HELENA, Mont. - The practice of killing predators such as wolves, coyotes and bears to protect livestock has little scientific validity, according to a new study.

Called "Predator Control Should Not Be a Shot in the Dark," the research is published in the journal Frontiers of Ecology and the Environment. Researchers from the University of Wisconsin and two other schools evaluated two dozen studies to determine whether they followed the scientific method - and found half weren't sufficiently rigorous.

Derek Goldman, Northern Rockies field representative for the Endangered Species Coalition in Montana, said killing wolves actually can lead to chaos in the pack.

"Sometimes, for instance, when you kill the dominant male and female in a wolf pack, you end up with pack breakdown in terms of discipline," he said. "I've anecdotally heard pack population actually explodes, because all the subordinate wolves that previously hadn't been allowed to breed with each other are now breeding."

Goldman said Montana allows a limited number of kill permits for landowners to shoot wolves. He also noted that wolf livestock depredation accounts for less than 1 percent of livestock lost, although much of the loss is concentrated in certain parts of the state.

Goldman said there are other ways to protect livestock rather than killing big predators such as wolves.

"We're strong proponents of all the non-lethal tools that are out there for landowners to protect livestock from wolves," he said, "and those include things like fladry and range riders - which is human presence, which is a big deterrent - as well as livestock guard dogs."

Fladry is the practice of hanging brightly colored flags around livestock enclosures, which act as a wolf repellent.

A study preview is online at onlinelibrary.wiley.com.


get more stories like this via email

A farm group is helping Iowa agriculture producers find ways to reduce the amount of nitrogen they use on their crops.

Excess nitrates can wind up in ground and surface water, and cause health problems.

Practical Farmers of Iowa is encouraging farmers to find just the right amount of nitrogen they need for their crops - while avoiding applying too much, which the group says is common.

PFI's Field Crops Viability Coordinator - Chelsea Ferrie - said thanks to federal grants and private funding, the group will pay farmers up to $35 for every acre that has a lower than normal yield if they didn't apply enough nitrogen.

"No cost to the farmer, either," said Ferrie. "We're trying to help incentivize them. This is something that farmers want to do - I mean, they want to be good stewards of the land - but also, that they need to have a profitable farm."

The application period for the program is open through the end of April.

To help them reach the right nitrogen balance, Ferrie said PFI will help farmers on the front end of the process, too - so they aren't left guessing how much to apply.

"Talk through what your typical fertilizer plan is, and what your reduction plan would be," said Ferrie. "Then you would implement this year, going into the spring and into the season."

Farmers have relied on nitrogen-based fertilizers for generations - but when applied in excess, nitrates run off into ground and surface water, posing health concerns for animals and people.




get more stories like this via email

Pesticides are still common in agriculture. Organic producers who avoid them have seen ups and downs in pushing for stronger regulations, and they point to a South Dakota example of the harm associated with widespread use among neighboring farms.

At the heart of the regulatory fight is the application of the weed-killing pesticide dicamba, and how it can drift from one farm to another. Last month, a federal court blocked "over the top" spraying of dicamba products, but the EPA followed with an order to allow the spraying of existing supplies.

Glenn Pulse, co-owner of an organic farm in Vermillion, said a 2017 drift incident had a big impact on his operation.

"Our entire farm was covered. We lost a lot of livestock, and thousands of bees were killed," he explained.

It also resulted in health concerns for his family, having to regain his organic farmer certification, and a legal battle over restitution. Groups such as the National Family Farm Coalition have been fighting what they call the deregulation of these chemicals, arguing the drift and runoff effect has damaged millions of crops.

Dicamba-manufacturing companies deny responsibility, instead blaming farmers who apply it for not following guidelines.

The EPA has said there were already millions of gallons of dicamba in circulation prior to the court's ruling, prompting the agency's order. Pulse feels there are farmers who are careful in spraying chemicals, but he wants stronger enforcement against those he describes as "loose cannons."

"The guys that are not following the labels and they're spraying in weather conditions that are not favorable, that is where, I would say, 90% of the problems are happening with drift incidents," Pulse said.

His calls for better responses to these incidents coincide with policy demands to heavily restrict dicamba products. Meanwhile, Rep. Dusty Johnson, D-South Dakota, is the main sponsor of a bill supporters say would assure uniformity in national pesticide labeling under federal law. But opponents argue it would limit longstanding state and local pesticide safety rules.

Montana farmers have testified before a panel of state lawmakers asking them to protect agricultural data that is collected by precision farming technology - and stored electronically, "in the cloud."

They're looking for changes in how that information is accessed.

At a recent state Economic Affairs Committee meeting, Montana Farmer's Union President Walter Schweitzer said with the increased use of precision ag tools and a huge uptick in data collected and stored remotely, farmers' information needs greater protections.

"We read every day that there's data being hacked," said Schweitzer. "The military has gotten hacked. Banks have been hacked. Hospitals are being hacked."

Schweitzer argued that hackers could use the information to affect prices or direct-market products to farmers based on the information they collect about crops and ag operations.

He said based on farmers' input, the Economic Affairs Committee will work with lawmakers to consider changes during next year's legislative session.

Rather than tighten access, Schweitzer said he thinks ag data should be made more transparent and publicly available.

He explained that this would help avoid the potential for market manipulation by commodities brokers or large countries, such as China, that purchase the crops.

"Let's say the wheat crop, during harvest, it looks like it's going to be lower yields than average or anticipated," said Schweitzer. "So then, China would come in, purchase all the wheat they needed before the USDA announces that, and the price goes up."

Schweitzer said 10% of a farmer's data, which is uploaded in real time during harvest and stored in the cloud, is all it takes for hackers to know a producer's entire harvest.




get more stories like this via email