California

Data, Dirt and the 100-Year Legacy: Inside Rib-Arrow Dairy’s Tech Revolution

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 14:08:23 GMT

In the heart of Tulare, Calif., where the Central Valley sun can push the mercury past 110°F and the mud of a rainy season can challenge even the sturdiest boots, Tyler Ribeiro is conducting an experiment in mediocrity-free farming.

Ribeiro is the fourth generation of his family to steward a dairy legacy that spans over a century. Since 1994, the family has operated at the current Rib-Arrow Dairy site, but the operation today looks vastly different than the one his grandfather managed. With 1,500 milking cows, 1,000 Holstein-Angus crosses for beef and 800 acres of farmland, Rib-Arrow is a high-octane intersection of traditional animal husbandry and cutting-edge silicon.

Tyler Ribeiro

(Rib-Arrow Dairy)

“I am not one that likes to settle for mediocre,” Ribeiro says, standing in the middle of a barn designed with the precision of a wind tunnel. “We are pushing the systems we have, and we’re learning as we go. I haven’t got paid enough to tell you all the good things and none of the bad — we’re going through it as it is.”

(Rib-Arrow Dairy)

The Cow-Centric Blueprint

Walking through Rib-Arrow, it becomes clear every piece of steel and every line of code is centered on the cow’s perspective. This philosophy starts with the physical geometry of the barn. Ribeiro’s father and grandfather designed the entrance to the milking parlor to be narrow, widening as it opens up.

“It’s like being in a tunnel behind a big rig,” Ribeiro explains. “If you can’t see what’s in front of the truck, you’re hesitant. The way this is set up, as they’re walking in, they can see around the cow in front of them. It helps their load time speed up dramatically.”

Comfort is equally engineered. Along the top of the barn, an array of fans and cooling soakers manage the California heat. But these aren’t just on-off switches. The system uses eye-to-eye sensors. If a cow isn’t in a specific area, the cooling grid shuts off to conserve resources. In a closed-loop nod to sustainability, the water used to soak the cows and clean the lanes is captured from the cisterns used to cool the milk.

(Rib-Arrow Dairy)

Seeing the Unseen: The Locomotion Revolution

Perhaps the most significant bite Rib-Arrow has taken in recent years is the implementation of Nedap SmartSight vision technology. For a hands-on dairyman like Ribeiro, admitting that a camera can see better than a human eye was a hurdle, but the data has been undeniable.

“A lame cow used to be something you could see — she was limping,” Ribeiro says. “But the camera showed us we have problems with feet long before there is a limp. It’s like wearing the same running shoes for a year on concrete. That subclinical pressure on the joints, ankles and knees starts a decline we can’t visually pick up until it’s too late.”

The impact is most visible in first-lactation animals. These bulletproof heifers often hide discomfort, but the vision tech caught the subtle crooked gait that leads to chronic issues. At the start of the program, lameness prevalence in first-lactation cows was 6%. Today, overall and severe lameness rates have been slashed to just 2% — one-third of what they were.

Precision Management in the Cloud

The vision tech doesn’t work in a vacuum. It is paired with Nedap activity monitoring collars and the Cow Locating system. This tech stack allows Ribeiro’s team to not only receive an alert that a cow needs attention but to pinpoint her exact location in the barn. This data flows into NedapNow, a cloud-based platform that provides real-time insights.

Ribeiro has even refined the software’s parameters to match the biological reality of hoof healing.

“We found that a 31-day hold time wasn’t enough for a hoof to grow out and heal. We’ve moved to a 41-day sweet spot. If she’s still flagging after that, we know we need to look deeper.”

This level of precision changes the economic math of the dairy. Ribeiro points to a high-producing cow the system flags frequently.

“The guys ask why we keep bringing her in. I tell them, for a cow like that, I’ll pay $7 a month in maintenance to keep her in the herd and keep her comfortable,” he says. “We’re aiming for old cows — high-producing, healthy veterans.”

(Rib-Arrow Dairy )

Automating the Dirty Work

While the cameras watch the cows, other automated systems handle the grueling maintenance tasks that traditionally lead to labor fatigue. Rib-Arrow has used HoofStrong automated foot baths since 2015. Running five days a week and rotating between Formalin and a proprietary copper/zinc formula (LQA), the system is entirely self-contained and self-cleaning.

“It doses via schedule to keep the potency where it’s supposed to be, and then pressure pumps the manure and product out at the end of milking,” Ribeiro notes. “It keeps my people away from the chemicals and ensures the protocol is executed perfectly every single time.”

Even pest control has gone high-tech. Ribeiro uses a three-pronged approach to flies: baits, parasitic wasps and an automated flash-spray system. The sprayer, triggered by sensors as cows pass through, provides full-body coverage without wasting product or requiring an employee to stand in a cloud of spray.

The Human Element and the Future

Despite the heavy lean into automation, the human element at Rib-Arrow remains remarkably stable. Most of Ribeiro’s outside crew has been with the dairy for over a decade. The technology hasn’t replaced them; it has empowered them.

“The system shines a light on things you’d look at and say, ‘She’s healthy,’” Ribeiro says. “Now, we have to educate ourselves on what the data is actually saying. My guys have tablets in their Kubotas. My breeder has a tablet. We’re all looking at the same real-time truth.”

Ribeiro, a self-described “computer geek and data nerd,” isn’t finished. He’s already planning to install Nedap’s pass-through ID system in the parlor to replace older RFID tech that struggled with “noise.” This will pave the way for Nedap’s SmartFlow milk meters, closing the loop on individual cow performance data.

As Rib-Arrow Dairy moves toward an average lactation of 2.7 and beyond, the goal remains the same as it was 100 years ago: healthy cows and a sustainable business. The difference now is that Tyler Ribeiro has a digital eye in the sky and a mountain of data to ensure the next 100 years are even better than the last.

“I hate it when people show up and say, ‘You’re doing a great job,’” Ribeiro concludes. “Show me where I’m missing. Show me the holes. That’s what this technology does — it shows me where I need to work.”

Your Next Read:
Leading Through the Storm: How This Mother of Three Navigated a Dairy Transition Alone

California Reopens Dairy Cattle Shows Following HPAI Ban

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 17:01:47 GMT

After more than a year on the sidelines, dairy cattle and poultry shows are returning to California fairgrounds. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has lifted its statewide ban on exhibitions, clearing the way for shows to resume.

The restriction was put in place at the beginning of 2025 as the state tracked the spread of H5N1 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). After months of surveillance and review, state officials now say conditions have improved enough to allow a cautious restart.

According to the department, the decision was based on ongoing monitoring of H5N1 activity across the state, analysis of viral trend data and consultation with state and federal epidemiologists. After a detailed review, the CDFA has determined the risk associated with poultry and dairy cattle exhibitions has declined enough to allow shows to resume, provided enhanced safeguards remain in place.

State officials pointed to stronger biosecurity awareness across the industry as a factor in the decision. Over the past year, producers and exhibitors have become more familiar with transmission risks and prevention strategies, helping reduce overall exposure concerns.

As fair season draws closer, CDFA says the move gives clearer direction to youth livestock programs, breeders and exhibitors who have spent months unsure whether animals would make it back to the show ring.

While the ban has been lifted, fairgrounds and exhibitors are being urged to stay cautious. Enhanced biosecurity measures, routine health checks and careful animal handling are still recommended, especially in high-traffic areas. State monitoring of H5N1 will continue throughout the exhibition season, with officials working alongside fair organizers and animal owners as events resume.

Nightly Battles and Big Losses: Ranchers Demand Reform as Wolves Continue to Wreak Havoc

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 18:42:52 GMT

It’s hard to fathom: 92 confirmed or probable kills of cattle by three wolves during one season (April to October 2025) in the Sierra Valley. For ranchers, it’s more than economical loss — the emotional toll of dealing with wolves targeting their livestock and livelihoods is real.

Reintroduction and management of wolves in Sierra County, Calif., has led to significant challenges. The community, led by officials such as Paul Roen, has been actively pushing for updated management protocols, enhanced deterrence measures and better support from state and federal agencies to address the escalating wolf-livestock conflict.

Roen, a Sierra County supervisor (similar to a county commissioner) and rancher, explains it’s more than a livestock issue; it is a human safety issue.

“These wolves were not bothered by humans whatsoever. I mean, they were not acting like wild animals at all,” he says in reference to the wolves killing cattle earlier this year.

Rick Roberti, California Cattlemen’s Association president and a cattle rancher in Sierra Valley, adds: “For every confirmed kill you find, there’s probably four to six others. The wolves had gotten so used to eating cattle they didn’t hardly even look at a deer if they could find one.”

Roen and Roberti both stress the wolves have no fear of humans, with frequent sightings near homes and barns.

The severity of the attacks led Roen and other local officials to declare a state of emergency, drawing statewide and media attention. Despite the efforts of ranchers and local authorities — including constant night patrols, protective measures and deployment of technology like drones — wolf predation persisted. The community also engaged with state and federal resources, including a Strike Force sent by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to document the losses and explore possible intervention .

The program, designed to prevent livestock attacks on ranching properties in the heavily impacted Sierra Valley, deployed more than 18,000 staff hours across 114 days, engaging in 95 hazing events that helped to prevent an even greater loss in cattle deaths.

Eighteen Sierra Valley ranches enrolled in the program. CDFW staff also assisted ranches in evaluating the use of wolf-deterring fladry and ensuring livestock carcasses are correctly disposed to avoid attracting scavenging wolves. Additionally, the program helped facilitate depredation investigations, enabling ranchers to access compensation through CDFW’s Wolf-Livestock Compensation Program .

Following the unprecedented level of livestock attacks across the Sierra Valley, CDFW, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), took the step of lethally removing four gray wolves from the Beyem Seyo pack.

“This action follows months of intensive non-lethal management efforts to reduce livestock loss and is grounded in the best available science and understanding of wolf biology,” according to the press release.

Roen says progress dealing with the wolf issue came with federal involvement and local law enforcement support. He says when the sheriff got involved , people woke up in Sacramento.

Read more about how sheriff departments from seven California counties united to oppose environmental polices they believe threaten ranchers and farmers.

Not Just California

The gray wolf is on the federal endangered species list except in the Northern Rocky Mountain region of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, the eastern one-third of Oregon, Washington and north-central Utah. In Minnesota, the gray wolf is considered threatened. Because of these protections, killing a wolf in the states where it’s protected is illegal, even if it’s seen killing livestock.

Luke Morgan, Lightning Bolt Cattle Company general manager, has been dealing with wolves since 2011 when they first came to Oregon. Morgan manages 2,500 mother cows on multiple locations in Oregon and Washington using both public and private lands.

A pack of wolves that live on one of the Lightning Bolt ranches in western Oregon have been causing havoc the past couple years. According to Morgan, the wolves killed more than 25 head of livestock from mid-October to mid-November.

He says the wolves prey the weak-minded: “Whatever can’t take the pressure … the ones that will break and run.”

(CDFW)

Cattle producer Amy Anderson Fitzpatrick says her family has also been dealing with wolves since 2011. They raise cattle in southern Oregon during the grazing season (May to December), then move the herd to winter in Northern California. The base ranch, called Rancheria Ranch, is in the mountains of Oregon and is a mix of owned land and permitted grazing. The operation includes commercial cow herd plus some yearlings.

Since 2019, Fitzpatrick says at least 24 cattle deaths have been attributed to wolves, though actual losses are likely higher due to unconfirmed cases in the rugged terrain.

“I have learned far more about wolves and their behavior than I could ever imagine. Wolves kill for food, yes, but they also kill to hone their skills, teach their young and for fun. We have witnessed wolves literally bumping livestock bedded down to get them up and running to chase them,” Fitzpatrick says. “We’ve been dealing with it for about 14 years. … The earlier pack, the Rogue Pack, would hit Fort Klamath hard in the summer months when there was an abundance of yearling cattle, then in the fall they’d come over the hill to Rancheria and hit us. Now we deal with what is known as this Grouse Ridge Pack, which seems to just like to hang out at the ranch and hit our permit country in the summertime.”

Fitzpatrick says they previously anticipated up to five losses per year from cattle turned out on the range as a cost of doing business. With the increase in wolf population, the ranch tallied between 35 and 40 mostly weaned calves during the 2024 season.

The Rogue Pack would kill livestock as sport and not consume the animals. However, the current, larger pack tends to consume more carcasses, further complicating verification.

In Wisconsin over the past 12 months, wolf attacks on livestock have increased. According to the state’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR), there have been 62 livestock depredation incidents in 2025 — 45 killed and 17 confirmed harassments — all of which are either livestock or pets. That’s nearly double the number of incidents reported just three years ago.

According to the Wisconsin Farm Bureau : “Wisconsin’s wolf population has rebounded from extinction to an undeniable conservation success. But lately, it feels more like a horror story than a success story.”

Read more about how ranchers say they are willing to deal with wolves if they will return to their natural habitat:
Wolves Are Not Going Away: Ranchers Push for Practical Management Tools

(Paul Roen)

Financial Loss is Real

Herd-level effects beyond death loss include lower conception rates, 50 lb. to 75 lb. weaning weight declines and cow herd fear. Wolves have changed cattle behavior significantly.

Fitzpatrick says the presence of wolves has caused observable stress and aggression in the cattle, leading to behavioral changes, abortions and decreased weaning weights.

“Wolves actively harass resting cattle, preventing them from relaxing or thriving,” she says.

Morgan says herd experience more vulnerability during calving season. He points out calves and protective dams are high-risk with wolf attacks leading to increasing accidental calf deaths and stress-related herd disruptions.

Research by Tina Saitone, a University of California-Davis professor and cooperative Extension specialist in livestock and rangeland economics, found one wolf can cause up to $162,000 in annual financial loss .

Compensation is Available But Falls Short

Compensation frameworks exist but often lack speed and scope and require confirmations that are often unfeasible. Morgan says there’s not even close to enough funds in the pool to cover all the losses.

“There is money appropriated in California, but we’re just having a hard time getting it,” Roberti adds. “Most have been waiting since April.”

All four producers say depredations are significantly undercounted compared with real losses due to terrain, investigation lags and evidence requirements. A shared frustration is the fact if an animal is nearly completely consumed, the investigators can’t find the evidence it was a wolf attack and thus, it does not count as a wolf depredation.

Emotional Toll is Substantial

For cattle producers impacted by wolves, it’s more than the financial toll; it’s the human factor, the stress incurred.

“Financial-wise, it’s huge. It’s astronomical, if you really dig into it, but the mental capacity it takes from us and the people who work for us is huge,” Morgan says. “The emotional toll we have to go through just watching and observing cattle, and we spend every day we possibly can trying to keep these animals alive.

“There’s nothing pretty about the way [wolves] kill animals,” he continues. “For us to go out and find them or have to deal with that, it’s huge emotionally.”

Fitzpatrick explains the losses due to wolves have deeply affected her dad.

“My dad is 81 years old, and I have never seen him so depressed,” she explains. “He’s not the same; he’s lost the fight. It’s like we’ve lost. How do you put a price tag on that?”

Dealing with wolves it is a safety issue as well, Roberti adds. As producers stay up all night checking on and protecting their cattle. Fitzpatrick agrees, summarizing the stressful steps she takes to check cattle, noting she now avoids certain tasks due to the increased risks to herself and her dogs.

Documenting the events in Sierra County, Roen says he hopes their experiences can be used as a road map for others. He plans to share plans, forms and training materials with ranchers facing similar threats.

“We created different plans and trainings we will allow everybody to plagiarize,” he says.

Your Next Read:
Wolves Are Not Going Away: Ranchers Push for Practical Management Tools

The Cost of Coexistence With Wolves

The Cost of Coexistence With Wolves

Mon, 14 Jul 2025 17:13:14 GMT

Wolves continue to cause ranchers havoc, including significant income loss. Recent research estimates the wolves are causing some impacted ranchers in the Southwest to lose 28% of their income potential.

“While the expansion of gray and Mexican gray wolf populations is often hailed as a conservation success, the consequences for ranching families can be gruesome, costly and complex,” says Daniel Munch, American Farm Bureau Federation economist. “They are threatening the safety of ranch families and their pets and livestock, as well as the long-term survival of multigenerational ranches and the rural economies they anchor.”

Munch summarized a recent University of Arizona study that focused on the Mexican gray wolf and analyzed both direct livestock depredation and indirect effects such as stress-induced weight loss and elevated management costs based on 2024 cattle prices. Findings are based on survey responses from impacted ranchers, modeling of herd-level financial outcome and county-level livestock performance trends.

“In areas with wolf presence, even a moderate level of impact, such as 2% calf loss, 3.5% weight reduction and average management costs, can reduce annual ranch revenue by 28%,” Munch says.

While the study focuses on Mexican gray wolves in the Southwest, the core challenges it identifies — livestock depredation, herd stress and weight loss, increased management costs and difficulties accessing timely compensation — are not unique to that region. Ranchers across the northern Rockies, Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes states report similar experiences as wolf populations have expanded.

“Because these economic stressors stem from common predator-prey dynamics and livestock production systems, the study’s findings provide a credible framework for estimating broader impacts,” he says. “This Market Intel draws on that foundation to illustrate the tangible financial risks associated with predator recovery and highlight the need for responsive, producer-informed wildlife policy in all regions affected by wolf activity.”

Key statistics shared by Munch in his article, “ Wolves and the West: The Cost of Coexistence ,” include:

$1,336 average value loss per calf due to wolves. Whether the calf was a day old or nearly ready for market, the rancher loses its full market value, estimated at $1,336 in 2024 for a 525 lb. calf.
A 2% loss of calves could reduce a 367-head ranch’s net income by 4%, or about $5,195, for that year. At higher loss levels, such as 14% of calves, net income could fall by as much as 34%, or roughly $42,599, in that same year.

When a cow is killed, the financial hit extends over multiple years.

“The operation not only loses that year’s calf, but also future offspring, along with the revenue and herd stability that cow would have provided,” Munch explains. “Ranchers then have to retain or buy replacements. This means fewer animals are available for sale, working capital must be used to buy additional replacements and herd development is ultimately delayed. Excluding these long-term impacts, the revenue loss associated with the loss of a single cow was estimated at $2,673.”

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

Figure 2 displays the calculated value of calves lost under this scenario, assuming each calf is valued at $1,336. This generates a loss of 13,514 calves out of an inventory of 1.87 million calves valued at $18 million in wolf-occupied counties. The states with the highest number of calf depredations under this scenario are Montana ($3 million; approximately 2,307 calves) and Idaho ($2.7 million; approximately 2,044 calves).

Keep in mind this method assumes static wolf presence at the county level. Wolves regularly traverse dozens of miles per day, crossing county and state borders, so county-level presence can vary widely year to year.

58% of those surveyed had stress- or depredation-related wolf impacts on their operation (compared to just 38% reporting depredation).
3.5% reduction in average calf weaning weight (18.4 lb.). According to Munch a figure supported by published field research — can significantly reduce revenues across an entire herd.

At the $2.54 per lb. value reference in the study ($1,336/525 lb. average), a ranch that markets 80 head would lose out on $3,738 in marketable weight value.

“Weight loss can be much higher in regions with elevated wolf activity,” Munch says. “If that same ranch experienced a 10% reduction in weaning weight, the loss would exceed $10,600 before even factoring in additional impacts like reduced conception rates.”

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

Using these assumptions about ranch exposure to wolf presence and average weight loss, Figure 3 presents the estimated revenue loss by state. In total, more than $50 million in potential calf weight value was lost due to wolf presence, including $8.6 million in Montana and $7.6 million in Idaho alone.

Ranchers reported an average cost of $79 per cow for conflict avoidance measures and associated labor.

Wolf presence forces ranchers to change the way they manage their operations — often at a steep cost. In wolf-occupied areas, ranchers routinely implement additional strategies to deter predation, respond to attacks and monitor herds across expansive rangelands.

“These management efforts are both labor- and resource-intensive,” Munch says.

Even before accounting for any depredation or stress-related weight loss, these management expenses alone reduced net returns for the average ranch by 19%. Through interviews and surveys, producers indicated they spent anywhere from several thousand dollars to over $150,000 per year on these efforts.

“For our analysis, we convert the $79 per cow figure to $55.30 per calf based on their 70% calf crop assumption,” he explains. “We then apply this per-calf cost to estimate statewide wolf-management expenses, using the study’s finding that 58% of ranchers in wolf-occupied counties experience wolf-induced stressors. Based on these assumptions, ranchers nationwide spend over $60 million each year on efforts to mitigate the impacts of gray wolves.” (Figure 4)

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

All combined, on a ranch experiencing a modest 2% calf depredation and 3.5% weight loss that also spends the average reported amount on conflict avoidance, annual ranch revenues are reduced by 28% ($34,642). These combined costs, reflecting $128 million in annual costs to U.S. ranchers, are displayed in Figure 5.

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

45% drop in the ranch’s long-term earning potential. The study projected what repeated losses from wolves would do to a ranch’s profitability over 30 years. Even a moderate level of impact — losing 2% of calves and 3.5% lower weights — would reduce the ranch’s net present value by more than $191,000.

“In plain terms, that’s a 45% drop in the ranch’s long-term earning potential,” Munch says.

The study estimates that, without wolf impacts, the ranch would generate about $420,000 in long-term profits (in today’s dollars). With average wolf-related losses, that shrinks to $228,000.

“While a single year’s loss might seem manageable, the effects compound over time,” Munch says. “Smaller calf crops mean fewer replacements and fewer animals to sell, while lower weights reduce revenue year after year. These cumulative impacts ripple through herd management and finances, steadily eroding profitability and increasing the odds that the operation may not be financially sustainable in the long run.”

Munch summarizes if predator recovery efforts are to be economically sustainable, they must be accompanied by policies that recognize the people on the front lines: those whose livelihoods now depend not only on their animals but also on a system that values and supports the cost of coexistence.

“That’s the heart of the issue,” Munch explains. “For many ranching families, the return of wolves is not just a wildlife management question, it’s a daily reality shaped by decisions made in distant urban centers, often by voters and officials who will never have to look into the eyes of a mother cow searching for her calf. Ranchers are the ones bearing the real-world costs of policies shaped far from the range. And they’re doing so while continuing to care for livestock, steward the land and feed a growing world.”

California Issues New Ban on Dairy Cattle and Poultry Shows in Response to H5N1 Bird Flu

Thu, 09 Jan 2025 16:42:37 GMT

California State Veterinarian Dr. Annette Jones has issued a statewide ban on exhibiting dairy cattle and poultry at fairs and shows due to the ongoing spread of H5N1 Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) among dairy herds and domestic poultry. This decision, which comes in the wake of Governor Gavin Newsom’s state of emergency declaration last month, is aimed at curbing the devastating effects of the outbreak on California’s livestock and poultry industries.

“Due to the continued spread of H5N1 Bird Flu in California, the State Veterinarian has implemented a ban on all California Poultry and Dairy Cattle Exhibitions at fairs and shows immediately until further notice,” the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) announced in a press release. “This action is required to minimize the danger of exposing people and non-infected cows and birds to the disease.”

The outbreak, which began in the state in August 2024, has affected over 700 dairy herds and 60 poultry flocks, impacting more than 15 million birds across California. Within the last 30 days, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) reports that 149 new confirmed cases had been detected within the state. With new infections still being detected, the ban is a step to prevent further spread of the virus.

Currently the CDFA is urging dairy and poultry owners to take immediate action by implementing strict biosecurity measures. These include preventing the mingling of livestock with wild birds or other infected animals, avoiding the movement or sharing of potentially contaminated equipment, and ensuring rigorous sanitation practices.

“Enhanced biosecurity is essential to protecting livestock and poultry from this devastating disease,” the CDFA stated. “Producers must prevent contact with wild bird populations and avoid any practices that might facilitate the transfer of the virus.”

Clinical signs of H5N1 Bird Flu in cattle include reduced feed consumption, a marked drop in milk production—sometimes resulting in thick, colostrum-like milk or no milk production at all—respiratory distress, nasal discharge, lethargy, dehydration, fever, and abnormal feces.

The ban on exhibitions is expected to remain in effect until the outbreak is under control, with officials monitoring the situation closely.

Your Next Read: Fake Farmer Steals $8.75M In Green Energy Scam

California Issues State of Emergency Warning in Response to More Bird Flu Found on Dairies

Wed, 18 Dec 2024 22:45:29 GMT

California Governor Gavin Newsom recently proclaimed a State of Emergency to accelerate California’s response to avian influenza A (H5N1), or more commonly known as ‘bird flu.’

According to Newsom, this action comes as cases were detected in dairy cows on farms in Southern California, signaling the need to expand monitoring further and build on the coordinated statewide approach to contain and mitigate the spread of the virus.

“This proclamation is a targeted action to ensure government agencies have the resources and flexibility they need to respond quickly to this outbreak. Building on California’s testing and monitoring system — the largest in the nation — we are committed to further protecting public health, supporting our agriculture industry, and ensuring that Californians have access to accurate, up-to-date information,” Gov. Newsom said in a statement. “While the risk to the public remains low, we will continue to take all necessary steps to prevent the spread of this virus.”

State health officials have reported that cases of H5N1 have been found on 641 dairy farms. The first confirmed case in the state occurred earlier in August, but roughly half of the farms were identified within the last month.

So far, no person-to-person transmission of H5N1 has been reported in California, and nearly all infected individuals have had direct exposure to infected cattle.

According to Newsom, the state has implemented the nation’s most extensive testing and monitoring system to address the outbreak. This recent declaration aims to bolster the state agencies’ response by providing additional staff and resources for testing, heightened quarantine measures, and distributing personal protective equipment to high-risk dairy employees.

Since its initial detection in Texas and Kansas in March 2024, the virus has spread to dairy cattle in 16 states.

Your Next Read: USDA Announces New Federal Order, Begins National Milk Testing Strategy to Address H5N1 in Dairy Herds

A Girl, a Goat and the Law: The Shasta County, CA, Boondoggle

Mon, 17 Apr 2023 19:08:15 GMT

It is entirely possible the Shasta County, Calif., sheriff’s office and the Shasta District Fair have tarnished your image as a food producer more than any radical animal rights group. Both are guilty of actions that are at least ignorant and grossly at odds with the values the fair claims to promote.

This is a story about a 9-year-old girl and her pet goat, Cedar, and the fact grown-ups couldn’t figure out how to bend the rules enough so it didn’t end up written as a tragedy in the New York Times. That’s how it was framed by Nicholas Kristof in his column: “ What a Girl’s Goat Teaches Us About Our Food .”

The story, of course, reveals little about “our food,” but offers a smorgasbord of opportunity for the anti-meat community to criticize meat production, as Kristof does so eloquently. Indeed, the only winner in this public relations debacle is Advancing Laws for Animals , a nonprofit law firm specializing in complex, novel issues of animal law.

In fact, the tale of the little girl and her goat received nationwide press coverage on CNN , USA Today, The Daily Mail, The Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, The Washington Post , Inside Edition, CBS News and many others.

First, Cedar’s story. Or more accurate, how Cedar became such a notorious outlaw the Shasta County sheriff dispatched two deputies – with a search warrant! – on a day-long trip to Sonoma County to retrieve him.

(Farm Journal)

A year ago Jessica Long purchased a goat for her daughter’s 4H project. The girl began preparing to show Cedar at the county fair in June. As Kristof notes, “the girl and goat bonded. Soon Cedar was running to the gate to greet (the girl), and Long says that her daughter walked around with Cedar as if he were a pet dog.”

Cedar was shown and then sold in the 4H auction where state Sen. Brian Dahl (R) paid $902 for the $200 goat, a typical premium for bidders seeking to reward young 4H members. The girl was heartbroken, and a video taken that evening shows her embracing Cedar and sobbing. Unable to bear her daughter’s heartbreak, Long gathered up both the girl and the goat and removed them. As a fugitive from justice, Cedar was taken to a hideout in far-off Sonoma County. Before doing so, she told fair representatives she would reimburse Dahl and pay for any financial hit caused by the decision to keep him.

This would be the point where reasoned adults might bend the rules for a little girl and her pet goat. That didn’t happen. Fair executives were adamant that Cedar must be slaughtered. Long says she received a call from the fair’s livestock manager who allegedly demanded she return Cedar and threatened to have her charged with grand theft, a felony, if she didn’t.

“The fair industry is set up to teach our youth responsibility and for the future generations of ranchers and farmers to learn the process and effort it takes to raise quality meat,” Melanie Silva, the CEO of the fair, emailed Long.

The fair contacted the Shasta County sheriff, who promptly dispatched deputies to apprehend the fugitive goat. This whole hot mess is headed to court.

Long has sued the Shasta County sheriff claiming deputies wrongly seized the family’s goat and then apparently handed it over to the fair authorities. In their response, the county and the sheriff’s office acknowledge that the deputies “drove to Sonoma County to retrieve a goat” and claim that “no warrant was necessary to retrieve Cedar at the Sonoma Farm as they had consent from the property owner.”

Think about this for a moment. Shasta County sent two deputies on a 500-mile, 10-hour round trip to retrieve a $200 goat! Try explaining that to taxpayers come next election.

More important for livestock producers is how the Shasta County Fair and the Shasta County sheriff – both unencumbered by intelligence – created a bonanza for animal rights zealots. Pluck any of the stories about Cedar and visit the comments section. There you’ll find responses across the country nearly unanimous in their defense of the little girl, with many using the opportunity to attack livestock production as “cruel,” “inhumane,” “abhorrent,” etc.

Here are two examples from the NY Times that accurately capture the sentiment:

Craig writes: “There’s a gigantic & worrisome unanswered question here. What kind of officials would agree to trigger such an absolutely cruel & ghoulish act against a child? Who are these people?”

R writes: “I can safely say I am completely against 4-H as an organization having learned what their values are. Insisting on slaughter and death when someone doesn’t want to participate is completely abhorrent.”

Seizing on this opportunity, Advancing Laws for Animals is representing the mother and daughter in the pending lawsuits. Whether they prevail in court is likely secondary for the legal team who will relish the chance to argue for animal rights in open court – and the press coverage the case is sure to attract.

Court Rejects Meat Institute’s Prop 12 Appeal

Mon, 28 Dec 2020 16:00:32 GMT

The North American Meat Institute’s challenge to California’s Proposition 12 has been rejected for a second time.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Meat Institute’s challenge to California’s 2018 ballot initiative that imposes new standards for animal housing. The Court’s Dec. 23 decision confirms an initial decision in October. After the October decision, the Meat Institute appealed for the challenge to be heard by the full panel of judges, but the panel “unanimously voted to deny appellant’s petition for panel rehearing.”

California voters approved the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act with 63% of the vote. The law creates minimum requirements to provide more space for veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens. By 2020, the law requires farmers to give egg-laying hens at least one foot of floor space, and to completely eliminate cages by 2022. Farmers must now give veal calves 43 square feet and sows 24 feet of space.

Challenges by the Meat Institute and others, however, centered around the fact the law applies to out-of-state producers of meat and eggs who want to sell products in California. Both the federal Department of Justice and 20 states joined the Meat Institute’s challenge, arguing the law will contribute to higher food prices for consumers.

“Prop 12 is unconstitutional and not only hurts consumers with higher prices for pork, veal and eggs, it is costly for the federal government’s programs designed to help those facing hunger, including the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” said the Meat Institute’s President/CEO Julie Anna Potts.

Related stories:

Court Upholds California’s Proposition 12