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 ------- |