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

-------