Why are we still mismanaging beavers?

A surge in efforts to find ways to co-exist with beavers continues to be opposed by ag lobby and other landowners

Why are we still mismanaging beavers?

Habitat helper: For all the good they do, beavers often get the short end of the stick. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

By K.C. Mehaffey. May 25, 2023. Recognition that American beavers are a vital and often missing component of riverine habitats is growing nationwide, especially in the Pacific Northwest.

Nearly wiped out across the West a century ago, beavers have spent recent decades regarded as a nuisance animal.

Now, their reputation as a keystone species is slowly taking hold.

The dams they create, for free, offer many of the same benefits as costly rehabilitation projects. Their work has been shown to expand floodplains and wetlands, recharge groundwater, provide higher summer flows, improve water quality, create healthy habitat for salmon and encourage a greater diversity of plants and animals.

The natural water storage they create slows the runoff process, keeps freshwater habitat cooler later into the summer and helps counter the impacts of drought.

And as wildfires become larger and more intense with climate change, beaver ponds have been shown to provide firebreaks and offer refuge for aquatic and land animals.

But environmental groups say policy makers in Oregon and Washington—where beavers continue to be managed as furbearers, nuisance animals and even predators—have been slow to respond.

Oregon—the Beaver State—allows unlimited killing of beavers, and has no mechanisms in place to track how many are taken each year. State agencies have no authority to manage them on private land, and do not know how many beavers there are or where they’re causing problems.

In Washington, despite a pilot program that helps relocate nuisance animals, beaver enthusiasts say not enough effort has gone into helping private landowners learn to live with them.

With the pilot program about to become permanent, objections are being raised that trappers are allowed to take relocated beavers.

And a major agricultural lobbying group remains opposed to legislation that would make it harder for farmers and private landowners to simply slaughter beaver populations where they find them.

All of this could be about to change—but will it?

Proposed legal protections

In Oregon and Washington, proposals to provide beavers with greater protections are afoot.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife managers say that making the state’s relocation program permanent could begin as soon as this year. They also point to an opportunity to add beavers as a “species of greater conservation need” in the agency’s statewide wildlife action plan.

In the Oregon Legislature this session, a bill to remove the “predator” status of beavers passed the House in April and won the support of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources in May. House Bill 3464A is waiting to be heard by the Senate, but is among hundreds of bills stalled by the Republican walkout, now in its third week.

Oregon Rep. Pam Marsh

Beaver backer: Rep. Pam Marsh Photo: Oregon State Legislature

Beaver supporters say provisions in the bill are small but important measures that can help prevent the indiscriminant killing of beavers and help landowners learn to live with North America’s largest rodent.

Rep. Pam Marsh (D-Ashland)—the bill’s primary sponsor and chair of the House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment—says it’s going to take time for beavers in Oregon to be seen as friends instead of foes.

Her bill, she says, is the first step.

Removing its “predator” status would move management of beavers from the Oregon Department of Agriculture to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, where they can be overseen as wildlife instead of agricultural pests.

Landowners could still kill them on their own property, but most people would need a permit to do so.

After introducing the bill—and before the walkout—Marsh worked with Republicans in her committee and agreed to amended language to gain more support. Under the amended bill, landowners with beavers causing damage that imminently threatens infrastructure or agricultural crops could bypass the permit, and owners of small forestland are exempt.

But, if the bill becomes law, everyone would have to report the beavers they kill to the state, giving ODFW an opportunity to estimate out how many beavers are in the state, understand where and how they’re causing problems and provide landowners with options other than killing them.

Marsh believes public support for beavers in Oregon is growing. She’s introduced bills to help protect beavers in the past but they didn’t go anywhere.

“We just heard increasing voices across the state for stepping up for beavers,” says Marsh. “We’re seeing beaver-affinity groups, and increasingly seeing landowners who are raving about the results” of allowing beavers to reclaim portions of their property.

Marsh admits beavers can quickly damage property if they’re not properly directed.

“When you know how to work with them, there’s a tremendous capacity to store water and to keep people safe during wildfires,” she says.

Broad support for beavers

In committee hearings, many people testified in support of Marsh’s bill. In the Senate Natural Resources Committee, with the added amendments, only one person out of 48 people testified against it.

Marsh is particularly compelled by on-the-ground stories from people who decided to work with beavers on their property instead of trying to get rid of them.

Among them: Kaitlin Lovell, owner of a 20-acre farm near Colton, Ore., who testified before the Senate committee on May 10.

“Most beaver conflicts you can find a solution for.” —Jakob Shockey, Project Beaver

Lovell says when she decided to encourage beavers to take over about five acres of her land, she was expecting some of the ecological improvements that resulted.

“What we didn’t expect was the economic benefits,” she told the committee.

Lovell testified that her drinking well no longer goes dry. Her primary pasture stays green much later, allowing her to feed stock animals late into the summer without having to supplement their pasture with hay.

And when she evacuated her land in 2020 when the Riverside Fire ranged five miles away, she went to her beaver pond to take a picture of her farm that was threatened by wildfire. She said trees were breaking on her property from the 70 mph winds, and the sky was orange from the nearby blaze.

“In the beaver ponds, it was as if somebody put a glass dome over the ponds,” she said. “It was 10 degrees colder, and it was still. There was no wind. The trees were barely registering, and in that moment, I realized that there’s a lot more happening in these beaver ponds, especially during wildfires, than we’ve even begun to investigate.”

Lovell says the livestock they left behind in the haste of evacuation found refuge there. And the wildland firefighters who used the farm as the entryway to fight the fire identified the ponds as a backup water supply.

“That’s the climate resilience that we really didn’t see and anticipate,” she said.

Farmers: “Not so fast”

Despite growing support for beavers, and compromises made in Marsh’s HB 3464A, the Oregon Farm Bureau remains opposed to it.

Lauren Poor, the farm bureau’s vice president of government and legal affairs, told the Senate committee the bill would create an unnecessary and complicated system of managing beavers for private agricultural land owners, who can now kill beavers without a permit, and without reporting it.

Lauren Poor of Oregon Farm Bureau

Lauren Poor. Photo: Oregon Farm Bureau

Poor said the bill doesn’t require permits for small forestland owners, but farmers with beaver problems must be facing an imminent threat to infrastructure or crops to bypass the permit system.

Her testimony was the lone voice of opposition to the amended bill.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife took a neutral stance.

Brian Wolfer, acting wildlife division administrator for ODFW, says he’s explained to thousands of landowners who have problems with other furbearers that kill permits are really a short-term solution.

“When wildlife is on someone’s property, there are conditions that are favorable to them,” he says.

Removing one animal does not remove whatever is attracting the animal, so he works to educate landowners about coexistence strategies.

Beaver control

Jakob Shockey has spent years educating landowners across Oregon about how to coexist with beavers.

Shockey is executive director of the Jacksonville, Ore.-based nonprofit Project Beaver (formerly The Beaver Coalition) and owner of the wildlife control business Beaver State Wildlife Solutions.

“I’ve managed to make a full-time job out of helping the monkeys outsmart the rodents,” Shockey told the House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment in March.

Jakob Shockey, Executive Director Project Beaver

Jakob Shockey. Photo: Project Beaver

Shockey told the committee about tools he uses to help growers and other landowners benefit from beavers without the damage that comes with them.

He says pond levelers work like the drain in a bathtub that can be set at any level to prevent the flooding of crops; electric fences have been highly successful at keeping beavers away from orchards; and methods to cage off irrigation culverts prevent them from getting blocked.

“We can come up with some pretty crafty things. Most beaver conflicts you can find a solution for,” says Shockey.

Changing the “predatory” status of beavers would also remove language that labels them as agricultural pests, says Shockey.

“A lot of folks feel like, if they have a pest species on their land, in order to be good stewards of that land they have to get rid of that pest species,” he says, adding that the label sends a signal to landowners that isn’t helpful. “Most folks I end up working with didn’t have any idea that another solution was available.”

Shockey says that landowners who get caught in the endless treadmill of trapping beavers to get rid of them instead of finding a permanent solution to live with them end up impacting neighbors who would benefit from them, too.

“Beavers are territorial, and they mate for life. If you remove one, another family will move in, so you’re going to be depopulating the surrounding region of beavers,” he explains.

Shockey believes the top priority in beaver management should be helping people learn to live with them in the places they choose to repopulate.

“The fact that in the House they were able to work together and get bipartisan support [for HB 3464A], I was just tickled. It feels like the bill we’ve all been hoping for for the last decade.”

Shockey hopes the Oregon Senate can meet and vote on the bill before this year’s legislative session ends.

Washington’s 69,000 beavers

In Washington, the state legislature recognized the vast ecological benefits of beavers more than a decade ago, and outlined their benefits in a 2012 law that directed the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to authorize beaver relocation and work in partnership with agencies, tribes and nonprofit groups.

The program was expanded in 2017.

“I think the habitat division [of WDFW] is quite aware of the ecosystem benefits of beavers, and as far as I know they are moving ahead and working with others to help them,” says Washington Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Melanie Rowland.

But, Rowland notes, the beaver’s status as an unclassified species still allows unlimited trapping for five months of the year.

And while on paper WDFW is supposed to encourage landowners to coexist with beavers, she’s not sure how far that goes in practice.

Beaver

Gnawing issue: Washington’s program of relocating beavers has earned mixed reviews. Photo: Methow Beaver Project

Last year, Rowland asked Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife staff for a briefing on its beaver management. Her main goals were to find ways to support landowners with nonlethal solutions when they have a problem beaver, and to evaluate the impacts of trapping on the state’s relocation program.

“You spend all this time and money and energy relocating a beaver—which is not an easy thing—and then the law says anybody who wants to can go out and kill that beaver. That is the first thing that should go,” she says. “Beavers that have been relocated shouldn’t be trapped.”

But her idea for a temporary moratorium on trapping received significant pushback—some of it from fellow commissioners.

During a December 2022 briefing, WDFW Wildlife Program Director Eric Gardner said that an estimated 69,000 beavers live in Washington, where they’re classified as furbearers.

He said about 500 to 700 trapping licenses for beavers are sold annually, but only about 110 license holders report trapping beavers.

Gardner outlined the harvest of beavers since 1984, which reached a peak of about 10,000 beavers trapped in 1986.

He said the rates of trapping fluctuated almost solely due to the price in pelts until a decline began in 2000, when body-gripping traps were banned in Washington.

In 2021, 714 beavers were taken by trappers in Washington.

Adding in the number of beavers killed by wildlife control operators or special trapping permits for problem animals, a total of 1,782 beavers were taken that year, said Gardner.

Five months after the briefing, Rowland says she believes the way beavers are managed in Washington is inconsistent, with different provisions for the animal as furbearers, as nuisance animals and for conservation purposes.

Given the importance of beavers to the ecosystem, she’d like to see more protections in place, especially for beavers that are relocated.

“It’s too long. This has been known and stated by the legislature since 2012, and we still have not changed anything about the trapping of beavers,” she says.

Rowland sees several avenues to help strengthen beaver policies, including in the next update to the state Game Management Plan, and a proposed Commission Conservation Policy that would point to the conservation of Washington’s biodiversity as WDFW’s top priority. It states, “This responsibility is becoming increasingly difficult with the amplified effects of climate change, growing human population and development, resulting in fragmented or lost habitat, invasive species and increasing disease.”

Rowland says that beavers can be key to conserving biodiversity in riparian habitats, but that state policies have changed at a “glacial” pace.

“There’s no question there’s lots of activity and recognition of the habitat value of having beavers,” she says. “In terms of moving people—the hunters and trappers and landowners that just think of beavers as vermin, nuisances or pelts—I have no idea if that’s changing.”

To Shockey, the public’s perception of beavers changes one landowner at a time. He says even though Oregon is still working to legally change the status of beavers, he thinks the Beaver State is well positioned to lead the Northern Hemisphere in developing a healthier relationship with nature’s greatest engineers.

With help from agencies and Washington organizations, Project Beaver developed a manual for best management practices to help people coexist with them, which people in Europe are looking to adopt, he says.

Once people stop fighting with beavers and start working with them, says Shockey, they’re sold.

As a supporter of Columbia Insight‘s recognition of Earth Day, the Gorge Rebuild-It Center has sponsored this story.

The post Why are we still mismanaging beavers? appeared first on Columbia Insight.


Why are we still mismanaging beavers? was first posted on May 25, 2023 at 7:25 am.
©2022 Based in Hood River, Oregon, Columbia Insight’s mission is to publish original, balanced journalism about environmental issues affecting the Pacific Northwest. Columbia Insight is a fully independent, registered nonprofit organization. To support environmental journalism “donate here” to Columbia Insight.

Hard frost threatens crops and the farmworkers who tend them across Vermont

Orchardist Erin Robinson sits among apple trees at Scott Farm Orchard after realizing the extent of the damage caused by a hard frost. Photo by Fredson Brissett

A hard frost crept through Vermont last week, damaging thousands of acres of growing produce. With overnight temperatures reaching as low as 25 degrees on the night of May 17, growers throughout the state woke up on Thursday morning to apple and berry blossoms that had turned black inside, conceding the possibility of future fruit.

On the morning after the frost, growers at Scott Farm Orchard in Dummerston surveyed the property, orchardist Erin Robinson said, sitting beside apple trees that were limp and glistening in the frost. 

“It is the most brutal feeling to love something so deeply and be so powerless to protect it,” Robinson wrote in an Instagram post.

“In my 25 years of working with fruit crops in Vermont, I have never seen frost or freeze damage this extensive,” Terence Bradshaw, associate professor at the University of Vermont Extension Fruit Program, said in a press release. “My team is systematically collecting damage data across the region to help inform next steps to respond to this event.”

According to Anson Tebbetts, secretary of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, the hard freeze could result in significant losses for growers who cultivate fruits, produce, berries and wine — and for the Vermonters who enjoy them come summer. 

“The losses caused by the late Spring frost is heartbreaking,” Tebbetts said in a press release. “The extent of the damage may not be known for several weeks but early indications are discouraging.”

Since the freeze, apple orchards and vineyards across the state have reported particularly grim circumstances, with ​​50% of primary buds reportedly lost in many Vermont vineyards, according to Kendra Knapik, president of the Vermont Grape and Wine Council.

Scott Adams, a co-owner of Adams Apple Orchard and Farm Market in Williston, said his farm was among the orchards severely damaged during the freeze. 

John Adams of Adams Apple Orchard & Farm Market in Williston mows between the trees of his apple orchard on Wednesday, May 24. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger

“I think we might have taken a pretty significant hit on the apple crop here, based on how cold it got,” Adams said. “But we’ll know better in a week or a week and a half, since there are different elevations in the orchard (with fruitlets) in higher places that may have survived.”

Outsourcing produce from other farms could prove to be difficult, Adams said, since other vendors, including Green Mountain Orchards, a farm in Putney from which Adams’ farm has obtained additional produce in the past, also experienced dire losses from the freeze. 

“If they were impacted, that means we’re impacted,” Adams said. 

Despite the significant damage to much of the produce throughout the state, farmers at Adams Apple Orchard and Green Mountain Orchards remain optimistic that there will be enough blueberries to offer to pick-your-own customers.

“The trees are fine. The apples are dead,” John Adams of Adams Apple Orchard & Farm Market in Williston said on Wednesday, May 24, after a hard frost decimated his crop. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger

“Nothing appears to be dead on the blueberry bushes,” Adams said. “I think the blueberries survived … (although) you can’t really count on a crop until it’s in storage.”

While it is unclear whether Vermont growers will be eligible for financial relief assistance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency provides federal crop protection for weather-related losses in certain circumstances. The Vermont Agency of Agriculture has begun reaching out to local growers to collect information on the damage, urging Vermont farmers to document and report their losses to their local Farm Service office in case aid becomes available.

For many farms, though, the losses caused by the freeze could be more than federal aid may be able to account for.

“(Crop insurance) is a pretty complicated entity to deal with,” Robinson said. “At this point we’ll take what we can get, but it by no means touches what is needed.”

At farms across the state, the effect of the freeze ripples out past the edges of the frozen fruitlets into the lives of the workers and consumers who depend on them. 

“The trees are fine. The apples are dead,” John Adams of Adams Apple Orchard & Farm Market in Williston said on Wednesday, May 24, as he shows the brown center of a frost-damaged apple bud. Photo by Glenn Russell/VTDigger

“I grieve for the fruit and try to keep the perspective that my trees are still living, that there will be harvests to come,” Robinson said. “But there’s also fear now — Mother Nature is something that’s out of our control with climate disruption, and for the men who come here to work to support their families back home, this will have a huge impact on them, and not just my farm.”

Of the eight seasonal farmworkers who travel to Scott Farm from Jamaica annually to work during the growing season, Robinson said four will lose their jobs this year because of the financial pressures the farm is facing after the frost. Some of the workers, she said, have been working at Scott farm for more than 30 years.   

Fredson Brissett, a farmworker from Trelawny Parish in Jamaica who has worked at Scott Farm for 25 years, said that after the frost, he sent photos of the blackened apple blossoms to some fellow Jamaican farmworkers who had yet to arrive at Scott Farm, and who this year, may not be able to at all.

Farmer Fredson Brissett, left and orchardist Erin Robinson, surveyed damage caused by the frost together at Scott Farm Orchard. Photo by Erin Robinson

“Plenty of us, including myself, depend on this overseas job to balance our budget back home,” Brissett said. “It’s gonna be a big setback for those who don’t have a chance to make it this year. Especially if they don’t find anywhere else to go.”

Brissett said he fears what could happen if frosts like this one become a more regular occurrence. He said he hopes farmworkers can collaborate to share strategies for preventing crop damage in the future to “save their crops and themselves.”

“For those who haven’t experienced this before as growers, and knowing this could happen again, I believe all growers should come together,” he said. “It’s gonna take a lot.”

Read the story on VTDigger here: Hard frost threatens crops and the farmworkers who tend them across Vermont.

Lost in translation: How USDA barriers leave immigrant farmers and ranchers behind

Some Nebraska farmers are protecting drinking water while boosting profit. Here’s how.

For years, farmers milked cows by hand. Now robots and technology do the work.

For years, farmers milked cows by hand. Now robots and technology do the work.

Chad Kieffer, a third-generation farmer from Utica, Minnesota, has five milkers for his herd of 350 cows. 

The milkers are squat, patient, persistent workers. They hum around the mooing cows. They are robots.

In an increasingly automated world, the dairy industry is keeping up. According to Michigan State University, robotic milkers were first introduced in the United States in 2000. Now, according to Hoard’s Dairyman magazine, over 35,000 robotic milking units can be found around the world with thousands in the U.S.

“It’s always changing. It’s like your iPhone getting changed every six months. There’s lots of technology that’s getting researched every day,” said Dana Allen, a fourth-generation dairy farmer from Eyota, Minnesota. 

Dairy technology has transformed the industry. 

Decades ago, dairy producers milked by hand. Then came buckets, pipelines, parlors, and then parlors with automatic unit removal, rotary parlors, and robots, according to Douglas Reinemann, Ph.D., a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Automation started in Europe. Company DeLaval started using an automated robot system at a farm in Sweden in 1997. Another maker is Lely, based in the Netherlands. 

By 2000, automation came to the U.S. The results are significant, farmers and researchers say. Cows feel less stress, farmers are able to be more efficient and they gain time. They also save money on labor.

Now there are 500 to 1,000 U.S. operations using the milking robots, said Reinemann.

The automation is not perfect. Startup costs challenge smaller producers. As there is with most machinery, there also is the need for maintenance. 

The robot automatically sucks onto the teats of the cow. (Photo by Ethan Humble, for Investigate Midwest)

Farmers gain time to work

Automated milking systems (AMS) give farmers time to focus on other work, and typically more time on skilled duties. This saves labor, Reinemann said. He also noted that AMS helps farmers ergonomically as they avoid repetitive physical tasks.

Farmers who use AMS appreciate the labor savings.

“The farmers have more time to clean up the farm, work on the crops, and other chores. It may even allow a farmer to attend their kid’s sporting events and in turn, improve their mental health,” said Mariah Busta, executive director of the Iowa State Dairy Association. 

But the rate of change is up to the farmer. 

“The degree to which a farmer adapts to technology and the speed at which they do it is open for their comfort level,” Allen said. “There is a tremendous amount of technology in agriculture, and I think that’s something the general public doesn’t understand.” 

Robots leave cows calmer

Robots, like Kieffer’s, milk cows without the physical presence of a human being, using a robotic arm with the aid of either 3D cameras or laser beams to locate a cow’s teats.  

According to the Animal Agriculture Alliance, a nonprofit focused on sustainable ag, the total time needed to milk one cow takes an average of seven minutes with a robot.

Since installing robots, Kieffer has reduced his number of full-time dairy employees from six to three.

“The robot is doing the milking for you, so the cost of the robots has to be offset by labor savings,” he said. The robots can cost more than $200,000 each.

The farmers also said the cows’ comfort is a critical benefit. Reinemann said cows can associate humans with negative interactions, such as a veterinarian checkup or being moved to and from different buildings.

Chad Kieffer

“You’re allowing a cow to do what she wants when she wants. You’re not forcing her somewhere, and she can go get milked,” Kieffer said.

Cows voluntarily can go to the area indoors to be milked, farmers said. The robot system sorts cows that need to be milked based on how much time has elapsed in between milkings. Ear tags assist with sorting.

In Deer Park, Wisconsin, Kristin Quist of Minglewood Dairy keeps about 500 of her herd of 1,200 cows in a robot milking facility. She uses a system that guides the animals through the barn. 

“The cow walks through a gate determining if it’s time for them to be milked after reading a tag in her ear,” she said. “If it’s time to be milked, she goes into the robot. If it isn’t, she’s sent to be fed in a different direction.” 

RELATED VIDEO: Watch the robot in action

Quist compares her newer robot facility to her milking parlor. 

“The cows in the robot facility are a lot more laid back,” she said. “In the parlor facility, they are more likely to get up expecting to get milked.” 

Regardless of the production method, farmers are producing more milk, primarily because of improved genetics and improved nutrition, researchers said.

Reinemann said research has shown using robots allows cows to remain in the herd longer, which can mean they produce milk longer.

“We won’t be getting any additional land or resources in the coming future, so we need to be efficient with what we have,” Busta said. “Technology is absolutely crucial in helping us continue to be efficient about producing milk in a sustainable way.” 

A view of the inner structure of the rotary shows how it supports 50 cows at Gar-Lin Dairy in Eyota, Minnesota. (Photo by Ethan Humble/for Investigate Midwest)

Other farmers opt for rotating platform systems

Farmers seeking an upgrade have other options beyond milking robots.

Rotary milking parlors allow cows to step onto a circulating platform before farmers attach milking units. The system constantly moves cows on and off the platform.   

Allen milks her herd of about 1,750 cows on her farm, Gar-Lin Dairy, using a platform. Gar-Lin’s rotary allows 50 cows to step onto the platform at a time. 

“Before, we were milking 750 to 800 cows in about seven hours. Now we can milk 1,750 in the same amount of time,” she said. 

Allen said that she initially feared the cows would be difficult to get onto the carousel-like platform, but she quickly learned the greater issue would be getting them off. 

“There’s not a lot of commotion,” she said. “They actually like riding around on the rotary.” 

Marcia Endres

In deciding what type of system a farmer should pursue, a farm of 1,500 to 3,000 cows likely warrants a rotary system, while a herd of 200-300 cows may be better suited for robots, said Marcia Endres, Ph.D., a professor of animal science at the University of Minnesota. With larger herds, a rotary system is more efficient because up to 50 cows can be loaded at once, though it does still require human intervention to get the cows on the platform. 

One benefit of technology is more milk. In 1925, the average Iowa cow was giving 4,000 pounds of milk each year, while today’s cow gives 28,000 pounds annually, according to the state dairy association. 

Some farmers are weighing the pros and cons of the technology. 

Among them is Nick Seitzer, a recent University of Minnesota grad and dairy farmer from St. Peter, Minnesota. He’s thinking about adding a robot to milk his 65 cows. He forecasts about a 10% increase in production if he installs a robot in a free-stall barn. 

“The robot would be huge,” Seitzer said. “Fewer people want to do what we’re doing, so it would be nice to have robots that are always there doing the job.” 

But the initial cost is high. Seitzer estimates one robot would cost about $250,000, not including the physical infrastructure (such as a potential barn expansion, milk house or other needs) to use it.

A heads-up display monitors the milking progress of the cow compared to its expected yield. (Photo by Ethan Humble, for Investigate Midwest)

On his Utica, Minnesota, farm, Kieffer saw robots as a smart investment. Kieffer typically spends one hour a day doing maintenance, he said. 

“Your debt per cow or debt per stall becomes rather large up front, but what I tell people is you’re basically prepaying your labor for seven or eight years,” he said. “It ends up being less than a traditional herd of cows being milked in a parlor.” 

With dairy technology rapidly changing, Seitzer has been feeling pressure for his operation to adapt. 

“If we don’t, we may not be doing it much longer,” he said. 

Dr. Lindsey Borst, a veterinarian who milks 230 cows alongside her family in Rochester, Minnesota, feels differently. Borst has been looking at robots for five to six years.

“I wouldn’t say we’re falling behind. Robots are still fairly new, and they’re not super common yet,” she said. “Sometimes it’s also good to wait because technology is changing so quickly, too.”  

Douglas Reinemann

Robots are not the right choice for all farmers, Kieffer, the farmer, and Endres, the University of Minnesota professor, said.

“Don’t put robots in because you don’t like cows. You also have to be mechanically inclined to do preventative maintenance on the robots,” Kieffer said.

Reinemann, the UW professor since 1990 and director of the UW Milking Research and Instruction lab, grew up in the dairyland of Wisconsin. 

“For me as a young person, milking cows was so ordinary; there was absolutely nothing interesting about it,” he said. “I started my career in milking technology, and it’s been amazing. The shifts in the technology and how dairy farms are managed, it’s been a lot of change.”

RELATED STORY: Technology goes beyond milking

Ethan Humble is a 2023 graduate of Simpson College, where he majored in multimedia journalism. 

Suzanne Behnke contributed to this report.

The post For years, farmers milked cows by hand. Now robots and technology do the work. appeared first on Investigate Midwest.