SWRHL-40r
PASTURE AND GREEN CHOP FEEDING PRACTICES
IN NEVADA WITHIN 300 MILES OF PAHUTE MESA
IN THE 0° - 60° TRAJECTORY
by the
Milk, Food and Water Surveillance Unit
Environmental Surveillance ..
Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Public Health Service
National Center for Radiological Health
November 1968
This study performed under a Memorandum of
Understanding (No. SF 54 373)
for the
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
-------
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of Government sponsored
work. Neither the United States, nor the Atomic Energy Commission,
nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission:
A. makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied,
with re-spot t to the ac curacy, completeness, or usefulness of the in-
formation contained in this report, or that the use of any information,
apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not in-
fringe privately owned rights; or
B. assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages
resulting from the use of any information, apparatus, method, or pro-
cess disclosed in this report.
As used in the above, "person acting on behalf of the Commission"
includes any employee or contractor of the Commission, or employee
of such contractor, to the extent that such employee or contractor of
the Commission, or employee of such contractor prepares, dissemin-
ates, or provides access to, any information pursuant to his employ-
ment or contract with the Commission, or his employment with such
contractor.
056
-------
ROUTINE MILK SAMPLING STATIONS
-------
SWRHL-40r
PASTURE AND GREEN CHOP FEEDING PRACTICES
IN NEVADA WITHIN 300 MILES OF PAHUTE MESA
IN THE 0° - 60° TRAJECTORY
by the
Milk, Food and Water Surveillance Unit
Environmental Surveillance
Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Public Health Service
National Center for Ra'diological Health
November 1968
This study performed under a Memorandum of
Understanding (No. SF 54 373)
for thy
U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
-------
ABSTRACT
This report indicates the feeding practices for milk cows within a
specific trajectory in the State of Nevada. Graphs are presented
to show that the number of cows fed on pasture increases rapidly
during the month of April and decreases sharply during October.
Also included is other information pf interest such as milk production
and distribution in Nevada and Utah.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF TABLE AND FIGURES iii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. DISCUSSION OF TABLE AND FIGURES 2
III. SOME POSSIBLE PROTECTIVE ACTIONS AND
ESTIMATED COSTS 2
IV- ADDITIONAL STUDY AREAS 8
V. CONCLUSION ' 8
APPENDIX 9
DISTRIBUTION
-------
LIST OF TABLE AND FIGURES
Table 1. Feeding practices of milk cows in study area.
Figure 1. Cows on pasture in Nevada at indicated miles
from Pahute Mesa in the 0°-60° trajectory as
a function of time of year. 4
Figure 2. Cows on pasture in Nevada from zero to indicated
miles from Pahute Mesa in the 0°-60° trajectory
as a function of time of year. 5
Figure 3. Total cows on pasture in Nevada at 0-300 miles
from Pahute Mesa in the 0°-60° trajectory as a
function of time. 6
Additional Information
A. Nevada Grade A milk flow. 9
B. Nevada Grade -A milk production. 10
C. Grade A milk production areas in the state of
Nevada showing months c,ows are usually placed
on pasture or green chop. 11
D. Salt Lake City milk shed, 12
E. Nevada county agents. 13
ill
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to provide information on milk cow
feeding practices out to approximately 300 miles from Pahute
Mesa, Nevada Test Site, in the 0-60 sector.
The report includes both Grade A producers, supplying milk to
milk processing plants for pasteurization and distribution, and
family milk cows kept primarily for production of milk for family
use.
Within this study area, there are seven Grade A milk producers,
all located at Lund, Nevada. The entire milk production at Lund
«
is shipped to Salt Lake City, Utah for processing and distribution.
The feeding practices of milk cows in the state of Nevada vary
from one area to another as well as from one farm or producer
dairy to another.
In general, Grade A milk producers use dry lot feeding practices,
but dry feed (hay, silage, dairy mixt etc. ) may be supplemented
with green chop (alfalfa, small grain or other green forage, cut
and fed green) during certain monthq of the year, depending o)i
their location and on the season. Hdwever, the seven producer
dairies within the study area do not feed green chop, but one c^oes
use pasture beginning about May 15. Of the 329 cows in these
Grade A herds, only 52 are placed on pasture. Normally, family
milk cowsii are not fed green chop although many are placed on
pasture during certain months of the year.
-------
II. DISCUSSION OF TABLE AND FIGURES
The feeding practices of milk cows in the study area are shown
in Table 1. The number of cows on pasture by month for each
50-mile increment is included and cows on dry feed year around are
shown.
The total number of cows feeding on either dry feed (hay) and/or
pasture in any mileage increment can be determined from Table 1
by adding the maximum number of cows feeding on pasture during
the entire year in that particular mileage increment to the number
of cows on dry feed year around in the same increment. An
example would be 250-300 miles: 158 maximum number of cows
on pasture + 13 cows on dry feed year around = 171 cows in this
mileage increment.
The number of cows on pasture in Nevada within the study area is
shown in B'igure 1 as a function of tirpe of year for various mileage
increments from Pahute Mesa. Figure 2 shows distribution of
cows on pasture for various distance^ from Pahute Mesa.
Figure 3 indicates the total number 'Q,f cows on pasture each month
for the entire study area. Section III below contains an estimate
of the cost of replacing contaminated milk or replacing contaminated
feed.
«
These Figures show that pasture feeding practices increase during
the month of April, reach a plateau during the summer months,
and decrease rapidly during the month of October.
UI. SOME POSSIBLE PROTECTIVE'ACTIONS AND ESTIMATED
COSTS
If contamination of an area reaches levels which require protective
action, one solution would be to purchase uncontaminated hay for
all milk cows. This would not constitute a great problem for the
-------
Increment
0-300
Table 1. Feeding practices of milk cows in study area.
Monthly Distribution of Cows on Pasture
Cows on Dry
Feed Year
Around
121 123 162 257 480 512 512 508 479 232 146 128
376
Totals*
Miles
0- 50
50-100
100-150
150-200
200-250
250-300
Jan
0
1
2
11
57
50
Feb
0
1
2
11
57
52
Mar
0
3
2
16
73
68
Apr
0
3
10
38
133
73
May
0
3
69
60
190
158
Jun
0
1
72
71
213
155
Jul
0
1
72
71
213
155
Aug
0
1
70
71
212
154
Sep
0
1
70
68
192
148
Oct
0
1
8
31
126
66
Nov
0
1
4
•19
69
53
Dec
0
1
2
13
59
53
0
0
325
. 25
13
13
0
3
397
96
226
171
893
u>
*Total cows in each increment obtained by adding maximum number of cows on pasture to cows on
dry feed year around.
-------
80-
CO
£ 70.
O
U 60.
£ 50-
oJ 40-
H
2 30'
§ 20-
2 10-
©
320-
g 280-
O 240-
U
h ^^ "
/~\ •
W 120-
CQ
S 80.
§ 40-
® J
100-150 Miles
/" "\
/ \
/ \
X *^.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I FMAMJ J AS ONI
MONTHS
200-250 Miles
.s* *>^
/ \
/ •
"v*«
FMAMJJASONE
MONTHS
i
1
3
)
co 80-
1 70-
u 60.
O 50.
W 40"
s 3°-
g 20-
10-
©
i o n
co 16°:
0 14°"
u i20:
ti
o 100
w 8°:
1 60
D 40
20 •
/^N J
150-200 Miles
/ — \
/ \
/ \
^^ ^
IFMAMJ JA SONE
MONTHS
250-300 Miles
/ "\
/ \
/ \
/ \
^ \
/ i—
FMAMJ J ASONI
MONTHS
)
)
Figure 1. Cows on pasture in Nevada at indicated miles from Pahute Mesa in the 0 -60
trajectory as a function of time of year.
-------
CO
£
O
U
h
O
«
w
Jan Feb
I
Mar
Apr May Jan Jul Aug Sep Oct
Nov Dec
Figure 2. Cows on pasture in Nevada from zero to indicated miles from Pahute Mesa in the
0°-60° trajectory as a function of time of year.
-------
550-
500-
450-
400-
350-
O
U
300-
PU
§ 250-
200-
175-
150-
125-
100
T
T
T
T
Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Jun
Jul
Aug Sep Oct
Nov
r
Dec
Figure 3. Total cows on pasture in Nevada at 0-300 miles from Pahute Mesa in the
0 -60 trajectory as a function of time.
-------
Grade A dairy herds involved. On the other hands it might be quite
a problem to provide hay for family milk cows. An alternative
would be to replace contaminated milk from family milk cows with
uncontaminated milk processed in another area, but this would be
much more expensive.
For example, if corrective action were necessary through the
purchase of uncontaminated hay for all milk cows, the approxi-
mate cost would be as shown below by assuming that the price of
alfalfa hay is approximately $40. 00 per ton, a 1,200 pound milk
cow consumes about 30 pounds of hay per day, and hay would have
to be provided for 100 cows for a period of 30 days.
100 cows x 30 Ibs/day x 30 days x OQ = $ ^
2000 Ibs/ton
By comparison, if milk were purchased at a maximum cost of one
dollar per gallon from 100 cows per day at 4 gallons per cow for
30 days, the cost could amount to $12, 000. Additional estimated
costs are shown in Figure 3. These estimates do not include the
cost of transportation nor the personnel required in buying the hay
and collecting the milk.
It is obvious that the effectiveness and cost of any particular pro-
tective action or countermeasure is ^ function of several variables
such as location, time of year, type pf feed, number of cows,
ultimate disposition of milk, etc. For this reason no single
i
solution can be applied to all cases. In this particular study
!
sector, substitution of uncontaminated hay, milk exchange, or a
combination of the two appears to be the most practical solution.
The merit of covering feed supplies (such as hay stacks) during
cloud passage is being investigated aip still another possibility.
-------
IV. ADDITIONAL STUDY AREAS
Although this study deals primarily with a section of Nevada, the
feeding practices within this sector of Utah should also be mentioned.
The study has shown that most of the Grade A dairy herds in Utah
are on dry lot feed and supplemented with green chop from May 30
through October. Some dairies do use pasture, beginning about
May 15 of each year.
Additional information concerning Nevada and Utah is given in the
Appendix.
V. CONCLUSION
The Study shows that the number of milk cows feeding on pasture
increases during the month of April and decrease-s rapidly during
the month of October. Consequently, radioactive releases into
the atmosphere during the April-October time period would
subject more milk cows to contaminated feed (pasture), thereby
increasing the probability of corrective action.
Two methods of corrective action are possible, but an additional
study would be required to arrive at a more realistic cost figure
than that presented.
-------
APPENDIX
Additional information about Grade A milk production and distri-
bution in the States of Nevada and Utah:
Page
A. Nevada Grade A Milk Flow 9
This map shows the location of Grade A milk producers
in the State of Nevada and in part of the State of Utah. The
number of Grade A producers is given for each location
and arrows indicate where the milk from their producer
dairies is shipped for processing and distribution.
B. Nevada Grade A Milk Production 10
Only eight counties in the State of Nevada produce Grade A
milk. These counties are listed, showing the number of
cows and the milk production in gallons per day for each county.
C. Grade A milk production areas in the State of Nevada showing 11
months cows are usually placed pn pasture or green chop.
D. Salt Lake City Milk Shed 12
E. Nevada County Agents 13
County Agents are an excellent source of information regarding
current feeding practices and sources of hay or other feec),. A
list is,i attached to this report for immediate reference.
-------
CALIFORNIA
NEVADA GRADE A MILK FLOW
LOCATION WHERE MILK IS PROCESSED
GRADE A MILK PRODUCTION AREA AND
NUMBER OF DAIRIES
-------
B. NEVADA GRADE A MILK PRODUCTION*
Milk Production
County No. of Cows Gallons/Day
Churchill 2,600 11,102
Clark 3,607 14,190
Douglas 1,308 4,980
Humboldt 53 150
Lincoln 540 2,075
Lyon 1,242 4,660
Washoe 1,378 5,410
White Pin« 329 1, 005
#Source of Information: 1965 Population and Milk Cow Survey
NOTE: No Grade A milk produced in other counties.
10
-------
c.
GRADE A MILK PRODUCTION AREAS IN THE STATE OF NEVADA
SHOWING MONTHS COWS ARE USUALLY PLACED ON
PASTURE OR GREEN CHOP
LDS Farm - Las Vegas April 1 - November
Logandale - Overton Area, February 1 - November
Mesqulte - Bunkerville Area April 1 - October
Moapa Area May 15 - November
Alamo Area May 15 - November
Lund Area May 15 - October
Fallen Area May 15 - October
Yerington Area March 15 - October
Gardnervijle Area March 15 - October
Reno Area ' May 15 - October
Fernley Ajfea June 1 - August
3V Dairy, Winnemucca None
Source of Information: Population and Milk Cow Census Records,
County Agenti; and Grade A Milk Producers.
11
-------
D.
SALT LAKE CITY MILK SHED
Cache Valley Area
Davis County
Salt Lake County
Tooele County
Juab County
Wasatch County
Utah County
Summit County
Uintach Basin
Sanpete County
Carbon-Emery County
Sevier County
Beaver County
State of Wyoming
State of Nevada (Lund)
Total
Total No. of Cows 21, 298
7,209
4,694
11,797
755
4, 117
18,776
16,139
9,732
8,139
7,908
2,000
4,601
1,744
2,035
1, 150
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
gal/day
100,796 gal/day
Source of Information; Wilbur C. Parkinson, Salt Lake City Health Dept.
12
-------
E.
NEVADA COUNTY AGENTS
Churchill
Clark
Douglas
Elko
Esmeralda-Nye-Mineral-
S. Lander
Eureka-White Pine
Humboldt- N. Lander
Lincoln
Lyon
Pershing
Ormsby-Storey
Washoe
Charles R. York
Box 590, Fallen 89406
Ferren W. Bunker
Federal Building - Room 1-607
300 Las Vegas Blvd. So. 89101
Gail Munk
Courthouse, Minden 89423
Irving Hackett
Federal Building, Elko 89801
James G. Jensen
Federal Building, Tonopah 89049
A. Z. Joy
Box 210, Ely 89301
J. Kirk Day
Federal Building, Winnemucca 89445
Melvin Miller
Box 338, Caliente 89008
•Fred C. Batchelder
Federal Building, Yerington 89447
Louie A. Gardella
Federal Building, Lovelock 89419
Pete Marshall
Box 1102, Carson City 89701
John H. Pursel
Box 1789, Reno 89505
13
-------
DISTRIBUTION
1 - 15 SWRHL, Las Vegas, Nevada
16 Manager, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
17 Robert H. Thalgott, Test Manager, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nev.
18 Henry J. Vermillion, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
19 D. H. Edwaras, Safety Evaluation, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
20 D. W. Hendricks, Radiological Safety Br. , NVOO/AEC,
Las Vegas, Nevada
21 A. J. Whitman, NTSSO, NVOO/AEC, Mercury, Nevada
22 Philip W. Allen, ARL, ESSA, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nev.
23 Chief, NOB/DASA, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
24 Mail & Records, NVOO/AEC, Las Vegas, Nevada
25 Director, DPNE, USAEC, Washington, D. C.
26 Martin B. Biles, DOS, USAEC, Washington, D. C.
27 Gary Higgins, LRL, Livermore^ California
28 Roger E. Batzel, LRL, Livermore, California
29 Harry L. Reynolds, LRL, Livermore, California
30 Harry S. Jordan, LASL, Los Alamos, N. Mex.
31 Charles I. Browne, LASL, Los Alamos, N. Mex.
32 William E. Ogle, LASL, Los Alamos, N. Mex.
33 Byron Murphey, Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
34 - 38 Charles L. Weaver, NCRH, PHS, Rockville, Maryland
39 Northeastern Radiological Health Lab. , Winchester, Mass.
40 Southeastern Radiological Health Lab. , Montgomery, Alabama
41 - 42 DTIE, USAEC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
-------
December 15, 1970
ESD:DWA
Grade A Dairy at Alamo, Nevada
Fllea
Frank Reed informed me, upon hie return from his monitoring route, that
the Alamo area has only one operating Grade A dairy at the present
time. This is the Wright Dairy, code number 27-017-0140-080. This
dairy has increased in size from 86 to approximately 165 cows as a
result of purchasing cows from the dairies that have discontinued
operation (Frehner Dairy - 90 cows, Seip Dairy - 120 cows). The
Schofield Dairy at Hiko is still operating.
David W. Alton
Chief, Data and Reports Unit
ce:
G. Niles
D. Shipman
F. Grossman
C. Costa
F. Re«d
R. Douglas
------- |