Beef Cattle Feedyards

Brent W. Auvermann Amarillo, TX September 19, 2005

Industry Description

• • • • • • Major cattle-feeding states: TX, KS, NE, IA, OK, CO, ID, WA, AZ, CA ~ 25 million hd/yr produced on feed 30% produced within ~150 mi of Amarillo, TX Increasingly dominated by multi-feedyard corporations (5-10 feedyards, 350-600,000 hd) Deaf Smith Co. (TX) > 1,000,000 hd Alberta is Canada’s #1 cattle-feeding province

Feedyard Description

• • • Average one-time capacity increasing & varies geographically (~40,000 in southern High Plains) One-time capacity x 2.2 = annual throughput 365/2.2 = 165 days per feeding period, or “turn” – depends on beginning liveweight • • • Feed-to-gain ratio = 6 (approx.) Beginning liveweight 350-750 lb.

Market weight 1,100-1,300 lb.

Feedyard Description

• • • • • • • Average daily gain (ADG) ~ 3-4 lb/hd/d Daily intake averages 20-25 lb/d dry matter (DM) Average water use varies seasonally; 8-15 gal/hd/d Feed digestibility >80% Each animal may receive up to 3 or 4 different rations through feeding period – Starter (high roughage) – – Step-up or transitional Finishing (high energy; may exceed 90% digestibility) Manure production ~ 0.75-1 dry ton/hd (cap)/yr Corn, sorghum, distillers’ grains, potatoes, other

General Layout

• • • • Stocking density = 1/cattle spacing Typical cattle spacing 150-200 ft 2 /hd Total corral area ~3.5-4.5 ac/1,000 hd capacity 45,000-hd yard covers 200 ac including ancillary areas (feed mill, manure handling, holding ponds etc. • Typical SCS Runoff Curve Number 90-95

Manure and Wastewater Handling

• Predominant form: solid manure – – Corral scraping >1/yr May be composted (low N), stockpiled, mounded or directly land-applied (higher N) – – – N:P 2 O 5 ratio around 1-1.5

Cereal crops require N:P 2 O 5 ratio of 2.5-3.5

Over-apply P or under-apply N

Manure and Wastewater Handling

• Liquids – Usually little to no process-generated wastewater – Rainfall runoff – full containment (25-yr/24-h) • • • • • CN ~ 90-95 Management objective: rapid drainage Improves manure quality, reduces odor/dust potential May be enhanced by mounding Old vs. new construction practices – Overflow waterers (winter only)

Runoff Holding Ponds

• • • • Designed to meet EPA no-discharge standard “No hydrologic connection” to ground water typically ensured by clay ( or geotextile liner

in situ

or imported) Clay liners >18” with K sat <10 -7 cm/sec Management objective:

EMPTY

– – Irrigation-based systems Evaporative systems

Threats to Water Quality

• Surface water – – – – – – Excess nutrients from land application Solid manure is P-rich Historical NMPs (where used) based on N req.

Tailwater from wastewater irrigation Holding pond overflows Soil erosion, rainfall runoff

Threats to Water Quality

• Ground water – Excess nutrients from land application – Inorganic N is highly soluble; organic P also – – Shallow water tables (e. g., S. Platte River, CO) Unprotected wellheads, old well casings – – Poor liner construction or installation Sweeten

et al

. (early 1990s) found little to no WQ impact from feedyard holding ponds in Texas Panhandle

National Trends

• • • • Steady growth and expansion, but not many new feedyards • Net flow of P from mines in FL to Corn Belt to cattle-feeding states (B. Stewart, WTAMU) Declining water tables in High Plains will reduce irrigated acreage, crop yield and sustainable fertilization rates Above-average growth in semi-arid West Accelerated P-based nutrient planning

Other Trends

• • • Koelsch

et al

. (2002) found that the ratio of nutrient inputs to “managed outputs” (meat, crops, marketed manure) frequently exceeds 1.0 and may approach 6-10 in extreme cases Confirms Smolen

et al

. (late 1990s) finding of significant nutrient concentration in OK cattle-feeding counties Dead animal disposal a growing concern – Rendering a vanishing prospect for many remote producers – Burial’s time is short – – Incineration is energy intensive “Out of sight, out of mind” – Biosecurity – Water and air quality

Other Trends

• • • • Energy production from manure and manure products is returning – $60/bbl crude – Shifts WQ burden incrementally to power plants (ash; dry and wet deposition of stack emissions) Airborne NH 3 water; emissions to be regulated eventually due to secondary PM dissolves readily in downwind surface 2.5

production, CERCLA/EPCRA implementation Secondary PM 2.5

formation is a sink for acidic (SO x , NO x ) and alkaline (NH 3 ) gases Fugitive dust showing up as a source of soil nutrient enrichment downwind of cattle feedyards