USGS Home
Contact USGS
Search USGS

Table 1.  Mean (±95% confidence limits) values of Minnesota farm characteristics for 41 farms suffering chronic wolf depredations on cattle and 41 nearby matching farms that experienced no such losses, 1989-98.
	Chronic a	Match a
Farm size (ha)	491	292 ± 71
Number of cattle	158	82 ± 18
Number of years raising cattle	38	35 ± 8
Amount (arc°) of pasture bordered by brush-forest	213	205 ± 38
Longest distance livestock is from house (km)	2.8	1.8 ± 0.5
a Chronic farms represented a complete population, except for 2 farms, whereas matching farms were a sample.

Table 2.  Types of pasture where cattle were located at 41 Minnesota farms suffering from chronic wolf depredations on cattle and 41 nearby matching farms experiencing no such losses, 1989-98.
Type of pasture	Total chronic a	Total matching a
Brushy	0	2
Open	13	14
Wooded	0	0
Open-brushy	4	4
Open-brushy-wooded	11	7
Open-wooded	13	14
Total	41	41
a Chronic farms represented a complete population, except for 2 farms, whereas matching farms were a sample. (= 2.96, P = 0.56).

Table 3.  Calving locations for 41 Minnesota farms suffering chronic wolf depredations on cattle and 41 nearby matching farms that experienced no such losses, 1989-98.
Location of calving	Total chronic a	Total matching a
Barn	3	4
Barnyard	29	25
Barn and barnyard	0	3
Pasture	7	6
Pasture and barn	1	0
Pasture and barnyard	1	1
No calves	0	2
Total	41	41
a Chronic farms represented a complete population, except for 2 farms, whereas matching farms were a sample. (= 6.52, P = 0.37).

Table 4.  Number of times/week Minnesota farmers checked cattle at 41 farms suffering chronic wolf depredations on cattle and 41 matching farms that experienced no such losses, 1989-98.
Times stock checked	Chronic farms a	Matching farms a
0	1	0
1	1	3
2	5	5
3	3	1
4	2	6
7	21	20
14	7	4
Almost daily	1	0
More than twice/day	0	2
Total	41	41
a Chronic farms represented a complete population, except for 2 farms, whereas matching farms were a sample. (= 8.84, P = 0.36).

The equivocal factor was method of carcass disposal. Contrary to expectations, more farms with chronic losses reported properly disposing of carcasses than did matching farms not suffering cattle depredations (Table 5). However, WS personnel indicated that they had observed evidence of at least an intermittent carcass dump on all except 2 of the 41 farms with chronic losses. Number of carcasses that matching farms disposed of varied from 2 to 10/year.

Table 5.  Carcass disposal methods for 41 Minnesota farms suffering chronic wolf depredations on cattle and 41 nearby matching farms that experienced no such losses, 1989-98.
Carcass disposal method	Total chronic farms a	Total matching farms a
Bury	24	13
Burn	3	4
Carcass dump	1	3
Carcass dump and burn	0	1
Rendering plant	3	2
Leave in pasture	2	10
Bury and lime	1	0
Bury and burn	2	3
Leave in pasture and burn	1	0
Leave in pasture and feed to dogs	1	1
Leave in pasture and bury	1	1
Rendering plant and bury	1	1
Rendering plant and feed to dogs	1	0
Rendering plant and pasture	0	1
Unknown	0	1
Total	41	41
a Chronic farms represented a complete population, except for 2 farms, whereas matching farms were a sample. (= 6.15, P = 0.30).

Habitat-land-use characteristics for chronic farms and their matches were similar in all respects that we could measure for the 1.6-km and 4.8-km radii (Table 6). In other words, neither habitat nor land-use proportions within 1.6 or 4.8 km around farms differed between chronic and matched farms.

Table 6.  Percentage of habitat types within circles of 1.6-km and 4.8-km radii around the farms summed for 41 Minnesota farms suffering chronic wolf depredation on cattle and 41 nearby matching farms that experienced no such losses, 1989-98.
Habitat Type	1.6-km radius		4.8-km radius a
	Chronic farms b	Matching farms b	Chronic farms b	Matching farms b
Bog-marsh-fen	12	9	17	14
Brushland	10	10	9	9
Cultivated	19	22	15	16
Forested	35	34	43	43
Hay-pasture-grassland	23	22	13	14
Mining	0	0	0	0
Urban-rural development	1	1	1	1
Water	1	1	2	3
a Chronic farm without a matching farm not included in analysis. b One chronic farm and its match removed as the 4.8-km buffer extended outside of habitat coverage. Because results were so obviously similar, they were not tested statistically, in keeping with Chatfield (1995) and Cherry (1998).