Beef Cattle Feedyards

1
Beef Cattle Feedyards

• Brent W. Auvermann
• Amarillo, TX
• September 19, 2005

2
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) gt 1,000,000 hd
• Alberta is Canadas 1 cattle-feeding province

3
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.

4
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 gt80
• 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

5
General Layout

• Stocking density 1/cattle spacing
• Typical cattle spacing 150-200 ft2/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

6
Manure and Wastewater Handling

• Predominant form solid manure
• Corral scraping gt1/yr
• May be composted (low N), stockpiled, mounded or
  directly land-applied (higher N)
• NP2O5 ratio around 1-1.5
• Cereal crops require NP2O5 ratio of 2.5-3.5
• Over-apply P or under-apply N

7
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)

8
Runoff Holding Ponds

• Designed to meet EPA no-discharge standard
• No hydrologic connection to ground water
  typically ensured by clay (in situ or imported)
  or geotextile liner
• Clay liners gt18 with Ksatlt10-7 cm/sec
• Management objective EMPTY
• Irrigation-based systems
• Evaporative systems

9
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

10
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

11
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

12
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
• Burials time is short
• Incineration is energy intensive
• Out of sight, out of mind
• Biosecurity
• Water and air quality

13
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 NH3 dissolves readily in downwind
  surface water emissions to be regulated
  eventually due to secondary PM2.5 production,
  CERCLA/EPCRA implementation
• Secondary PM2.5 formation is a sink for acidic
  (SOx, NOx) and alkaline (NH3) gases
• Fugitive dust showing up as a source of soil
  nutrient enrichment downwind of cattle feedyards