Stocker

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

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 18:42:52 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Just California

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

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

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

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

(CDFW)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Paul Roen)

Financial Loss is Real

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

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

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

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

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

Compensation is Available But Falls Short

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

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

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

Emotional Toll is Substantial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cost of Coexistence With Wolves

Beef Industry Chaos: Tight Supplies, Strong Consumer Demand and Political Interference

Wed, 12 Nov 2025 20:04:16 GMT

The current state of the cattle market and beef industry has been described as chaotic. “There’s chaos in cattle,” as Chip Flory, AgriTalk host, put it.

The industry turmoil follows recent statements made by President Donald Trump regarding the need to lower beef prices as well as his request for the Department of Justice to immediately begin an investigation into meatpackers for driving up the price of beef.

Derrell Peel, Extension livestock marketing specialist from Oklahoma State University, affirms these are unique times, emphasizing while political factors have always indirectly influenced agriculture, it’s unprecedented for the cattle and beef markets to be at the center of direct political debate.

On a recent AgriTalk segment, Peel points out the inherent biological and production constraints of the cattle industry — particularly the fixed timeline to raise cattle — make quick fixes impossible. Both Flory and Peel stress that no political policy can shorten the cattle production process; any effective supply response requires patience and long-term adjustment.

Packers Under Fire

The concept of industry consolidation and foreign packer ownership has long drawn scrutiny with frequent government investigations. Peel says highly concentrated industries such as beef packing have been targets for skepticism and regulatory attention for over a century, to the point suspicion of packers is almost “a cultural thing” within segments of the industry.

He characterizes the latest call as another attempt to target convenient scapegoats rather than addressing deeper systemic realities of supply and demand.

“The reason we have the industry structure we do is because the economies of size and cost efficiencies are such a powerful economic force,” Peels explains.

He confirms researchers have long studied market power, and while concentration does have a small negative price impact for producers, the efficiency and cost-savings from large-scale firms more than compensate. These benefits, he says, keep cattle prices higher for producers and beef prices lower for consumers than they would be with a less efficient structure.

Dissecting the economics of margin markets Peels explains why price changes in different parts of the beef supply chain — cow-calf, feeders, packers and retailers — don’t move in lockstep. He uses a “bungee cord” analogy to illustrate the complex, dynamic and time-lagged interactions linking cattle prices at the farm with retail beef prices.

“All cattle prices and beef prices are ultimately connected, but they’re not connected with a stick or a chain,” Peel summarizes.” They’re connected with a bungee cord. There’s just an enormous amount of dynamics in this thing.”

Regarding the foreign ownership debate, Peel says there is no evidence foreign ownership alters packer behavior within the U.S. marketplace. He emphasizes foreign firms have made large investments in U.S. facilities and continue to operate them by the same market logic that would govern domestic ownership.

He also points out it is unclear who else would be in a position to make such significant investments if these foreign companies were not involved. This pragmatic view suggests the ownership issue might be less important than is commonly believed, at least concerning everyday operations and market outcomes.

A Lot Hinges on Rebuilding the Cow Herd

In his latest article, “ All Bets are Off ,” Peel says: “The latest edition in the torrent of recent political attentions directed at the cattle and beef industry includes allegations of market manipulation against the beef packing industry. Beef packers are the one segment that has been most negatively impacted in the current market, incurring huge losses due to poor margins and limited cattle supplies.”

(Meat Institute)

Peel reports packers have been losing enormous amounts of money for about the past 18 to 24 months. According to the Meat Institute, packer margins slipped into the red in September 2024. Through the week ending Oct. 4, 2025, packer margins were a negative $126.50 per head, up slightly from a year earlier at a negative $125.65 per head, according to Sterling Profit Tracker. The outlook for the year is a negative $165.96 per head packer margin.

“There’s just simply not enough cattle for them to operate at cost efficient capacities,” Peel explains.

This negative trend was anticipated — the reduced supply of cattle has made it difficult for packing plants to function at cost-efficient capacities, leading to the accumulation of operating losses. Peel points out the combination of low unit margins and insufficient cattle supplies challenges the economic viability of packers, further illustrating the complexity of the current environment.

This decline in inventory is not the result of a single factor but is driven by several years of drought and other market pressures. It is clear high beef and cattle prices are a result of these tight supplies and, according to Peel, these high prices are likely to persist for several years. The industry simply cannot turn around production levels quickly, and it will take time — a matter of years, not months — for conditions to normalize.

“Using logic that only works in the office of a politician, packers are supposedly wielding unacceptable market power while paying record high cattle prices and artificially raising beef prices … but not enough to avoid losing a couple hundred dollars on every animal they process — certainly many millions of dollars,” Peel says. “If beef packers had any significant ability to exercise market power, I am certain that we would not have record high cattle prices and packers would not be losing money.”

Peel suggests the federal government attacks on beef packers are aided and supported by a vocal minority of the cattle industry and a few sympathetic politicians who view packers as a perennial villain and always worthy of attack anytime the opportunity is presented.

“The timing of such attacks this time is particularly puzzling as dismantling the packing industry would certainly jeopardize current record high cattle prices and the best economic returns most producers have ever enjoyed,” Peels says. “I guess some cowboys just can’t stand prosperity.”

R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard says the cattle market is fundamentally broken citing years of an inverse relationship between falling cattle prices and increasing retail beef prices when the only ingredient in beef is cattle. Read more about his perspective.

Patience not Politics

Beef and cattle prices, Peel notes, are historically high, a result of industry-wide low cattle inventory. Rebuilding the nation’s cow herd will be a long, slow process, keeping prices elevated for an extended period. And Peel says there is no definitive evidence producers are saving heifers to start the rebuilding process.

“2025 may prove to be technically the cyclical low, but 2026 is going to be barely bigger, if it is, and no growth in 2026 and probably none in 2027 ... it’s 2028 into 2029 before that turns into increased beef production,” Peel predicts.

He summarizes neither regulatory nor political action will can speed up the rebuilding process. It will take years of concerted effort, market healing and stability before the industry can expect a meaningful rebound in herd numbers and production — a reality that requires patience across the industry.

“There is absolutely nothing anybody can do to make beef prices go down, or cattle prices, other than maybe tear up the industry completely,” Peels says. “And if we tear up the industry, it’ll make cattle prices go down, but it won’t make beef prices go down. It’ll make beef prices go even higher for consumers and the only way to fix this is to give the industry time to rebuild, and that’s going to take two to four years if we ever get started.”

He says a majority of cattle producers understand the beef industry is extremely complex and all segments are critical and essential.

“Though the outcome of current political actions is uncertain, the potential for long-term harm to the industry is substantial,” Peel says. “Anytime politics trumps economics, the strong supply and demand fundamentals that have determined the outlook for the industry to this point become irrelevant. Expectations for prices and production going forward are now completely clouded…therefore… all bets are off.”

Your Next Read: You Be The Judge: The Big Bad Beef Packers Are On Trial

Instead of Making Hay: 4 Profitable Alternatives For Cattle Producers to Consider

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 14:11:28 GMT

If you didn’t make hay, what could you do instead?

Carson Roberts, Missouri extension state forage specialist, says the consensus in the beef industry is making your own hay is the cheapest way to feed cattle through the winter.

“This couldn’t be further from the truth,” he explains. “Hay is expensive to make and expensive to feed.”

Encouraging producers to think outside the box, Roberts recently shared “ 10 Reasons You Should Quit Making Hay .” His point No. 6 suggests producers consider profitable alternatives instead of traditional hay production.

He recommends these four alternatives will often pay more per acre than producing hay:

1. Stockers

“Often, you’re lucky to break even on your hay enterprise — especially if you’re a small operation with a lot of overhead,” Roberts says. “With stockers, you’re looking at $766 per acre in gross revenue.”

He refers to research done by Eric Bailey, Missouri extension beef nutrition specialist, that found one acre can produce approximately 350 lb. of beef and with a $2.19 value of gain. If you add in the cost, it is about $200 more per acre than a hay crop.

He adds this approach can be nearly as profitable as crop production in some years. This year, crop production is not profitable at all, meaning that you would make approximately $200 more by running stockers than row crops, too.

2. Custom Grazing

“Custom grazing offers lots of flexibility with very little expense,” he explains.

Roberts says, on average, custom grazing rates are $1.75 to $2.50 per day per head.

“Let’s say a cow is consuming 30 lb. of forage per day. During that spring flush, you’re able to produce 1,000 to 3,000 lb. of grazable forage. Let’s be conservative and assume that we can harvest 1,500 lb. of forage. Divide that by 30, and you’ll see that you can graze 50 animals per acre for one day. At a rate of $1.75 you’re looking at $87 per acre or $116 per ton of forage during that 3-month spring flush.”

3. Grazing Home-Raised Cattle

He says this option is particularly effective for fall-calving herds using excess springtime forage when cattle can gain up to 3 lb. per day during spring flush, increasing their market value.

Home-raised stocker calves are a great low-hanging fruit. They are already adapted to your farm and management style. You can utilize the spring flush to put weight on weaned calves to sell them mid-summer.

4. Cull Cow Grazing

Roberts says cull cows may be the only class of animals that increases in per pound value as they get fatter. Traditionally, the cull cow market is at its annual peak during mid-summer, which is a perfect time to start destocking in preparation for stockpiling fescue.

He suggests purchasing or retaining thin cull cows in the spring and then grazing for a few months. You can then sell in July or August for a profit with a cheap cost of gain.

Roberts summarizes the goal of all these enterprises is to turn that cheap springtime grass into a high value product. These alternatives focus on maximizing land use, reducing feed costs and creating additional revenue streams beyond traditional hay production

“The key is matching cattle production cycles with forage availability,” he says.

He emphasizes these strategies are most applicable in the fescue belt but can be adapted to various regions across the U.S.

“You must have an open mind if you want to make a profit,” he adds. “Things are different now than they were 50 years ago. We can be far more profitable if we adapt.”

Your Next Read: 10 Reasons You Should Quit Making Hay

Fast Delivery, Competitive Prices and Simplicity Drives FBN Customer Satisfaction

Tue, 17 Jun 2025 19:13:34 GMT

A one-stop shop for farm and ranch input needs, Farmers Business Network (FBN) serves more than 13,000 livestock producers from across the U.S. FBN is expanding its livestock offering to include Ridley Feeds, Farmers First Mineral, fencing supplies, equine products as well as pet care.

Crop and cattle producer Kyle Burk, Burk Land & Cattle in Marionville, Mo., has been a customer of FBN for two years. Initially using FBN for its competitive chemical pricing, Burk now purchases approximately 90% of his mineral products for his livestock through the company.

“We background a lot of cattle for Joplin Regional Stockyards,” Burk says. “I feel the cattle have gained tremendously better with the FBN mineral program, whether it be fly control or other attribute.”

Burk manages a 2,000-acre farm primarily focused on feed production for his family’s stock cows, dairy and grow yard. He says FBN has become an integral part of his agricultural strategy — providing not just products, but comprehensive support across purchasing, financing and consulting.

“The website is extremely easy to use,” Burk explains.

The platform’s intuitive design allows him to quickly locate and order the exact items he needs for his diverse operation.

Customer service is another key to Burk’s FBN experience. He appreciates how the company proactively contacts customers within 24 hours of an unusual order to confirm it’s correct.

Beyond product ordering, Burk has also utilized FBN’s financial services. After an accident last year, he turned to FBN classifieds to purchase a replacement silage truck and secured financing through FBN within a day. The rate, he says, was more competitive than his local bank.

Burk says he recommends and appreciates the FBN professionals who have helped him with purchasing decisions. When drought led him to switch to conventional corn, he worked FBN’s chemical specialist for product support.

“It’s probably the cleanest corn we’ve ever had,” Burk says.

Expanding Livestock Catalog

Livestock is FBN’s fastest-growing segment, powered by producer trust in speed, value and reliable delivery. According to Emily Zollinger, FBN director of livestock, the platform’s latest offerings include:

Ridley Feeds (a division of Alltech) : Sweetlix mineral and tubs now available with live, daily pricing
Farmers First Mineral : A new, simplified line of cattle mineral dynamic pricing and clear online descriptions
Fencing Supplies : Including barbed wire, woven wire, pipe, cable and other fencing tools
Equine Care : Products for grooming, nutrition, deworming, hoof care and vaccinations
Pet Health: Vaccines, parasite control, nutrition, and prescriptions filled with vet approval

“We’re building a marketplace where ranchers and livestock producers get not only great prices, but convenience and service they can count on,” Zollinger says.

(FBN)

Why Producers Choose FBN

Initially founded in 2014, FBN expanded into livestock in 2020. Today, the platform is designed to make purchasing fast, transparent and farm-friendly.

Key features include:

Free membership
Build your own online order
Fast shipping (typically two business days)
Nationwide logistics network across the U.S. and Canada
Flexible support ranging from self-service to dedicated account reps
Educational tools including blogs and resource hubs
Financing options with competitive rates
Prescription support working directly with your vet to verify orders

Zollinger says FBN’s mission is to deliver prosperity to family farmers and ranchers through every season, every segment and every challenge.

“We’re not just selling inputs,” she summarizes. “We’re giving farmers and ranchers a platform — with tools, pricing transparency and support they can build a business on.”

Your Next Read: 5 Steps to Successful Transition Planning