New Mexico

Inching Closer: New World Screwworm Now 52 Miles from Border

Fri, 29 May 2026 12:32:09 GMT

New World screwworm (NWS) continues to creep closer to the U.S.-Mexico border. According to Lyndsay Cole, chief of strategic communications NWS directorate for USDA-APHIS, Mexico has reported two new cases in Nuevo León that are about 52 miles away from the border and one was reported Wednesday about 55 miles away in Coahuila.

“There are no cases or suspect cases in the U.S.,” Cole stresses.

New World screwworm is NOT in the U.S. and @USDA continues to deploy proven technology and nationwide outreach to stay ahead of this pest and protect livestock, pets, wildlife, and people.

Preparedness starts with awareness, so get the facts: https://t.co/3qu43ITr1j pic.twitter.com/9Kpc3uxCdO
— USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (@USDA_APHIS) May 28, 2026

Current New World screwworm cases in Mexico as of May 28, 2026.

(USDA APHIS)

A Narrowing Buffer Zone

There are currently 2,072 active cases of NWS in Mexico. USDA continues to disperse 100 million sterile insects per week in Mexico and along the U.S.-Mexico border and closely evaluates the location and circumstances of each new case. The sterile insect release area, or polygon, is adjusted as needed to maintain broad suppression and help prevent the pest from moving into the U.S.

(Lori Hays)

Early Detection: The Stench of Infestation

As NWS inches closer, industry leaders urge producers to shift from worry to action. Early detection, prompt reporting and treatment — backed by coordinated surveillance along the border — will be critical to keeping the treatable pest contained.

Producers who have dealt with the pest often describe it as a smell you’ll never forget , noting that the stench of a calf infested with NWS is often the first warning sign.

The prevention and treatment playbook is already taking shape. Prevention means fewer wounds, tighter calving windows, stronger parasite programs and more “eyeballs” on cattle, backed up by early reporting and a vet-guided treatment plan.

When cases do occur, today’s toolbox — from prescription pour-ons and emergency-use injectables — can limit the damage, as long as producers know how and when to use each tool.

Border Awareness: CBP Issues Traveler Warnings

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced a public awareness campaign warning the South Texas traveling public about the threat of NWS on May 28. CBP Laredo Field Office developed an informational tearsheet in English and Spanish that advises about the threat of NWS and is distributing the tearsheet at the eight ports of entry from Brownsville to Del Rio, Texas, that comprise the Laredo Field Office area of responsibility.

“We are working to increase public awareness regarding New World screwworm so that the public can help prevent this invasive pest from reaching the U.S. and adversely affecting U.S. livestock and pets,” says Laredo Field Office Field Operations Director Donald R. Kusser. “By distributing these tearsheets and amplifying via social media, we are hoping to bring this message to the widest audience possible.”

NWS Resources

Visit Screwworm.gov for a wide range of stakeholder resources for livestock producers, veterinarians, animal health officials, wildlife professionals, healthcare providers, pet owners, researchers, drug manufacturers and the general public. It also has the latest USDA-verified information on cases and response activities in Mexico and U.S. preparedness efforts.

Your Next Reads:

Next Step in the Screwworm Fight: USDA Announces Opening of Sterile Fly Dispersal Facility in Tampico, Mexico

Thu, 13 Nov 2025 18:38:40 GMT

USDA announced Thursday the opening of a sterile fly dispersal facility in Tampico, Mexico. The Tampico facility will allow USDA to disperse sterile flies aerially across northeastern Mexico, including in Nuevo Leon. This announcement is the next milestone in the fight against New World screwworm (NWS).

“The opening of the Tampico sterile fly dispersal facility is another incredibly important tool in our arsenal to stop the spread of screwworm. The facility will ensure flexibility and responsiveness in northern Mexico, giving us a greater ability to drop sterile flies and continue to push the pest south,” said U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in a press release . “Stopping the spread of screwworm is a top priority for the entire Trump administration.”

Last week Rollins met with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and her counterpart Secretary Julio Berdegue on the joint response to NWS.

“We are boosting our efforts and completing a joint review of our screwworm operations in Mexico to ensure our protocols are being followed,” she says. “As we enter the winter months , we continue to prioritize the response in Mexico and the rest of our five-pronged plan to protect U.S. livestock and the livelihoods of American farmers and ranchers.”

A proven method for NWS eradication is releasing sterile male flies to mate with wild females collapsing the population over time. There are two methods of dispersing sterile insects – aerial dispersal and ground release chambers. Aerial operations are preferred because they allow for dispersal at a steady rate through a large area and also because sterile insects may be dispersed in areas that are unreachable from the ground. Ground release chambers are used when there’s a need to quickly deploy sterile insects outside of the dispersal facility range.

Learn more about NWS:
The Smell You’ll Never Forget: A Calf Infested with New World Screwworm

According to the press release, USDA continues to disperse 100 million sterile flies per week in Mexico, but until now, aerial operations have been limited to southern Mexico, necessitating the use of ground release chambers in more northern areas of the country. Mass production and targeted dispersal of sterile flies remain critical components of our effective response.

Although Mexico continues to confirm new cases of NWS, the overwhelming majority of these remain in the far southern part of the country, with no significant northward expansion over the past several months. Should that change, the Tampico facility will allow USDA to immediately tackle any cases that occur elsewhere in Mexico.

The two northernmost detections (approximately 70 and 170 miles from the U.S. border, respectively) occurred in Nuevo León, on Sept. 20 and Oct. 5 , in young cattle transported from Chiapas, Mexico.

Neither case is still active and there have been no additional detections of NWS flies in traps or cases in animals in Nuevo Leon. USDA continues to disperse sterile insects in Nuevo Leon, and will now transition from ground release chambers to aerial dispersal in those areas.

USDA produces sterile flies for dispersal at the COPEG facility in Panama. USDA is also investing $21 million to support Mexico’s renovation of an existing fruit fly facility in Metapa — which will double NWS production capacity once complete. With ongoing support from APHIS technical experts, Mexico anticipates this sterile fly production to begin as soon as summer 2026.

To expand our domestic response capacity, USDA has also begun construction on a sterile fly dispersal facility at Moore Air Base in Edinburg, Texas, that is projected to begin operating in early 2026. APHIS is also expediting design and construction of a sterile fly production facility in southern Texas, with a targeted maximum capacity of 300 million sterile flies per week.

USDA continues to work with Mexico’s agriculture authority, SENASICA, to implement the collaborative NWS Action Plan and guide trapping, surveillance and movement protocols to help stop the northward spread of NWS.

Trade Mission While In Mexico

While Rollins was in Mexico last week, she also led the largest U.S. Department of Agriculture agribusiness trade mission in history. During the mission, 41 U.S. businesses, 33 cooperators and agriculture advocacy groups, six state departments of agriculture, and 150 participants conducted more than 500 business-to-business meetings during the three days.

According to a USDA press release , “This was a critical opportunity for American business to further trade ties and for USDA to continue its aggressive response to NWS in Mexico and continue to hold Mexico accountable for its commitments to the 1944 Water Treaty.”

Honored to lead the largest @USDA Agribusiness Trade Mission in US history to Mexico City!

Over three days, our delegation of 41 US businesses, 33 cooperators, 6 state departments of agriculture, and 150 participants held more than 500 business-to-business meetings - deepening a… pic.twitter.com/39rGi9Snhj
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) November 13, 2025

Your Next Read: Preparing for the Battle Continues: USDA Shares Screwworm Update and Releases NWS Playbook

U.S.-Mexico Border Battle Continues As the Threat of New World Screwworm Intensifies

Wed, 24 Sep 2025 20:04:06 GMT

With New World screwworm (NWS) confirmed just 70 miles from the U.S. border , producers, government officials and industry leaders are taking action. Finding NWS along one of the most heavily trafficked commercial thoroughfares in the world from Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, to Laredo, Texas, is a red flag for the industry. Emphasizing the importance of maintaining strong safeguards, it’s time to plan for not “if but when” NWS crosses the border.

On Monday, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins confirmed protecting the U.S. from NWS is non-negotiable and a top priority for President Trump.

UPDATE ON SCREWWORM THREAT:

Protecting the United States from New World Screwworm is non-negotiable and a top priority for @POTUS.@USDA landed boots on the ground this morning in Nuevo Leon, physically inspecting traps and dispersing sterile flies after the detection of the…
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) September 23, 2025

“The southern border remains closed to livestock trade, and we are aggressively expanding trapping and surveillance,” she wrote. “At the same time, we’re expediting operations at our sterile fly dispersal facility at Moore Air Base in Texas .”

On Tuesday, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins reported 80,000 sterile flies were released on “spot” and nearly 200 surge staff had been deployed to Mexico.

Thank you, @IngrahamAngle, for paying attention to this important issue. Due to multiple failures from our southern neighbors and failure to act in the last Admin, the devastating parasite New World Screwworm is knocking on our southern borders door. We’re not waiting, we’re… pic.twitter.com/ZO5Vx5oes8
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) September 24, 2025

Mexico’s Response To New World Screwworm

According to Reuters, Mexican’s agriculture ministry said there is no risk of adult screwworm fly emergence due to the early detection of the infected bovine, which was confirmed on Sept. 21. The infected animal was in a shipment of 100 animals originating from the Gulf Coast state of Veracruz, according to the statement.

Fly traps in northern Mexico have not detected a single screwworm fly.

U.S.-Mexico Border Remains Closed to Cattle Trade

The Mexican border closure remains a topic of debate. The September Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor found 80% of ag economists surveyed oppose reopening the border to Mexican cattle due to screwworm risks.

(Farm Journal)

The border closure has created significant division within the cattle industry with producers, feeders and industry leaders on both sides of the fence.

“We have some cattle people that are glad it’s closed. We’ve got others who are hit pretty hard and are not happy about it,” explains David Anderson, Texas A&M professor and extension specialist — livestock and food product marketing.

NWS is a threat the industry can not ignore, says the ag economist with more than 30 years under his belt.

“I think this is the most serious problem the industry has faced since I’ve been a livestock economist,” he stresses.

From his perspective, keeping the border open with heightened monitoring and surveillance could have potentially been more effective than implementing a total closure.

“If we go back and look at data from the early ‘70s, when we had a big screwworm outbreak in the U.S. and Mexico, the border was open,” he says. “I probably would have leaned to not closing the border to begin with. I understand why you would want to do that, but I don’t know that it’s ended up reducing the likelihood that we’re going to get screwworms, and yet we’re paying a price for that.”

According to Anderson the economic consequences to the border being closed are:

Significant loss of approximately 26,000 imported cattle weekly
Estimated 18% reduction in cattle placements in Southern plains
Contributed to tighter beef supplies and higher consumer prices
Substantial economic hit to cattle feeders and ranchers

At this point, he’s quick to admit keeping the border closed is the best option.

When it comes to reopening the border, Derrell Peel, Extension livestock marketing specialist with Oklahoma State University, suggests the decision is not straightforward.

“Given everything I’ve experienced, it’s probably prudent to leave the border closed,” he says.

He adds any reopening should be “under very, very controlled, limited circumstances.”

Peel emphasizes the need for a collaborative approach with Mexico.

“We’re kind of in it together, and so whether it’s here or there, we’ve got to work together,” he summarizes. “We’re going to need to control it in both places. Otherwise, it’s not going to benefit either one of us.”

He also points out not everybody in Mexico is sorry the border is closed. For example, cattle buyers in Mexico can source cattle cheaper because the border is closed.

“Keeping the border closed does affect the movement of cattle south of the border ... it builds a backstop for cattle movement north,” he adds.

Peel notes cattle from Central America to Panama have increasingly made their way to the Mexican market, which validates NWS movement in Mexico and why recent confirmation has occurred.

“The longer this goes on, the more the Mexican industry will adjust,” he says. “It might permanently change the way the [U.S. and Mexico] work together.”

Texas Rancher Weighs In On Impact of New World Screwworm

Texas rancher Wayne Cockrell says the parasite’s entry into the U.S. is inevitable, suggesting that winter and colder weather might temporarily delay the spread until next April or May. Cockrell, who serves as the Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association director and chair of the cattle health and well-being policy committee, recently joined AgriTalk to talk about NWS.

“We would much rather stop this on Mexico’s southern border than our Southern border,” Cockrell says.

Mexican feeder cattle traditionally represented 30% of Texas feedyard inventory, he adds, but with current restrictions, feedlots are adapting.

“I think a lot of those feedyards have moved to the dairy-cross side,” he adds. “They have had to change the way they do business.”

Noting the broader economic implications of the border closure, 1.2 million fewer cattle for Texas represents “about two weeks” of impact nationwide, according to Cockrell.

“Winter and sterile flies is what we need now,” Cockrell summarizes.

Your Next Read: The Smell You’ll Never Forget: A Calf Infested with New World Screwworm

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.”

Aerial Gunning of Feral Cattle in New Mexico Set to Begin, USFS Violates Agreement

Wed, 22 Feb 2023 20:10:13 GMT

Feral cattle in New Mexico’s Gila National Forest are expected to come under crosshairs once again as the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) plan to decrease the area’s population via aerial gunning beginning Thursday, Feb. 23.

One year ago, the abrupt notice of the aerial gunning caused the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association (NMCGA) and others to file suit against the USFS. Despite their legal efforts, the mission continued, ultimately leading to 65 head of cattle killed during the 2022 operation.

Following the 2022 event, USFS agreed to “not rely on the same justification it had used for that action” and the organization agreed to provide 75 days in written notice of any future aerial slaughter operations, NMCGA stated in a recent press release.

“Unfortunately, after a year of abiding by our settlement agreement we are now back to square one,” says Loren Patterson, president of NMCGA in the release. “Throughout the past year, we offered real solutions to the Forest Service for the Gila estray problem. Those solutions would address the immediate issue, provide long-term resolution and would be humane.”

USFS and APHIS failed to provide notice of a plan to shoot cattle again, says the NMCGA, violating the agreement. Additionally, NMCGA notes USFS has no authority to shoot cattle, it’s violating its own regulations—which do not authorize shooting cattle—it’s violating the National Environmental Protection Act, and that the shooting operation constitutes animal cruelty under New Mexico law.

Taking legal action, NMCGA and others recently filed a Complaint and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against USFS and APHIS in Federal District Court for New Mexico to stop the mission to shoot cattle in the Gila Wilderness from a flying helicopter, joined as plaintiff by Humane Farming Association.

NMCGA notes the USFS slaughter plan has drawn bi-partisan condemnation, while New Mexico citizens and former residents recognize the carcasses as a waste of food and a way of conditioning predators in the area to prey on livestock.

While the cattle are considered invasive, are threatening to the fish and wildlife habitats of many federally threatened and endangered species, as well as a public safety danger in the Gila National Forest area by USFS, the Western Landowners Alliance also voices its disproval of the aerial gunning routine.

“Everyone agrees the unauthorized cattle need to be removed from the vacant allotment. However, it is deeply disappointing that the agency chose to proceed with another round of aerial gunning, which last year left dead and dying livestock scattered in and along the river,” says Lesli Allison, WLA’s executive director, in a Western Ag Network article .

USFS issued a closure order for the area, beginning Feb. 20, and the aerial gunning is expected to last four days, from Feb. 23 through Feb. 26.

Read More from the 2022 Operation:
Feds Plan Aerial Gunning of Estray Cattle in New Mexico
Feral Cattle Aerial Gunning Continues As Court Denies Restraining Order

Air Force Pollution Forces New Mexico Dairy to Euthanize 3,665 Cows

Wed, 05 Oct 2022 18:44:12 GMT

Art Schaap, owner of Highland Dairy in Clovis, New Mexico, has been living a nightmare for the past four years. Fortunately, it sounds like the nightmare might soon be reaching its end.

In August 2018, Schaap received word that seven of the 13 wells located on his dairy had been contaminated by toxins called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS.) These toxic chemicals entered the groundwater after aqueous film-forming foam, a substance used to smother flames in fire training exercises, were used at the nearby Cannon Air Force Base.

A July 2017 inspection by Air Force scientists found contamination near the Schaap dairy – an inspection that came eight years after the Air Force identified the need for such an inspection, The Guardian reports. The Air Force reported its findings to the New Mexico Environment Department, but not to the people living nearby. When the Air Force finally tested Schaap’s water on Aug. 28, 2018, it was found to be so polluted the military immediately began delivering bottled water to the family’s home. One of Schaap’s wells tested at 12,000 parts per trillion, or 171 times the EPA health advisory level of 70 ppt.

“It’s potentially been in the groundwater the whole time I’ve owned the dairy,” Schaap said.

Unfortunately, the contaminated wells provided drinking water to Schaap’s entire herd. Testing showed the cows, along with the milk they produced, contained PFAS at levels the U.S. Food and Drug Administration deemed unsafe for human consumption. With the milk deemed unsafe, Schaap was forced to dump approximately 15,000 gal. of milk each day.

“This has poisoned everything I’ve worked for and everything I care about,” Schaap told New Mexico Political Report. “I can’t sell the milk. I can’t sell beef. I can’t sell the cows. I can’t sell crops or my property. The Air Force knew they had contamination. What I really wonder is, why didn’t they say something?”

Disposing of the Herd

Four years later, Schaap’s nightmare is finally coming to an end, but not without heartache. After discovering the PFAS toxins were present in his animals, Schaap knew that someday he would be forced to euthanize his entire herd. Unfortunately, that day has come.

Earlier this month, Highland Dairy, with assistance and direction from the State Veterinarian and the New Mexico Livestock Board, humanely euthanized 3,665 cows – Schaap’s entire herd.

The current estimated cost of this loss of revenue and increased expenses is $5,946,462, which does not account for upcoming costs associated with the on-farm composting of animal mortalities and final disposal, according to a New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) news release.

News of the herd’s dispersal is not only striking a nerve with the public, but government officials as well.

“The Department of Defense poisoned Highland Dairy’s cows, and the loss is devastating and heartbreaking,” said James Kenney, New Mexico Environment Department cabinet secretary. “Rather than take responsibility for its PFAS pollution, the Department of Defense put a family farm out of business and has the audacity to continue its litigation against New Mexico – forcing New Mexicans to pay for cleanup and legal costs. As a result, we are now assisting Highland Dairy in managing dairy cow carcasses as hazardous substances and seeking input from experts on treatment and disposal options.”

NMED is the state agency overseeing Highland Dairy’s plan for disposal of PFAS-contaminated livestock, which is required for the dairy to qualify for cow indemnity under USDA’s Dairy Indemnity Payment Program. The program, which USDA expanded late last year, provides payments to dairy producers for the lost value of their herd due to contamination from livestock exposure to chemicals, such as PFAS.

Now, with the animals euthanized, a disposal plan has been set in place.

In the first phase of the plan, the dairy will compost all PFAS-contaminated carcasses on the farm. In the second phase, the dairy will conduct a PFAS analysis of the composted material and any other material to determine final removal and disposal options.

According to the NMED press release, the Highland Dairy removal plan is the first of its kind nationally for addressing PFAS-contaminated cows as a hazardous waste and was developed in consultation with the USDA Farm Service Agency, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the State Veterinarian of New Mexico, the New Mexico Department of Agriculture and NMED.

“I support NMED’s science-based approach to ensure that livestock and other agricultural sectors are safe,” says Jeff Witte, director/secretary of New Mexico Department of Agriculture. “We, unfortunately, already witnessed how PFAS contamination affected a New Mexico dairy.”

The state Environment Department says it has allocated $850,000 of its hazardous waste emergency waste for cleanup of the carcasses and associated wastes. The department estimates it has now spent over $6 million to protect communities from PFAS.

“All states are dealing with PFAS and the agricultural industry. That’s not uncommon. What is uncommon is that New Mexico has the first case to my knowledge in which 3,600 cows have been euthanized. We’re treating PFAS like it should be treated, a hazardous waste,” Kenney says.

While steps are being taken to help resolve this contamination issue, it doesn’t take away the fact that lives were impacted by the chemicals used in training exercises at Cannon Air Force Base.

“Cannon Air Force Base knows what they have done to the groundwater,” Schaap says. “They expect military personnel to have integrity, but what they are doing to the Clovis community and the farms near the base does not demonstrate integrity. They need to own the pollution.”

Feds Plan Aerial Gunning of Estray Cattle in New Mexico

Sat, 05 Feb 2022 14:19:50 GMT

An unknown number of estray cattle roam the Gila National Forest near the New Mexico/Arizona border. Grazing on sensitive forage, the Federal Wildlife Service (FWS) plans to shoot the estray cattle via helicopter flyover beginning February 8-10, 2022.

Previous efforts have been made to round up estray cattle in the forest, catching approximately 20 head; however, this has pushed the remaining cattle further into the forest.

The New Mexico Cattle Growers Association stated in a press release that they are concerned with the FWS agents’ ability to determine branded and unbranded livestock. “From a helicopter this task would be difficult for even a knowledgably adept livestock producer to identify brand markings and ear tags. There is no assurance that the gunning-down of these livestock will not include private property.” NWCGA says.

With minimal notice of the planned action, NMCGA points out that there is no federal statute or regulation that allows the FWS to gun-down livestock. The impoundment of livestock is allowed, but only after certain notice conditions are met. Estray livestock are under the jurisdiction of the New Mexico Livestock Board.

Another point of contention with local cattle ranchers is the presence of the federally listed endangered species, the Mexican Gray Wolf. Shooting the estray cattle will provide an easily accessible food source that may condition the wolves to prey on livestock.

A similar proposal of managing the estray cattle last year ended with a notice of intent to sue by local ranchers. In addition, the New Mexico Livestock Board renounced the use of aerial gunning.