain, particularly when a lot of them By Sarah L. Roen their cattle on the grounds they n’t have any rights over our stock are seeing $75-plus profits (per head). There was a good chance they WLJ Associate Editor own the forage rights. “Does that watering or our stock grazing.” could have had to settle for $80, if the Mexico situation didn’t mate- Aprecedent-setting case concern- mean I own the dirt?,” said Laney Regardless of the Laney’s claims, rialize.” in an interview on Fox News. “No. USFS sent them a letter in April Other market sources said sellers should be counting their bless- ing the rights to graze on federal- ly-managed land has been brewing But I have the right to the use of and told them to remove the cattle. ings because there was a possibility early in the week that steady in New Mexico, and is about to boil this range.” USFS’ demands were backed by prices, with two weeks ago, would be hard to come by. It was thought over if the U.S. Forest Service (US- In 1997, the court ordered the the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico last Monday’s announcement Mexico would send inspectors into FS) goes ahead with plans to re- Laney’s off their allotment, a deci- who filed a motion of contempt of several U.S. plants would delay the border opening until at least the move a Catron County family’s cat- sion they promptly appealed. How- court under the original court case. third week of the month. Several analysts said a further delay in re- tle. USFS last week said sometime ever, in February of 1999, the Tenth The attorney’s motion was followed opening Mexico trade would subside any chance of a stronger mar- in the next couple weeks they are Circuit Court of Appeals upheld up with an injunction filed by six ket for a week or two. going to impound Kit and Sherry that decision and in the four years environmental groups who want- Through last Thursday, Texas sellers had moved approximately Laney’s cattle for trespassing, but that followed, the allotment remain ed action taken against the Laneys. 48-50,000 head of cattle at mostly $85, with a few isolated reports the Laney’s say USFS has no legal vacant. The environmental groups say of $85.50. Kansas reportedly showed 45,000 head bringing mostly right to do so, and they will fight Then in April of last year, the their goal is to protect habitat for $85. Nebraska trade was up around the 55,000 range, with prices back if this happens. Laney’s put about 150 cattle back the endangered species. ranging $84-86.50 live; $134-138 dressed. Colorado and Iowa moved The Laney’s have been running out on the allotment and used state law to back their maneuver. In a let- See Impound on page 21 14,000 and 24,000 head of feds, respectively. In Colorado, there were cattle on New Mexico’s Diamond Bar Allotment, located in Gila Na- ter to the Secretary of Agriculture, a couple of reports that $86.50 was being paid on the “absolute up- the Laney’s explained that anyone per echelon” cattle. Iowa’s trade also showed some $86 live, $138 tional Forest, dating back as ear- ly as 1883, even before USFS ex- attempting to remove livestock dressed. from the land will be in violation of Packers were able to come to the table with stronger money ear- isted. For several years, they worked with USFS on their graz- state law and subject to prosecution ly in the week thanks to a quick reversal of fortune the previous week as individuals.