Mauricio Macri (Photo courtesy of Mauricio Macri)

Mayor Mauricio Macri’s decree in defence of the freedom of the press and freedom of expression is being debated today in the city legislature.

Helio Rebot will chair the Commission for Constitutional Affairs meeting during which Macri’s decree will come under scrutiny.

Although the decree has already been published, the commission will establish whether or not it should in fact be in force, or whether it should be rejected by the legislature in the coming month.

The emergency decree, signed on 14th May, aims to “guarantee the protection of journalists and the media throughout all of Buenos Aires.”

It also puts forward the idea that Argentina’s capital ought to operate within a specially created legal jurisdiction, allowing it to intervene in affairs which endanger freedom of expression.

Rebot opened the meeting with the following: “If it is ratified, this decree will be about more than Macri, it will protect future journalists, whatever their opinion.”

The emergency decree has also attracted strong opposition. Their arguments range from suggestions that the decree is unconstitutional and lacking in legitimacy, to those who hold that it was done specifically to favour the interests of media conglomerate Grupo Clarín.

In a dialogue with state news agency Télam, Juan Carlos Dante Gullo of the Frente Para La Victoria party stated: “In principle the decree violates our federal spirit, articles of the constitution, and, unfortunately, forces us to engage in discussions about the privileges one business, and that business is called Clarín, instead of engaging with projects which benefit our citizens and those citizens who live in the capital.”

City legislator María América González went on to say “this decree a null bill. It attempts to supersede national legislation, something which is forbidden in the constitution.”

Despite its critics, the move has seen support in the province of Córdoba where governor Juan Manuel de la Sota enacted a similar bill last Friday. It seeks to circumvent any actions which “restrict, alter or censure” freedom of expression.

In a similar vein, Friday saw a group of journalists sign a document that rejected any intervention at all on the part of the State in its affairs. The Argentine Association of Journalistic Entities (ADEPA) meanwhile published a document that contained a robust support for the decree.

Argentina is no longer a world leader in beef exports. Of the countries that make up the trading block Mercosur, Argentina exports the least amount of beef, trailing behind the likes of Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay.

Beef cattle
(Photo: www.geograph.ie)

This is a startling decline. Back in 2005, Argentina was the third largest exporter of beef, shipping to more than 70 countries. Now it ranks 10th in the world. Mexico, which has half the amount of bovine stock, has overtaken it with Brazil coming in at number one.

According to the most recent statistics from the Economic Research Institute of the Socieded Rural Argentina (SRA), in 2012 Argentina exported only 183,000 tons of meat. Brazil and Uruguay far exceeded this number exporting 1.3m and 350,000 tons respectively.

According to experts, the decline can be traced back to 2006 which saw an increasingly interventionist politics thought to have had a negative impact on the markets. Luis Etchevehere, president of the SRA had this to say, “the current government has destroyed the profitability cattle. We are now in eleventh place… [behind even] Mexico which doesn’t traditionally export.”

More specifically, Nieves Pascuzzi, an economist at SRA, blamed the drop in exports on the government’s decision to keep the price of meat in the domestic market low – thereby linking the amount of beef available for export to local monthly demand. He also cited the “lack of competitivity in exports” and the “over valued exchange rate” as important factors in the decline. Bovine stock itself is also on the decline thanks to poor results reported by fridge owners.

Argentina went from having 57m heads of cattle in 2006 to 51.7m in 2012, whilst the rest of the region increased its herds. Since 2005, 130 fridges have been shut down and more than 15,600 workers have been laid off. Public opinion in the agriculture sector is glum.

The head of the Agrarian Federation announced that a protest is bing organised in Junín for the 22nd of this month.

The look of bewilderment on my British friend’s face when I threw a 600g beef joint on his barbecue in London is something I will always remember. “I’ve never cooked meat that way,” he remarked, sceptically. In retrospect I can imagine the inverse situation – a Brit slicing a bife de chorizo into steaks before putting it to cook on a flaming parrilla – and shudder at what an Argentine’s reaction would be (chances are, there would be more than just beef grilling in the following hours).

A traditional asado (photo by Helena Andell)

No matter how you choose to translate it, an asado simply isn’t a barbecue. Such is the reverence for beef eating in Argentina that it has taken on quasi-religious significance. And with this divine status have come the rites and dogmas associated to any cult. So if you’re hosting an asado or simply want to blend in with the worshippers on a Sunday afternoon, here are eight commandments to abide by:

Use a ‘Proper’ Parrilla

Invite friends to an asado and greet them with one of those black UFO-shaped portable barbecues and they probably will stare at you as if you really were from another planet. The proper brick-built parrilla is one of the most important elements for a good asado. Ideally it will be a large grill with something to catch the grease from the meat and a lever to adjust the height. If it has a separate space to make a fire and its own light to illuminate the meat, you are off to a good start.

Hot Coals, No Flames

Whether you choose coal or firewood to fuel your asado one all-important rule is: start early. You need the fire to burn for a while so that you get red hot coals. No proper asador would put meat on the grill if there are still flames under it as it effectively burns the outside of the meat without cooking the inside. Keep the fire burning on the side of the grill throughout the asado, while shovelling hot embers under the meat from time to time to regulate the temperature.

Know Your Cuts

If you’ve never bought meat in Argentina and you step into a butcher’s shop you’ll probably be in panic at not recognising any of the cuts. Fear not. There are a few well-known cuts that mean you can’t go wrong. Bife de chorizo (sirloin) is many people’s favourite as it comes with no bones and is one of the tastiest parts of the cow. Other classics at asado time include the vacío (flank), tira de asado (ribs), lomo (fillet) or cuadríl (rump), while you can impress your local friends by picking out the more exotic entraña (skirt).

Achuras on the asado (photo by Helena Andell)

Achuras and Chorizos

After choosing your beef cuts, don’t think your meat-buying is over just quite yet. Achuras, other cuts of meat of which you probably wouldn’t want to know the exact provenance (read no further), are essential to keep your guests waiting while the main pieces grill. Two examples of popular achuras are mollejas (sweetbreads), one of the cow’s glands usually served with lemon, or chinchulin, part of the cow’s intestines. The most common appetiser to keep guests waiting is chorizo, a pork/beef sausage that easily becomes choripán by putting it in a sandwich.

Gauge Quantities

So you’ve chosen what type of meat you want to buy, what’s going to go alongside it, and stocked up on coal. Now the question is, how much meat should you buy? Another culture gap here: quantities of meat that Europeans wouldn’t dream of are consumed in a single meal. Argentines generally count, at least, 200g of meat per person, sometimes double that. When your arm nearly falls off as the butcher passes you the bag of meat, you question the sanity of buying the equivalent of half a cow. But if there are locals around the table you don’t want to commit the faux pas of running out of meat; you’ll probably be surprised at how little – if any – beef is left at the end of the day.

Condiments

Purists will say that if the meat is good, then it barely needs any condiments at all, just some salt. Not just any salt though. To make things easy, they say fine salt is too fine and coarse salt is too coarse. So what you need is sal parillera, an intermediate size that is supposed to be perfect for meat. There are two schools of thought regarding when you have to salt your meat: one says adding it to the raw meat is the way to salt more homogenously, while the other says it takes out too much of the juice.

Chimichurri

Although as said previously Argentine meat really doesn’t need condiments, one typical sauce, chimichurri, will always be available at an asado. The ultimate chimichurri recipe is probably a debate as old as the gaucho, but it generally contains parsley, garlic, oregano, red pepper, and olive oil. Although chimichurri is widely available in supermarkets, many will say that only the homemade ones are really worth dousing your meat with.

‘Un aplauso para el asador’

If you’ve ever taken a plane in or to Argentina, then you’ll know that the locals are especially prone to spontaneous applause. Although the thought of congratulating a pilot for successfully landing the plane you’re in may seem a bit odd, there’s no doubting the worthiness of the aplauso para el asador. If the asador has gone through all the previously stated hoops and you add to it that he’s been standing in front of the equivalent of a sauna the whole time, he well deserves the traditional round of applause at the end of the meal.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced today on a press release that Argentina will file a report against the United States before the World Trade Organisation (WTO), for “blocking, breaking WTO’s rules, the import of Argentine meats and citruses.”

After the report is filed, a consultation period of 60 days will begin, to give the US the chance to reply to the Argentine claim. If the response is not satisfactory, Argentina will then demand a panel of experts be formed to analyse the US’s protectionist policies.

According to the press release, the US uses foot-and-mouth disease as an excuse to block imports of Argentine beef, despite Patagonia, the region where the beef is produced, being officially free of foot-and-mouth disease.

As well as beef, Argentine lemons have been subject to an import ban by a US judge since 2001. The situation affecting beef and lemons has, according to the Ministry, caused losses of “a few hundred million [US] dollars.”

Argentina has previously complained to the US and the WTO regarding the former’s protectionist policies, but did not receive a satisfactory answer. The government will now “double its efforts in defence of our producers and as a way to denounce the double standard of the most powerful countries within the WTO, which demand from developing countries rules that they themselves do not comply with.”

The governments of the US and Japan have, in turn, filed their own claims before the WTO regarding Argentina’s protectionist measures affecting their products. The European Union had filed a similar claim against Argentina in May.

The measures come shortly after Argentina was named “the most protectionist country in the world” by Global Trade Alert, an initiative co-ordinated by the Centre for Economic Policy Research which monitors policies affecting world trade.

Newly-appointed sanitary authorities began their first vaccination campaign today, following the second outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease which has ravaged the country in recent months.

The campaign, due to run until 2nd March, was officially inaugurated earlier today with a government protocol issued at the Mundo Novo estancia, located in Canindeyú, the region most affected by the epidemic.

The first stage of the vaccination campaign will involve establishing stricter sanitary controls and ascertaining the preconditions for the authorisation of anti-FMD vaccine distribution centres. The immobilisation of 12.6m livestock is also scheduled to take place prior to vaccination.

Ricardo Feltes, the director of the SENASCA, the National Animal Health Office, stated that the immobilisation of livestock “is a crucial mechanism from a technical point of view in that it ensures that all the animals which are scheduled for transportation are are not susceptible to the disease”.

The government official declared that after the animals are treated, they will be ready for slaughter or, after 15 days, for fattening and reproduction.

Félix Otazú, the president of Senacsa, affirmed that both the public and private sector have been working nonstop in accordance with the campaign directives, “in order to strengthen the vaccination system with the aim of recuperating the sanitary statutes and reestablishing the country’s position in a competitive market”. Otazú added that farms which breach the vaccination policy will be closed.

News of the campaign came to light on the same day as reports that the value of beef, one of Paraguay’s most lucrative exports, is forecast to drop 30% in 2012 in comparison with the previous year.

Chile, one of Paraguay’s most important markets, which formerly accounted for a third of all beef exports, brought a halt to purchases when the first outbreak was reported last September.

Restoring its free of FMB status, extended by the FAO Animal Health Organization toward the end of the first half of 2012, is imperative if Paraguay is to recover its sales in the next year.

Exports of beef, one of Paraguay’s most profitable assets, fell by 20% during 2011. According to local health officials, the dramatic fall was induced by an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD).

El Servicio Nacional de Salud y Calidad Animal (SENACSA) contained the FMD outbreak by suspending exports for a month, as it is highly contagious for other animals.

Until September 2011, Paraguay was one of the ten largest exporters of beef, selling 170,000 tonnes in 2010. This number was reduced to 141,000 last year. The largest Paraguayan beef consumers are Chile and Russia, and a fall in Chilean beef demand last year added to the problem.

Earlier this month, another out brought was declared, but SENACSA assures that the country continues steady exports of poultry and pork, and have infact not lost money compared to 2010 due to rise in international meat prices.

This year, the consumption of beef in Argentina has hit its lowest point in more than 50 years. On average, Argentines consume 22% less meat per person than two years ago.

The statistics were released today by the Ministry of Agriculture’s livestock sector, who blame inflation for the drop in consumption. A cut of meat that used to cost $14.43 in 2009 now costs $32.12, the average price for a 1kg of beef has risen by 122%.

While the report states that customers still prefer the higher quality cuts of beef, it is the price that is deterring them.

Experts state this change is due to a large number of exports and inflation in the domestic market.  They also state if this situation does not change and the market cannot adjust, the situation will not reverse itself. The report predicts it could take six years to recover from this downturn.

To Rolando Daniel Epstein and Alberto Teskiewicz

Campo (Photo: Juan José Richards Echeverría)

Sirloin, rib eyes, T-bones – around one hundred pounds of prime meat distributed in Coral Gables. Cuts selected to be eaten practically raw and slathered with barbecue sauce, the way they like them there. Daniel turns onto Collins Street and feels a stab of annoyance. They think they know how to prepare meat better than the Argentines, with their gadget-laden toy barbecues, in their ant-free, odorless back yards. “They’re your bread and butter,” Vera always tells him. So better just to keep his mouth shut. But that doesn’t prevent him from evoking, from so many childhood summers and so many childhood places, the aroma and the sound of crackling branches, the joy of gathering them together on the damp grass. If he half-closes his eyes, he can even see the fine column of smoke rising from the mound he and his cousins have assembled. To do it right requires an ample yard, a yard that’s part forest, not those self-important sandpits, those buzz-cut lawns, like a marine’s head. They deserve their goddamn charcoal, he thinks, and once more he recalls Vera’s common sense: “You’ve got to adapt, let go of your pointless nostalgia.”

As proof of her adaptive ability, she’s given him these pants, the one’s he’s wearing now: a pair of American carpenter’s pants with at least ten different-sized pockets that he’ll never figure out what to keep in. How strange that Vera hasn’t shown signs of life yet, hasn’t sent him a single message, considering the way she usually drowns him in loving concern. Daniel shifts in his seat. He knows he’ll have to make a decision soon. He ought to move in with her. Or leave her:  risk it all on that unspoken dream, the one that’s still waiting for an extraordinary woman to appear. Where did he get that crazy notion? Forty years old, practically bald, no money – and he’s still waiting for the Princess of Kappurthala? When the Princess of Kappurthala finally shows up on his doorstep, she’ll be drooping and in rags.

Mirror Eyes (Photo: Steve Johnson)

Daniel takes his order book out of the glove compartment and rests it on the dashboard. As he waits for the light to change, he confirms that he’s already made stops at La Estancia and Chikito Way; he’s picked up orders from Johnny Meat and Che Chorizo. The only one left is El Danzón, Mariel and Omar’s mini-market. He likes Cubans – some Cubans, anyway – but to call a mini-market El Danzón, what an idea! Like the guy who named his ice cream parlor Socorro Ramírez, in honor of his wife, a formidable mulatto who aroused only obscene thoughts: a chocolate body bathed in peanut crème, warm syrup, and here and there a glistening bit of fruit  . . . He’s drifting into his reverie of subtle sweetness when the traffic light shocks him back to reality. Daniel pokes his head out the window and catches a sideways glimpse of himself in the rear view mirror. He’s startled. Every time his reflection unexpectedly appears, the same thing happens. Who’s that bald guy with bags under his eyes? A closer glance reveals a man who looks more and more like his father. His father, too, if the situation had arisen, would have been capable of naming an ice cream parlor Esther Sidelnik. And yet, the Cubans in Miami were doing well, no matter how flagrantly they ignored the laws of marketing. And the Argentines? The Argentines were always on a roller coaster, like him. A crisis hits, leaving him sprawled on the canvas; another one suddenly comes along and lifts him up, dumping a few bucks in his pocket. Enough to take on the adventure once again.

Now Miami, with his little Argentine beef business – Uruguayan beef, really, temporarily Uruguayan, until the outbreak of hoof-and-mouth disease eases up, which should be very soon, a matter of days according to his contacts in Argentina, an outbreak that was announced just as he and his partner were getting the business off the ground. He can’t quite figure himself out, if he’s a poor fool plagued by bad luck, a putz, or a guy that will surprise everyone in the long run, beginning with himself. Every time he thinks about that, he remembers his Bubbeh’s face. How she would look at him when he was a kid, with one of those expressions described by detective novels as “inscrutable”.

Daniel turns onto Camino Way and slows down at the entrance to El Danzón. The parking lot is nearly empty. He continues toward the shed out back, where a few cars are sheltered from the fierce morning sun, and he parks in a single, deft maneuver. One of the pleasures of living in Miami is the Savannah Diesel he and his partner have bought, a sharp model whose quiet humming and purring constantly reassure them that around here things still work.

Meat (Photo: Matthew Jacobs)

Daniel gets out, stretches, and walks toward the back. He opens the refrigerated compartment, hops in, and goes over to the corner where the boxes for Omar are stacked. Another thing he’s happy about are their newly-designed packages, with oval labels and an elegant sketch of an Argentine cattle ranch. No one would ever doubt you’re a gourmet when you’re carrying a package of South American Beef, a piece of the mythical Argentine Pampa. He recalled those small-town butcher shops, with their bloodstained marble counters and flies buzzing around. How things have changed – how sophisticated –and perverted, he thinks – meat markets have become, when suddenly he hears a click and finds himself plunged into darkness. His heart goes click, too, even though he realizes that all he has to do is get to the door, which has treacherously closed behind him, and feel around for the inside handle, because everything has been planned out, contemplated, foreseen, especially the possibility that a poor South American might leave the door ajar without factoring in its likely trajectory, its weight, the tendency of things to return to their normal condition, because nobody wants to change: everything, people and objects, want to keep on being what and where they used to be. In the case of the door, that means: closed. But it’s not the door’s decision, Daniel thinks, it’s man’s, the engineer who designed that van, and he sidles along the cold walls of the compartment  toward the door, where he sees, right by his head, the little red thermostat light, a glow that gradually becomes brighter as his eyes grow accustomed to the new situation: two degrees centigrade, so that the meat – his, too, now added to that of the River Plate bovines – will stay cold in the center, he thinks, as a shiver runs down his spine. His hand locates the handle, turns it downward, and as soon as he does, he knows all is lost: the handle wiggles loosely, like a toy. No mechanism responds to his command. He repeats the effort, shaking the handle, yanking it backward and forward.  He refuses to accept what is evident: the handle is broken. He gropes his body. What did he expect to find? A hammer? A pair of pliers? He’s nearly naked in his undershirt and his pants with their useless pockets, as smooth as a fish. Besides, he reasons, as he tries wiggling the handle again, it’s not as if a piece has come loose or fallen off, something he might be able to adjust; it’s something internal, inaccessible. Daniel slides down to the floor and grabs his head. “It runs like a Mercedes,” the previous owner had said, a guy who delivered fish, but not one goddamn thing about the inside handle being broken. Daniel curses him out, shifty Yankee, fucking son-of-a-bitch. He remembers his healthy, rosy cheeks, his bullish neck, and swears that if he ever runs into the guy again, he’ll strangle him. In an instant he goes from fury to impotence. But he finally gets up: no reason to despair, you have to stay calm, think about afterwards, when all of this will be a funny story, a few days from now. Because he’s going to get out of here very soon, even though right now only the direst possibilities are running though his mind. He knows that his cell phone is up front on the dashboard, where he usually leaves it. What a blunder:  the only thing left to do is kick the door, yell, count on his good luck, wait for somebody from the two or three cars he saw in the parking lot to hear him. He hurls himself against the door, pounding it frantically with fists and feet. The important thing is to stay cool, two degrees centigrade. How long will it take for his flesh to grow cold from hypothermia? How long can one last under these conditions? What is it like to freeze to death?

He has to garner his forces: no hysterical pounding; just breathe deeply and kick every five, three, two minutes. Meanwhile, march constantly around the compartment in order to stay warm. Who would imagine that something’s happened to him? Nobody. When would someone start worrying about his absence? He reviews the unlikely identities of those “someones” in Miami. Only two or three people. While he keeps up his gymnastic pace and his pounding on the door, he engages in the most bizarre speculations. His mind fogs a little and the hands on the clock confuse him. The big one is for hours, the little one for minutes. There’s no second hand. He must have flung himself against the door around twenty times. He taps his forehead gently against the wall as if that might straighten out his thoughts. Could a half-hour have gone by? An hour? Suddenly he sees his Great-Uncle Gregorio, the one in the daguerreotype, shrugging his shoulders as if asking his forgiveness. Because he’s the guilty party and he knows it. The family idiot, the one who began the saga in which Daniel might well turn out to be the last, sad link. An insult by fate, to die of suffocation after having escaped the pogroms and concentration camps. He recalls the refrigerated delivery trucks in Buenos Aires, so spacious and ventilated, those half-sides of beef hanging from their hooks, and here he is, not even about to die shoulder to shoulder with his beloved Argentine cows, “like embracing a steer,” he thinks, laughing through chattering teeth.  No, he’s going to end his days frozen alongside a pile of presumptuous little packages, stacked up like candy boxes. He feels a tickle in his stomach, as if a spider were walking inside him. Trapped, just like him inside the truck. Like Russian dolls, he thinks, one nestled in the other, and he thinks of Gregorio again, brave, foolish Gregorio, crossing the Moldau with all the family’s coins sewn in the lining of his overcoat.

1925 Boat Passage (Photo: William)

Gregorio showed his true colors right away, yes sir: as soon as the boatman saw him he realized what a coward Gregorio was, and then and there, without even waiting to reach the middle of the river, he took nearly his entire fortune, leaving him with only one bill to pay half his passage to America, hidden under the insole of his shoe. It was supposed to have gotten him as far as New York. The whole family had been depending on him, Daniel thinks. If only Gregorio had disembarked in New York, he’d be singing a different tune today:  he’d be a prosperous merchant; he wouldn’t have document problems; he’d be sunbathing on a yacht in Miami, not locked in a refrigerated compartment. But no, he got Argentina instead. The military dictatorship, inflation, devaluations, restrictions on bank withdrawals. Not to mention everyday adversities, little swindles, shortages, impossibilities, things that didn’t work. Who could resist a cocktail like that? Gregorio hadn’t understood the weight of his responsibility. The extent of his stupidity, which becomes apparent when you look closely at the daguerreotype:  those shrugging shoulders, that scraggly beard. Because he had more than one chance, Gregorio did. He could have gotten off at some Brazilian port. He could have stayed in Montevideo. They’d be poor, but humble. He wouldn’t have become poisoned with Argentine arrogance. And he’d even been in Montevideo for two days, while the ship loaded and unloaded merchandise. He had been walking along a little downtown street when he looked into a window where a tailor was working. Der arbl is shlekht geneyt, Gregorio had said to the man when he saw him laboring to sew on a sleeve. The Uruguayan tailor, who was also a Landsman, understood and challenged him: So you think I didn’t sew it right?  Well, if you’re so great, why don’t you sit down and do it yourself? Gregorio did, and as he had learned the trade from his father from a very early age, first he basted the sleeve and then sewed it on with fine stitches, leaving the shoulder perfectly attached, without a single wrinkle. The Uruguayan offered him a job on the spot. That was when Gregorio made another mistake, refusing out of pure fatalism, because his ticket, which at first he thought was for New York, was for Buenos Aires, and he wanted to follow the path marked for him by destiny.

And so, through that compendium of errors, which later grew and multiplied into others, he, Daniel Sidelnick, was now here, like the last of the Buendías, born with a pig’s tail, exhausted from kicking against a closed door. He hated Gregorio and his Aunt Ethel, who had dragged the rest of the family, including his Grandfather Julio, and weighed anchor in Argentina; he hated his Uncles David and José and their mediocre textile factories, and their snotty children, his older cousins, who had passionately adopted the tango, yerba mate, pool, Peronism, and later on, Italian pasta and the tarantella because in turn several of their kids had mixed with Italian blood. He felt dampness on his face, tears no doubt, possibly the last ones of his life. “Don’t cry, vein nisht,” his Bubbeh used to tell him, and then he knew exactly how she had looked at him. Sacrificial flesh, he thought, and those two words fell upon him with Biblical gravity. Then he thought he heard the first bars of “Eight Days a Week”. It took him a minute to recognize the tune: it was his cell phone ringing. But, how could he hear it if his phone was up front, in the cab? The music stopped for a few seconds, and then, with the same incongruous gaiety, started up again. It was coming from somewhere close by, very close by. It seemed to be emanating from his own body. The first hallucination? He patted himself up and down, and then, trembling, he discovered in one of the ten pockets of his ridiculous pants, the lowest and narrowest of all, up against his calf, something incredible, miraculous: his cell phone! It took him a while to dig it out, and when he finally succeeded, he could read Vera’s tender message on the luminous screen: “Don’t forget I love you.” Despite the cold that had already anesthetized his feet, he felt a rapturous flash of warmth, and with a numb finger that now seemed vaguely divine, Adam-like, he punched in the number of El Danzón. Yeaahh? said Mayito, the clerk, in her screechy voice. Daniel tried to speak, but a combination of voice and sobs clogged his throat, and the clerk impatiently hung up. Daniel dialed again, and again Mayito’s voice responded, intermittently cut off by the bad connection: Hello? Omar, Omar! Daniel shouted. Where you at, chico? In back; go call Omar. Back? You want Omar to call you back? You gonna call back? No!  I’m in back, in the garage. Or should I say parking lot, “aparcadero,” “parqueo?”What you say, chico? Chico, my ass, you stupid bitch! Go call Omar, concha de tu madre! Concha ain’t here; she comes on Saturday  . . . waiiiiit a minute, I’ll get Omar, said Mayito, trying to calm him down.

Door Knob (Photo: Stephanie Carter)

The silence intensified his terror.  Would this false hope be the last of his torments?  But a moment later he heard Omar’s happy, sonorous voice:  Daniel, is that you? Yeah, Omar, I’m behind  . . . You’re running behind? No, in back, behind your store, your little market, your “marketa”, here in the van, the truck, the “troca”, I’m locked in! LOCKED IN, ENCERRADO! He blessed the word, the same in Cuba as in Argentina as in Spain as in the rest of the world wherever the Spaniards had disembarked, leaving their precious language.

Defeated, he could hardly breathe until the van door opened at last. The flash of light blinded him at first. Then, little by little, he saw the outline of Omar’s smiling face, and Mayito’s peering in from behind him. And behind them he imagined he could see Vera embracing him at night, and his Bubbeh scolding: When are you going to stop running around already, Daniel, when will you find a nice girl from the community and get married? Yes, his Bubbeh was right: he should marry Vera. But right now he needed to catch his breath, warm up, think things over a little more. Maybe, he mused, he should return to Argentina. And then, standing behind his Bubbeh, he thought he saw Uncle Gregorio, with his puny little shoulders and scraggly beard, give him a wink and disappear.

To read an exclusive interview with Inés Fernández Moreno, click here.

During the 2011 Lenten season as Argentines say good-bye to their traditional diet of beef in preparation for Easter, little do they know that they may be making a long farewell, far beyond the strictures imposed upon them by religious beliefs. Never have been domestic prices been so high, and never has consumption of beef been so fraught with risks, both as a result of economic interests and political mishandling.

Where’s the Beef?

The proud gaucho stands in his stirrups gazing into the horizon as dozens of cows swarm around him against a backdrop of deep green pasture and immense blue sky.  The cows look fat, sleek, and happy. Quintessential Argentina, you think.

Not anymore.

Gauchos and cattle, quintessential Argentina. (Photo: Eduardo Amorim)

The days of the gaucho have long been a romantic anachronism, but it would seem that cattle ranching is heading in the same direction. Gone are the days when cattle ranged freely in the pampas, arguably some of the finest pastureland in the world, and just reason for the renown and quality of Argentine beef and dairy products. In 1991, the feedlot made its debut in Argentine territory, and despite the fact that the relation between E. coli infection and beef deriving from cattle enclosed in feedlot operations has been widely established, the feedlot continues to prosper in Argentina even today, largely as a result of nearsightedness on behalf of policy makers, and greed reflected in the beneficiaries of the feedlot system, primarily abattoirs and meat distribution  plants. Not unexpectedly, Argentina has the world’s highest mortality rate of Uremic-Hemolytic Syndrome, a disease related to E. coli (strain 0157:H7) contamination.

Nearsightedness

During the early 1990s, the prices of soy and corn (maize) futures soared, and many cattle ranchers opted to make the transition from cattle ranching to grain cultivation. Acres and acres of high quality pastureland were tilled and planted, and remain so to this day. An obvious consequence of this situation was that fewer and fewer acres remained for cattle ranching; a not so obvious one was the actions taken by the government to limit the profits gained by soy and corn farmers, in order to protect domestic food supplies. Even in today’s market, livestock production simply is not as profitable as grain cultivation.

A 1993 report by the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) could still affirm that cattle in Argentina “are almost exclusively grass fed”, yet the feedlot was already making headway in the nation’s rural areas. Originally, the feedlot model was adopted as a stopgap measure, a way to mitigate loss of capital, as well as a way to feed the cattle in a limited space. Nevertheless due to the limitations of available pastureland, beef production was lowered and domestic prices for beef went up. In an attempt to keep beef prices down, legislation was developed which provided for subsidies for the corn fed to the cattle in the feedlots. These subsidies were understood as ‘compensation’ for the producers, who in turn did not raise beef prices to the consumer.

In contrast to the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) adopted in the United States, Argentine feedlots operate on a smaller scale, but also with fewer regulatory demands, sometimes consisting of a makeshift corral on private property with no proper design or functionality. The National Service for Agro Food Health and Quality (SENASA) is the government organism responsible for registering and testing for common cattle borne diseases such as Hoof and Mouth or Spongiform Encephalopathy (Mad Cow), but the municipal structures by which domestic feedlot operations should be managed and controlled are largely inexistent. Now, more than 20 years into the model, feedlots have become part of the scenery. By subsidizing the grain with which cattle are fed in feedlots, the government guaranteed beef production at a low price to the consumer, and feedlot and abattoir operators were caught up in the business of producing beef at a loss, yet still making money thanks to the ‘compensation’ given to them from the government. It remains to be said that this compensation was never received by grass farmers, giving an unfair advantage to grain finishing operations and driving more and more producers to feedlots or bankruptcy.

Since the money perceived in feedlots came from a government subsidy, and maintaining calves and females in the herd no longer was significant, many producers led them to slaughter thus provoking an overall loss in stock numbers. This practice, in addition to aggravation by an extended drought has resulted in a scarcity of beef, and the government has indefinitely cut off the subsidizing of the grain fed to cattle. Now a recovery in stock numbers due to the lack of calves and females will take years and prices reflect this scarcity, the result of years of poor practices and speculation regarding a true Argentine institution. This state of affairs, and the co-responsibility implied therein, however has not impeded the Chamber of the Beef Industry and Trade, a group of nationwide feedlot/abattoir operators, from blaming the current federal administration for the increase in prices to local consumers: “(the government) couldn’t even avoid the diminishing of the meat supply to the local market by prohibiting its exportation.” (03/03/11). However meat prices can no longer be a question of political convenience, since the government cannot control or subsidize what no longer exists. Hence feedlots today are operating at a loss while the government maintains a ceiling on beef prices and exports. In the current state of affairs, it will be difficult for the common man in Argentina to eat his yearly quota of beef, an estimated 55 kg per year. (NOTE: As this article goes to press, the government organism responsible for managing agricultural subsidies, the ONCAA, has been disbanded while its officials are accused of graft and corruption (26/02/2011).

Hidden Costs of Feedlot Operations

where beef comes from (Photo: wongaboo)

There are other, hidden, costs implicit to feedlot operations, and these are perhaps of even greater importance than the explicit costs. According to the Guide for Environmental Management of Feedlots, published by the INTA in 2009, in Argentina “provincial legislation is either non-existent or incipient for feedlot facilities. Most projects have not taken into account social or environmental aspects beyond those associated with product quality or production efficiency. In some cases, social reactions have led to some changes or adjustments in the management of effluents and smell derived from production establishments. However, there is a marked lack of permanent adjustments and adaptations in order to redress or prevent after-effects. Within the Argentine context but with international experience, the imposition of requirements and restrictions should be directed towards alerting and preventing these effects in order to avoid the cumbersome and expensive task of environmental remediation and the relocation and redesigning of feedlots.”

In general, the idea persists that feedlots or grain-finishing cattle is complementary to grazing. Many operators combine grazing with feedlot finishing without taking into account the damages incurred by the environment, and by the animal itself. Advocates of feedlots insist that the efficiency shown by the model (e.g. fatter animals in less time) more than justify the risks involved. Nevertheless, the most gentle solution for the environment and animal rights would be a return to 100% pasture-fed and -finished beef production.

Public health is another hidden cost. Argentina has the world’s highest mortality rate of E. coli (strain 0157:H7) related deaths.

E. Coli

According to data provided by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Uremic-Hemolytic Syndrome (UHS), a complication resulting from infection by E. coli 0157:H7, is endemic to Argentina. In 2006 there were 464 new cases, 64% of which were infants, a sum that triples the rest of the world’s cases in general. This particular strain of E. coli is mainly associated with beef, but has also been found in water, fresh fruit and vegetables, dairy products and other processed foods. Studies have found that the bacteria are resistant to almost all environments except those of extreme heat.

Yet, considering that Argentina has one of the highest rate of beef consumption per capita in the world, a disease that primarily affects beef eaters seems to go largely unnoticed by the population. According to one medical publication (Prensa Médica Argentina), “the difficulties of accessing updated and reliable statistics allow for the supposition that in Argentina, infection by E. coli 0157:H7 is underestimated and under-diagnosed.” Local media coverage is practically nonexistent, averaging one or two articles yearly, nothing in comparison with the attention given the swine flu virus a couple of years ago.

“The Hamburger Disease”

There is no way to tell if food has been contaminated by this strain of E. coli. There are no differences in taste, smell or colour. This is why it is important to treat all foodstuffs as if they had been in contact with E. coli, washing hands and surfaces thoroughly and cooking meat until it reaches 140ºF internal temperature (80ºC). Ground beef is particularly susceptible to contamination because the grinding of the meat puts exposed sides of meat (which might otherwise be seared and thus safe to consume) in contact with all other cuts, infecting all.

Most public health initiatives directed towards protecting the consumer aim at educating with regards to proper food handling in the home as well as in businesses (i.e. restaurants, butcher shops, grocery stores, etc). While this is indispensable given the present situation, it is also important to understand the relationship between modern food production techniques and E. coli contamination.

Established Consequences

Cattle in Argentine feedlot along route 51 outside of Saladillo (Photo: Patricia Di Filippo)

Cows being fed a grain-based diet within an enclosed environment, such as a feedlot, have been consistently tested to show high acid levels in the rumen, otherwise known as acute or sub-acute ruminal acidosis (SARA). This is a result of the breakdown of dietary carbohydrates (e.g. starch), particularly from cereal grains such as corn and barley. This in turn leads to a chronic digestive disorder in the herd, impaired cow health and involuntary culling of the herd. According to the American Association of Bovine Practitioners: “acidosis is the most important nutritional problem that feedlots face daily and is a major challenge for dairies as well. Both the dairy and feedlot industries have continued to opt for the use of more grains in their feeding programs. Relatively cheap grains have provided an excellent and economical energy source. But this has also resulted in an increasing problem with acidosis. The severity of acidosis may range from mild to life threatening.” The cattle are then administered antibiotics to mitigate the problems arising from acidosis, adding to the list of additives that are undesirable for human consumption. In fact, cattle consume 70% of all antibiotics administered in the US but this does not imply that the sick animals are culled from the herd. On the contrary, they proceed to be slaughtered along with the healthy animals.

The problem then becomes one of evolution. E. coli which lives naturally in the digestive tract of many organisms becomes acid resistant in the cow that is fed grain. So acid resistant, in fact, that it can survive beyond the low pH of the human stomach, and go on and cause gastroenterological problems in humans, among others, UHS.

What is less known is that cattle that are grass-fed do not suffer from acidosis in general. In fact beef from grass-fed cattle is higher in omega 3’s, lower in saturated fat, and less susceptible to contamination from E. coli. Cattle that have been removed from a grain-based diet to a grass diet recover their normal pH after two weeks of grazing. This implies that feedlot operations have been misguided regarding grain feeding cattle and that human consumers have been exposed to intolerably high levels of acidity and E. coli contamination in the beef that they consume.

Ruminants were never intended to be fed grain. In fact, most grains have to be laced with molasses in order for the cattle to even try it.

Much has been said regarding the superiority of grass-fed beef over grain-fed beef, but said superiority may not be a question of nutrients. A consumer probably would not be able to tell the difference between grass-fed or grain-fed beef inasmuch as flavour, tenderness, marbling, or other sensory qualities are concerned. Nonetheless it is true that cattle raised on pasture “have a positive impact on fatty acid tissue profile…which affect the nutritional value of fat because polyunsaturated fatty acids have beneficial effects on human physiology and health, preventing the occurrence of coronary heart disease, hypertension, inflammatory and immune disorders, and neurological dysfunctions” (Beef Lipids in relation to animal breed and nutrition in Argentina; Science Direct). It would seem that the win-win relation between human health and bovine health generated by pasture grazing would be an easy matter to defend in a political arena. Nevertheless, there are many interests in maintaining the status quo.

Double Standard

The grass farmer during the past two decades has been unable to compete against the feedlots, on the one hand, and on the other, grain cultivation. He has been able to survive, for the most part, by exporting to other countries, primarily the European Union, and by fulfilling international standards for grass-feeding, grass-finishing, and organic (no antibiotics or hormones administered) beef production. One producer, EcoPampa, states that 99% of its organic grass- fed beef finds its way to supermarkets in the UK, under the framework of the Hilton Quota, an international tariff agreement whereby Argentina and other nations enjoy duty preferences as suppliers of “high quality fresh, chilled, or frozen beef” to the European Union.

The Hilton Quota would be one way of financing grass-fed beef production, an attractive one for most grass farmers. Unfortunately at current standards of grass-fed beef production, Argentina is not fulfilling the permissible quota. This represents a lost opportunity for most domestic grass farmers who either have not completed the certification process by which they are included in the registry of producers, or for one reason or another, cannot be certified. It must be noted here that the rigorous certification process for exporting beef to the European Union is upheld and respected by Argentine producers and inspectors.

Nonetheless, there is a double standard regarding norms and standards in Argentina’s beef production industry. On the one hand, there is an established infrastructure of standards and certifications which qualify beef for exportation, the APAC, or Approval for Food Products and Derivatives, but on the other hand there is no such infrastructure for meat destined for domestic consumption. In theory, according to one SENASA employee, the same rules apply to both markets; in practice, there is a world of difference.

Let the buyer beware (Caveat Emptor)

According to the Chamber of Bovine Livestock Fattening (CAEHU), in 2001, 10% of all beef produced in Argentina came from feedlots. The director of the Institute for the Promotion of Argentine Beef (IPVCA), Dardo Chiesa, in a 2009 interview declared that 75% of beef intended for domestic consumption came from feedlots. While there is some discrepancy based on the time of the year the statistics were taken (there is a greater presence of grain-fed beef during the winter months than during the summer), there can be no doubt that there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of grain-fed beef consumed domestically. The transition from grass-fed beef to grain-fed beef that in the US took place over a period of 50 years, in Argentina has taken place in less than ten. Perhaps for this reason, the Argentine consumer is largely unaware of the change. Theoretically it is possible to buy grass-finished beef in Argentina; the problem is telling the difference between grass-fed and grain-fed. Beef intended for local consumption is not labelled, marked, tagged, or graded in any way. For purposes of E. coli contamination, for example, it makes no difference if the cow were grass-fed or grain-fed because once the carcass has arrived at the slaughterhouse, there is no standing system which differentiates between the two. Once the grass-fed beef has entered into contact with the contaminated grain-fed beef, the result is the same for both.

In spite of the fact that grain-fed beef implies hidden costs in the form of environmental damage and public health issues, the feedlot appears to be here to stay. There simply is not enough pasture on which to raise cattle. Therefore it is necessary to bring feedlots under the framework of government regulation in order to assess risks and damages

Dr. Anibal Pordomingo, Senior Research Fellow for the INTA (Photo: Patricia Di Filippo)

Dr. Anibal Pordomingo, Senior Research Fellow for the INTA, in an exclusive interview for the Argentina Independent, considers that Argentina “is not prepared to manage feedlots on a large scale.” In addition, the production process which leads from farm/feedlot to abattoir, to butcher/grocery, to consumer leaves much to be desired. Traditionally the carcass is carried over the shoulder, hung from hooks in trucks that may or many not be refrigerated, and transported to the different distributions points in the country where it is then cut, packaged and sold. “The exposure to bacteria is tremendous,” says Dr. Pordomingo. “There are no irradiation processes, and no policies for environmental management that function. The slaughterhouses don’t cover registries of origin. During one study, six of eight carcasses showed E. coli contamination. No one speaks of it.”

This apparently is the result of inadequate government regulation. Certification for a slaughterhouse in Argentina, for local consumption, is a mere bureaucratic application, costing approximately $300 (US$80).

To invert this situation, Dr. Pordomingo recommends the following steps:

1. The regulation and control of feedlots, especially risk assessment and damage control of environment and public health. Reveal the hidden costs.

2.The regulation and inspection of slaughterhouses. Meat should be cut, packaged and sent out in refrigerated trucks to distribution points. There should be no double standard regarding meat intended for exportation and meat intended for domestic consumption. Meat should be adequately tagged and marked, showing its origin, whether it is grass-fed or grain-fed, inspection number etc.

3. New legislation should maintain and control the distribution chains

4. If possible, grass farmers should invest in the concept of ‘Boutique Meat’, high quality grass-fed beef (in addition to other types of meat) to be sold at competitive market prices locally and internationally. Local consumers could then express a preference which now is denied them.

Eating beef in Argentina is a risky proposition.

Asado (Photo: audrey_sel)

Definitely. Although there can be no doubt that the quality and nutrition of the beef produced in Argentina is among the finest in the world, the lack of controls and regulations on beef intended for local consumption makes eating it a risky, oftentimes lethal, affair. Therefore please take into consideration the following suggestions regarding the purchase, preparation and consumption of beef while in Argentina.

1. Cook your meat thoroughly and demand that the beef you buy in restaurants also be cooked thoroughly (Internal temperature of 80º C or 140º F). Be especially careful with ground beef and ground beef products such as hamburgers. Wash hands and surfaces after coming into contact with uncooked meat. Do not wash or cut other foods on surfaces that have come into contact with raw meat. Grass-fed or grain-fed meat is no replacement for hygiene and good culinary practices.

2. The hidden costs of feedlot operations are paid by society in the form of damages to the environment and health care. Raise consciousness by inquiring at butchers and grocery stores about the origin of the beef sold there. If possible, demand that the meat you consume be labelled adequately as to its origin and processing method. Buying grass-fed beef is a vote in favour of the environment and human health.

3. By refusing to buy and consume meat that is inadequately handled, packaged, and marked, there is more likelihood that control standards and norms given for beef intended for exportation be applied to beef intended for domestic consumption.  If you are not convinced as to the equality of standards regarding local beef handling and packaging, do not buy it; instead, demand the meat products safeguarded for export inasmuch as possible.

Lead image by NDSU Ag Comm

In an attempt to curb the rising price of beef in Argentina, the government has introduced a ban on exports. The agriculture industry was quick to respond and has warned that there will be a hard reaction: they warned that strikes were very likely.

The president of the Federación Agraria Argentina, Eduardo Buzzi commented that this measure demonstrated the failure of government policies in the sector. Speaking to Todo Noticias he said: “The act of stopping exports rather than calling a discussion about livestock policies is a new aggression that demonstrates the failure of the government for this sector: do not rule out a strike by producers to reject the measure.”

The price of beef has risen dramatically in the last few months. Since December the price per kilogram has risen by 50%. The government has blamed farmers, claiming that price increase is due to them withholding supplies and waiting for the prices to rise. The agricultural industry deny the accusation and claim that the decreased supply is due to structural problems caused by a lack of government incentives for beef production.

The president of the Sociedad Rural Argentina, Hugo Biolcati, warned that this new tactic by the government was going to make the situation worse. He said, “We’re running out of meat and this will deepen the problem. It is madness to think this will fix it, it is the failure of production incentive that has led to this.”

The ban was made without a resolution, decree or a ruling from a court and will apply to all beef exports, except those that fall within the Hilton quota which refers to high-quality beef exports.