Counteracting livestock predation risks on pasture

Predators such as coyotes, wolves, bears, cougars and foxes have been threatening and killing young, weak and compromised cattle and sheep in Manitoba since domestic farming began. Financial losses range between minimal to potentially devastating depending on location, workforce numbers, operation size and nearby habitat.

To counteract and help mitigate these challenges, in 2020 the province of Manitoba, Manitoba Beef Producers and the Manitoba Sheep Association funded the Livestock Predation Prevention Pilot Project, a three-year study to test various practices to prevent predator attacks on Manitoba cattle and sheep operations.

The project targeted areas of the province where livestock predation issues were most dominant.

Beef and sheep producers returned 554 surveys identifying approximately 11,000 animals lost over five years with almost 8,000 attributed to coyotes and the remainder divided among wolves, bears, cougars and foxes.

“Farmers and ranchers were very willing participants in our initial surveys and in volunteering to test the different mitigation options,” says Ray Bittner, Manitoba Beef Producers project lead.

More than 100 trials were completed on 48 farms during the three-year project with approximately 75 per cent of the costs covered by the project.

Since predation risks and incidences vary between farm-based pens and distant pastures, some practices focused on pasture protection and others targeted farm site challenges.

GPS systems

This testing was completed on 11 beef and two sheep farms with herd and flock sizes varying from 100 to 700 head. GPS systems — including Ceres, Digitanimal, and Lonestar — were attached to approximately five per cent of mature animals. Tractive dog GPS collars were also used.

Computers and smartphones tracked locations and received alerts of unusual behaviour such as running or crowding.

Producers used neck collars and smart ear tags, installed receivers and antennas, set up base stations and accessed satellite and cellular LTE network signals.

Though the GPS programs varied in technical complexity, all participants agreed tracking animals was useful and had positive outcomes, along with providing more efficient wellness checks. Producers could analyze behaviours and grazing patterns to predict when predators stalked and chased animals.

Results included:

• 100 per cent of producers successfully tracked their livestock.
• 67 per cent had some equipment failures to report locations.
• 86 per cent believed GPS allowed for better management.
• 78 per cent would purchase the equipment again if lost.

Considerations around GPS included:

• As an emerging technology the costs were high per animal.
• Predator control still required hunting, trapping or hazing.
• Some producers thought grazing was more efficiently managed.
• Continued study is needed with newer, more updated technologies.
• Reliability, timing of updates, consistency, solar battery strength drop-offs in the fall, and cost were the main drawbacks.

“The GPS collars seemed a good fit with larger pastures for wellness checks, but GPS electronics and systems are barely at the stage of being commercialized,” Bittner says. “Overseas equipment distribution caused a real problem including delivery, warranty and arrival timing. Sourcing from North American distributors in the future would be beneficial.”

Cow bells

This testing was done on six commercial beef farms averaging 213 cattle. The intent was to determine if the metal Kentucky cow bells attached to a neck collar would scare away, stop or discourage predator attacks on pasture livestock. It was assumed cattle fleeing or challenging predators would cause erratic bell ringing raising herd awareness for either rescue or predator confrontations.

Bells were applied on approximately five per cent of the more aggressive, dominant and older females with slower or recuperat- ing calves.

Results:

• Half the farms had all the bells remain intact.
• 50 per cent believed the bells helped with predation efforts although predation levels remained constant.
• 67 per cent commented bells helped them find livestock more quickly.
• 83 per cent would replace bells if lost.

Considerations:

• Some believed they helped at night as the herd was more on guard if one bell was aggressively ringing.
• The bells didn’t deter coyotes that became used to the sound.

Game cameras

Game cameras were tested on 20 beef and three sheep operations to identify and document the activity and behavioural patterns of nearby predators. The technology captured clear day or night photos for improved hunting, trapping or hazing management.

Twenty models, using cellular LTE systems or memory card storage, relayed photos to producers. Remote solar panels charged the batteries of some models, while others had antennas mounted on high poles to communicate from areas of poor to negligible cell service.

Results:

• 63 per cent received predator photos.
• 68 per cent didn’t move the camera during the season.
• 42 per cent believed the game cameras aided predator removal.
• 78 per cent would replace the camera if lost.
• 58 per cent believed the extra cost of LTE service was worthwhile.

Considerations:

Producers who were avid hunters or trappers were pleased with the game cameras and tended to move them based on season.

• The photos assisted with the timing of hunting and trapping as interested participants took action to remove or haze
  predators.
• Non-hunters and trappers were more likely to let their photo subscriptions expire.
• Producers emphasized cell signal strength was important. While cameras took high-quality pictures and provided evidence of what predators were a threat, costs quickly escalated.

“Pastures are so large and often distant from home base,” Bittner says. “This led us to discover wolves were the hardest to abate against. We made recommendations to the Manitoba government about how to better manage wolf populations, plus the wildlife that is their basic food source.”