Montana

Rooted in Resilience: The Non-Traditional Journey of Swine Veterinarian Dr. Anna Forseth

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 20:27:35 GMT

Dr. Anna Forseth didn’t just follow a path; she carved one. While many people associate Montana with Yellowstone and cattle, Forseth grew up with a much different perspective.

The daughter of two successful pork producers, Bruce and Marie Samson, her family operated Samson Family Farm, a 300-sow, farrow-to-finish confinement hog farm in the southwest part of the state. They marketed about 5,500 pigs a year to packing plants in Twin Falls, Idaho, and Modesto, Calif.

She and her five siblings grew up with a deep appreciation for the family farm, 4-H and the great outdoors. So, how did this Montana native find herself serving 60,000 U.S. pork producers as the director of animal health for the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC)?

A Non-Traditional Journey to National Policy

“Nothing about my path is traditional,” Forseth points out.

While attending Montana State University, she interned with the National Pork Board. During that time, she worked with the science and technology team where she was exposed to a unique way of serving the industry as a veterinarian. She then went to Colorado State University for veterinary school.

“My husband Rocky and I got married during my fourth year of vet school, or should I say ‘our’ fourth year of vet school,” Forseth laughs. “That’s not because he is a vet, but because it’s hard to leave vet school at school. I brought a lot of it home and he was right there in the trenches with me. In fact, my parents gave me a beautiful saddle when I graduated from vet school, but they also gave him one because they thought he deserved one, too.”

Anna Forseth met her husband, Rocky, in an undergrad beef management class. He came from a long line of cattlemen and cattlewomen, and she hailed from Gallatin County, drove a Subaru, and much preferred the pig barn at the county fair over the steer barn. “How this worked is still a mystery to some, but it created quite a team,” she says.

(Anna Forseth)

As a new veterinarian, she went to work for the Swine Medicine Education Center at Iowa State University. She also spent some time working with Smithfield before being hired by the Montana State Veterinarian’s Office in 2018.

Heading back west was important to the young couple who wanted to be closer to family. In 2022, the opportunity to work for NPPC allowed her a unique opportunity as the director of animal health for America’s pig farmers.

Although her roles have changed over the years, her focus has remained the same.

“When I thought about visiting a farm, it was about helping the pigs so that I could help the producer,” Forseth says. “What could I do for the producer that they couldn’t do for themselves? I would often, by default, be helping the pigs, but my focus is always on the producer.”

A Voice for the Producer

Although she no longer sees pigs on a daily basis, she talks to farmers often about their pigs. She points out that her role allows her to help farmers in a way that they can’t do for themselves because they are busy caring for their pigs and raising a protein that so many people in the world rely on.

“I am the bridge between policy and the producer,” Forseth says. “I’m not necropsying pigs and submitting samples to the diagnostic lab anymore, but I’m representing the industry domestically and internationally. I’m so proud to be doing that on their behalf.”

When she started in 2022, almost all of her time was spent on preparedness and response planning for African swine fever, post detection of ASF in the Dominican Republic. She continues to spend time on ASF response planning, though the diseases of focus have expanded since she began working for NPPC. Lately, she’s been engaged in foot-and-mouth disease, highly pathogenic avian influenza and New World screwworm planning.

“I think foot-and-mouth disease scares me the most because of its potential impact on multiple species,” she says. “Even if the swine industry were to manage the disease, we would be dependent on other domestic species’ ability to manage it. Remember that particular virus affects cloven-hooved animals, to include wild cervids and feral swine.”

During Forseth’s time at NPPC, annual funding for the National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Plan (NADPRP) has surged from $18 million to $70 million. She currently serves on the NADPRP advisory board, ensuring these historic resources are strategically deployed to protect producers through enhanced state engagement and emergency readiness.

NPPC has also secured other legislative and funding victories, including the passage of the Beagle Brigade Act and the transition of the US SHIP program to the USDA. Central to these efforts is the “three-legged stool” of animal health—funding the national laboratory network, the vaccine bank, and the veterinary stockpile.

Rooted in Resilience

When she’s not working on behalf of pig farmers, Forseth keeps busy supporting her husband on their registered SimAngus cattle ranch and caring for their two young kids.

“It’s one big, but fun, balancing act,” she says. “I enjoy everything I’m doing, from being a mom to being a rancher’s wife to being a veterinarian for NPPC. I’m thankful for the example I had with my mom, who raised six kids and supported the farm. When work needed to be done and someone needed to step up, that someone was always her. While she was balancing all of our lives, I was watching and learning.”

Forseth is quick to point out that she learned a lot from her dad, too. He passed away in 2023 after a courageous battle with multiple myeloma.

“I will always remember him as a fighter, even before his cancer diagnosis, but certainly after,” Forseth says. “Despite pain and his prognosis, he stayed optimistic and focused on others.”

She vividly remembers the day she found out that he had cancer during a routine morning drive to a histology lab in vet school.

“I cried so hard on my way to school that I gave myself a bloody nose,” she says. “I got myself into class and sat down in front of the microscope. I hadn’t looked at the schedule for the day. To my surprise, we were looking at cancer cells – that was salt in the wound for me that morning. After class, I asked the professor to tell me what she knew about multiple myeloma.”

When she got back to her car, she called her dad and told him she was going to take the rest of the day off because she didn’t feel like sitting in a lecture hall in light of the news he just shared.

“He asked, ‘Why in the world would you do that?’” Forseth says. “He tried to perk me up by telling me about all the great advances. He just kept talking about the science and how cool it was. I loved that so much – it was never about him, even on his hardest days, it was always about somebody else.”

Unique Times Call for Unique Leadership

Forseth gets her passion for putting others first from her dad. It fuels her decisions every day as she strives to represent U.S. pig farmers from coast to coast.

Whether she’s navigating global meetings with the World Organization for Animal Health or tackling feral swine management with her trademark “Montana grit,” Forseth’s unique perspective is an invaluable asset. She is a reminder of how agriculture can be strengthened by those who take non-conventional paths.

“We can’t sustain this industry on a ‘how it has been done’ mentality,” she says. “Today’s consumer is different. The industry structure is different. The workforce is different. The policy pressures are very different. It’s going to take new and unique ideas to address new and sometimes unique challenges.”

Discover more about Forseth’s journey by watching “The PORK Podcast” on YouTube or by listening to it anywhere podcasts are found.

Bull Tests Positive for Brucellosis: Herd Quarantined and Investigation Continues

Thu, 21 Aug 2025 16:09:19 GMT

On Friday, August 15, the Montana Department of Livestock (MDOL) received confirmation that an animal from a Beaverhead County herd within Montana’s Designated Surveillance Area (DSA) tested positive for brucellosis.

According to a press release , the herd has been placed under quarantine pending the completion of an epidemiological investigation.

The positive bull was identified as a brucellosis suspect during required testing at a livestock market in late July. The animal was euthanized and taken for necropsy at the Montana Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory where tissues were collected and sent to the USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) in Ames, Iowa, for confirmatory testing. NVSL was able to grow the Brucella abortus organism from one of the lymph nodes collected from the animal.

The disease investigation will include testing and tracing of animal contacts and movements to ensure the disease is not present in other livestock herds. MDOL will work with the affected operation to minimize the impact of this diagnosis by conducting a tailored and focused investigation.

Montana’s Designated Surveillance Area (DSA)

(Montana Department of Livestock)

Montana’s DSA exists due to the risk of disease spillover from infected wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). Program testing requirements help ensure cases of brucellosis in livestock are detected before animals leave the DSA. Successful early detection provides confidence to Montana’s trading partners that any Montana cattle they may receive are brucellosis free. Brucellosis causes reproductive issues in livestock including abortions, still births and neonatal mortalities.

“While detections of brucellosis are a hardship on operations, this detection is still a reflection of the success of our state brucellosis program,” says Dr. Brenee Peterson, MDOL veterinarian. “Through the work of DSA producers and local veterinarians, we continue to detect the disease early and prevent the export of a brucellosis-infected animal to one of our trading partners.”

Previous Brucellosis Detection

This herd is the 14^th brucellosis-affected herd confirmed in Montana since the implementation of the DSA in 2010. The most recent detection was within the DSA in Madison County in April 2023. While the source of infection for this latest infected bull has not yet been determined, DNA genotyping and epidemiological investigations have concluded the previous 13 infections came from wild elk. Prior investigations have also confirmed brucellosis has not spread to neighboring herds through fence-line contact.

What is Brucellosis?

According to USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (AHIS) brucellosis (also known as contagious abortion or Bang’s disease) is a costly disease of livestock and wildlife. It is caused by a group of bacteria in the genus Brucella. The disease has significant consequences for animal health, public health and international trade.

Brucellosis occurs mainly in cattle, bison and swine, but can affect other animals (cervids, goats, sheep and horses) as well as people.

In cattle and bison, the bacteria of concern is Brucella abortus. It has been present in the U.S. since the 1930s. A longstanding national eradication program mostly eliminated the disease in U.S. cattle. Today, only occasional spillover cases occur in cattle and other livestock near the GYA. Wild bison and elk in the GYA are the last remaining reservoir of this disease in the U.S.

According to the APHIS website , when signs do appear, they’re most obvious in pregnant animals. Here’s what to look for:

Abortion (usually at five to seven months of pregnancy)
Birth of weak, unhealthy calves
Decreased milk production
Weight loss
Poor conception rates or infertility
Retained afterbirths with resulting uterine infections
Enlarged, arthritic joints (occasionally)

“Appearance alone isn’t an effective way to detect brucellosis,” according to the website. “Infected animals may appear healthy, even during pregnancy. However, they can still harbor and spread infectious bacteria and serve as dangerous sources of infection.”

Producers or owners who suspect an animal disease should contact their veterinarian to evaluate the animal or herd.

The Cost of Coexistence With Wolves

Mon, 14 Jul 2025 17:13:14 GMT

Wolves continue to cause ranchers havoc, including significant income loss. Recent research estimates the wolves are causing some impacted ranchers in the Southwest to lose 28% of their income potential.

“While the expansion of gray and Mexican gray wolf populations is often hailed as a conservation success, the consequences for ranching families can be gruesome, costly and complex,” says Daniel Munch, American Farm Bureau Federation economist. “They are threatening the safety of ranch families and their pets and livestock, as well as the long-term survival of multigenerational ranches and the rural economies they anchor.”

Munch summarized a recent University of Arizona study that focused on the Mexican gray wolf and analyzed both direct livestock depredation and indirect effects such as stress-induced weight loss and elevated management costs based on 2024 cattle prices. Findings are based on survey responses from impacted ranchers, modeling of herd-level financial outcome and county-level livestock performance trends.

“In areas with wolf presence, even a moderate level of impact, such as 2% calf loss, 3.5% weight reduction and average management costs, can reduce annual ranch revenue by 28%,” Munch says.

While the study focuses on Mexican gray wolves in the Southwest, the core challenges it identifies — livestock depredation, herd stress and weight loss, increased management costs and difficulties accessing timely compensation — are not unique to that region. Ranchers across the northern Rockies, Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes states report similar experiences as wolf populations have expanded.

“Because these economic stressors stem from common predator-prey dynamics and livestock production systems, the study’s findings provide a credible framework for estimating broader impacts,” he says. “This Market Intel draws on that foundation to illustrate the tangible financial risks associated with predator recovery and highlight the need for responsive, producer-informed wildlife policy in all regions affected by wolf activity.”

Key statistics shared by Munch in his article, “ Wolves and the West: The Cost of Coexistence ,” include:

$1,336 average value loss per calf due to wolves. Whether the calf was a day old or nearly ready for market, the rancher loses its full market value, estimated at $1,336 in 2024 for a 525 lb. calf.
A 2% loss of calves could reduce a 367-head ranch’s net income by 4%, or about $5,195, for that year. At higher loss levels, such as 14% of calves, net income could fall by as much as 34%, or roughly $42,599, in that same year.

When a cow is killed, the financial hit extends over multiple years.

“The operation not only loses that year’s calf, but also future offspring, along with the revenue and herd stability that cow would have provided,” Munch explains. “Ranchers then have to retain or buy replacements. This means fewer animals are available for sale, working capital must be used to buy additional replacements and herd development is ultimately delayed. Excluding these long-term impacts, the revenue loss associated with the loss of a single cow was estimated at $2,673.”

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

Figure 2 displays the calculated value of calves lost under this scenario, assuming each calf is valued at $1,336. This generates a loss of 13,514 calves out of an inventory of 1.87 million calves valued at $18 million in wolf-occupied counties. The states with the highest number of calf depredations under this scenario are Montana ($3 million; approximately 2,307 calves) and Idaho ($2.7 million; approximately 2,044 calves).

Keep in mind this method assumes static wolf presence at the county level. Wolves regularly traverse dozens of miles per day, crossing county and state borders, so county-level presence can vary widely year to year.

58% of those surveyed had stress- or depredation-related wolf impacts on their operation (compared to just 38% reporting depredation).
3.5% reduction in average calf weaning weight (18.4 lb.). According to Munch a figure supported by published field research — can significantly reduce revenues across an entire herd.

At the $2.54 per lb. value reference in the study ($1,336/525 lb. average), a ranch that markets 80 head would lose out on $3,738 in marketable weight value.

“Weight loss can be much higher in regions with elevated wolf activity,” Munch says. “If that same ranch experienced a 10% reduction in weaning weight, the loss would exceed $10,600 before even factoring in additional impacts like reduced conception rates.”

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

Using these assumptions about ranch exposure to wolf presence and average weight loss, Figure 3 presents the estimated revenue loss by state. In total, more than $50 million in potential calf weight value was lost due to wolf presence, including $8.6 million in Montana and $7.6 million in Idaho alone.

Ranchers reported an average cost of $79 per cow for conflict avoidance measures and associated labor.

Wolf presence forces ranchers to change the way they manage their operations — often at a steep cost. In wolf-occupied areas, ranchers routinely implement additional strategies to deter predation, respond to attacks and monitor herds across expansive rangelands.

“These management efforts are both labor- and resource-intensive,” Munch says.

Even before accounting for any depredation or stress-related weight loss, these management expenses alone reduced net returns for the average ranch by 19%. Through interviews and surveys, producers indicated they spent anywhere from several thousand dollars to over $150,000 per year on these efforts.

“For our analysis, we convert the $79 per cow figure to $55.30 per calf based on their 70% calf crop assumption,” he explains. “We then apply this per-calf cost to estimate statewide wolf-management expenses, using the study’s finding that 58% of ranchers in wolf-occupied counties experience wolf-induced stressors. Based on these assumptions, ranchers nationwide spend over $60 million each year on efforts to mitigate the impacts of gray wolves.” (Figure 4)

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

All combined, on a ranch experiencing a modest 2% calf depredation and 3.5% weight loss that also spends the average reported amount on conflict avoidance, annual ranch revenues are reduced by 28% ($34,642). These combined costs, reflecting $128 million in annual costs to U.S. ranchers, are displayed in Figure 5.

(Data: American Farm Bureau Federation)

45% drop in the ranch’s long-term earning potential. The study projected what repeated losses from wolves would do to a ranch’s profitability over 30 years. Even a moderate level of impact — losing 2% of calves and 3.5% lower weights — would reduce the ranch’s net present value by more than $191,000.

“In plain terms, that’s a 45% drop in the ranch’s long-term earning potential,” Munch says.

The study estimates that, without wolf impacts, the ranch would generate about $420,000 in long-term profits (in today’s dollars). With average wolf-related losses, that shrinks to $228,000.

“While a single year’s loss might seem manageable, the effects compound over time,” Munch says. “Smaller calf crops mean fewer replacements and fewer animals to sell, while lower weights reduce revenue year after year. These cumulative impacts ripple through herd management and finances, steadily eroding profitability and increasing the odds that the operation may not be financially sustainable in the long run.”

Munch summarizes if predator recovery efforts are to be economically sustainable, they must be accompanied by policies that recognize the people on the front lines: those whose livelihoods now depend not only on their animals but also on a system that values and supports the cost of coexistence.

“That’s the heart of the issue,” Munch explains. “For many ranching families, the return of wolves is not just a wildlife management question, it’s a daily reality shaped by decisions made in distant urban centers, often by voters and officials who will never have to look into the eyes of a mother cow searching for her calf. Ranchers are the ones bearing the real-world costs of policies shaped far from the range. And they’re doing so while continuing to care for livestock, steward the land and feed a growing world.”

Montana Stockgrowers Association Elects Lesley Robinson As President

Fourth generation rancher, Lesley Robinson, was recently elected the first woman president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA). Robinson’s family has been ranching in Phillips County, which is in the north central part of the state, since the early 1900s. She and her husband, Jim, have been married for 39 years and have ranched their entire lives. Currently they own and operate the Lazy JD Cattle Company, a ranch purchased in 1958 by Jim’s family.

“You have to have a passion for ranching to love it,” Robinson says. “If you don’t have a passion for it, it’s going to be very hard to get up every day and go through everything that you have to do to make a ranch successful.”

Robinson’s interest in leadership was inspired by her parents, who were both involved with livestock associations.

She previoulsy served on MSGA’s board of directors from 1996-2000 and has spent the last two decades dedicating her time and knowledge to the livestock industry on the local, state and national levels.

“My vision for the cattle industry in Montana and across the nation is to keep agriculture land in production,” Robinson shares. “We need to keep the ranchers on the land producing beef and encourage young people to come into ranching. It’s important we find ways to help people be successful in ranching, so that we can keep the land in production.”

With a record number of dispersions in Montana and other states, Robinson says remaining sustainable is a top priority.

“Right now we have the good markets, but we need to be able to be sustainable when the markets drop also,” she says. “It’s important to find ways to make your place sustainable in the bad times along with the good times.”

This cattlewoman recognizes not everyone agrees on all the issues, but it’s important to work together.

“We need to work on the tax rules that are going to sunset next year in 2025 and I think that most of the organizations, if not all of them, can agree on estate tax needs to be either get rid of estate tax or at least keep the limits that we have in place right now,” she says.

A quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald inspires Robinson daily. She has a sign on her wall with it that reads ‘Never confuse a single defeat with a final defeat.’

“You can still have a loss, but don’t give up, because not every everybody can win, so just keep trying and come back,” Robinson says. “We have losses every day in ranching, so we’re resilient, and we have to just keep going.”

For more information, visit mtbeef.org .

Your next read: Nutritional Requirements of Cattle in Winter