EPA-600/2-77-107
June 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
SOURCE ASSESSMENT:
BEEF CATTLE FEEDLOTS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad categories were established to
lacilitate further development and application of environmental technology. Elimination of
traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum
interface in related fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY
series. This series describes research performed to develop and demonstrate instrumenta-
tion, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent environmental degradation from point
and non-point sources of pollution. This work provides the new or. improved technology
required for the control and treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality
standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarijy reflect the views and
policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-77-107
June 1977
SOURCE ASSESSMENT:
BEEF CATTLE FEEDLOTS
by
J.A. Peters and T.R. Blackwood
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
Contract No. 68-02-1874
ROAP No. 21AXM-071
Program Element No. 1AB015
EPA Project Officer: Dale A. Denny
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
PREFACE
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL) of
EPA has the responsibility for insuring that pollution con-
trol technology is available for stationary sources to meet
the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the Water Act, and
the Solid Waste legislation. If control technology is un-
available, inadequate, uneconomical or socially unacceptable,
then financial support is provided for the development of the
needed control techniques for industrial and extractive pro-
cess industries. Approaches considered include: process
modifications, feedstock modifications, add-on control devices,
and complete process substitution. The scale of the control
technology programs ranges from bench- to full-scale demon-
stration plants.
The Chemical Processes Branch of the Industrial Processes
Division of IERL has the responsibility for investing tax
dollars in programs to develop control technology for a large
number (>500) of operations in the chemical industries. As
in any technical program, the first question to answer is,
"Where are the unsolved problems?" This is a determination
which should not be made on superficial information; conse-
quently, each of the industries is being evaluated in detail
to determine if there is, in EPA's judgment, sufficient
environmental risk associated with the process to invest in
the development of control technology. This report contains
the data necessary to make that decision for the air emis-
sions from beef cattle feedlots.
111
-------
Monsanto Research Corporation has contracted with EPA to in-
vestigate the environmental impact of various industries which
represent sources of pollution in accordance with EPA's respon-
sibility as outlined above. Dr. Robert C. Binning serves as
Program Manager in this overall program entitled, "Source
Assessment," which includes the investigation of sources in
each of four categories: combustion, organic materials,
inorganic materials, and open sources. Dr. Dale A. Denny of
the Industrial Processes Division at Research Triangle Park
serves ats EPA Project Officer. In this study of beef cattle
feedlots, Mr. D. K. Oestreich served as EPA Project Leader.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Introduction 1
II Summary 2
III Source Description 5
A. Process Description 5
1. Emission Sources 5
2. Source Composition 8
B. Factors Affecting Emissions 11
C. Geographical Distribution 19
IV Emissions 21
A. Selected Pollutants 21
B. Mass Emissions 22
C. Definition of Representative Source 27
D. Environmental Effects 27
1. Maximum Ground Level Concentration 27
2. Source Severity at Representative 29
Feedlot
3. Distribution of Source Severities 29
4. Affected Population 30
V Control Technology * 31
A. State of the Art 31
1. Dust Control 31
2. Gas/Odor Control 41
B. Future Considerations 46
VI Growth and Nature of the Industry 48
A. Present Technology 48
B. Industry Production Trends 52
VII Appendixes 68
A. Data Treatment for Emissions and Source 69
Severity Calculations
B. Health Hazard Potential Attributable 81
to Odorous Emissions
C. Results from Presurvey Air Samples 85
Taken at Two Texas Cattle Feedlots
D. Raw Data 89
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Section Paqe
VIII Glossary of Terms 94
IX Conversion Factors and Metric Prefixes 96
X References 97
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1 Schematic of an Animal Feedlot System 12
2 Map of P-E Values for State Climatic 14
Divisions
3 Feedlot Nitrogen Cycle 17
4 Cows Other than Milk Cows, 1969 20
5 Cattle, Excluding Calves, Fattened on Grain 20
Concentrates and Sold for Slaughter, 1969
6 Beef Cattle Feedlots - Source Severity 30
Distribution
7 Amount of Manure Moisture Produced by Feed- 33
lot Cattle of Various Sizes and at Various
Pen Spacings
8 Temperature and Relative Humidity Profiles, 36
and Particulate Matter Level, 24-hr Sampling
9 Cattle-Raising Regions 49
10 Annual Mean Consumption per Person 50
11 Beef Production, by Grade 51
12 Fed Cattle Marketings of Seven Western States 56
(Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma,
Nebraska, Kansas and Colorado), 1962-1972
13 Fed Cattle Marketings in the Northwestern 56
states (Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho),
1962-1972
14 Fed Cattle Marketings in the Corn Belt States 57
(Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri),
1962-1972
15 Change in Fed Cattle Marketings, 1961 to 58
1972
16 Fed Cattle Marketings by Feedlot Size in 63
Nebraska
17 Fed Cattle Marketings by Feedlot Size in 63
Texas
A-l Representation of the Continuous Line Source 72
Dispersion Model
A-2 California Feedlot Size Distribution 75
C-l Preliminary Sampling Setup 86
Vll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Disposal of Beef Cattle Waste 7
2 Proximate Constituents, Phosphorus, and 10
Potassium in the Dry Matter of Feedlot Pen
Surface Soils in California Areas
3 Chloride Salt, Nitrate-Nitrogen and Ammonia- 11
Nitrogen Content of Surface Soil Samples
from 26 California Feedlots
4 Compounds Identified in Odors from Cattle 23
Feedlots
5 State and National Emissions, 1972 25
6 Source Severity of Emissions from Repre- 29
sentative Beef Cattle Feedlot
7 Comparative Particulate Matter Level Within 38
Pen for Lot A as Function of Water Treatment
8 Beef Cattle Fed for Others on a Custom Basis 55
9 Capacity of Feedlots in United States 59
(4.5% Growth/yr)
10 Capacity of Feedlots in Texas (18.0% 59
Growth/yr)
11 Capacity of Feedlots in Nebraska 60
(4.5% Growth/yr)
12 Capacity of Feedlots in Iowa (1.5% 60
Growth/yr)
13 Capacity of Feedlots in Kansas (15.5% 61
Growth/yr)
14 Capacity of Feedlots in Colorado 61
(9.5% Growth/yr)
15 Capacity of Feedlots in California 62
(No Growth)
16 Capacity of Feedlots in Illinois 62
(3.1% Decline/yr)
A-l Particulate Matter from 25 California 71
Feedlots
A-2 Calculation Data for California Feedlot 74
Emission Rate per Length of a Line Source
B-l Persistence of Odorous Substances 83
Vlll
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol
d
exp
F
H
LDLO
M
M
o
NO
x
P
Po
PM
P
ppm
P-E
Q
Qr
S
SO
t
to
t,
X
T
T
Definition
Number of dry days per year
Natural log base, e = 2.72
Hazard factor for a pollutant
Effective height of emission
Dose of a substance that causes death in 50% of
the animals which have ingested the substance
Lowest dose of a substance, other than the LD50,
introduced by any route other than inhalation, over
any given period of time and reported to have
caused death in man, or the lowest single dose
introduced in one or more divided portions and
reported to have caused death in animals
Molecular weight of gaseous compound
Molecular weight of water
Nitrogen oxides
Vapor pressure of gaseous compound
Vapor pressure of water at standard conditions
Monthly precipitation
Persistance factor of odorous substance
Parts per million
Thornthwaite's precipitation-evaporation index
Mass emission per time of a continuous point
source
Mass emission rate per length of a continuous line
source
Source severity
Sulfur oxides
Averaging time for ambient air quality standard
Sampling time for 3 min concentration measurement
Sampling time for concentration measurement
Actual sampling time of experimental data
Air temperature
Temperature of water vapor at standard, conditions
IX
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS (continued)
Symbol
T
M
TLV
u
X
IT
a
X
xk
xs
X
Definition
Monthly mean temperature
Threshold limit value
Average wind speed
Downwind distance from emitter
Constant = 3.1416
Standard deviation in the horizontal of the plume
concentration distribution
Standard deviation in the vertical of the plume
concentration distribution
Concentration for a 3 min sampling time
Concentration for sampling time, t,
K.
Concentration for sampling time, t
s
Time-averaged ground level concentration which
is the maximum to which a population can be
exposed
x
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
Beef cattle feedlots contribute fugitive dust and gaseous
emissions to the atmosphere. The objective of this work
was to assess the air environmental impact of beef cattle
feedlots in sufficient detail to enable the EPA to determine
the need for the development of control technology.
This document summarizes information relating to the emis-
sions from beef cattle feedlots. The areas studied and
described in this document are:
Number of beef cattle feedlots
Size distribution of the feedlot capacities
Locational distribution of the beef cattle feedlots
with more than 1,000-head capacity
Areas of industry expansions and decreases
Controlled and uncontrolled rates of emissions
Composition of emissions
Hazard potential of emissions
Hazard potential of odorous emissions
Types of control technology used and proposed
Historical and projected growth and anticipated
developments in the industry.
-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY
Beef cattle feedlots are open sources of atmospheric emis-
sions of fugitive dust and volatile products which vary due
to meteorological and topographical influences. Of the
146,000 beef cattle feedlots in the U.S. in 1973/ 2,040 feed-
lots had a capacity of more than 1,000 head and marketed 65%
of all finish-fed beef cattle. The seven leading states in
the industry are Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Colorado,
California, and Illinois. These states contribute 75% of
all fed cattle marketed and contain 72% of the over 1,000-
head-capacity feedlots. Only these larger feedlots were
investigated in this study.
Of the criteria pollutants, particulates are generated pri-
marily by cattle movement inside feedlot pens and secondarily
by wind erosion of the feedlot surface. The areas of the U.S.
most affected by feedlot particulate emissions lie in southern
California, Arizona, and the panhandle region of Texas. The
period of dust problems occurs mainly during the dry season,
from April through August.
Ammonia is emitted as the predominant volatile product,
constituting 70% to 90% of the total gaseous emissions
investigated (methane excluded), and contributing to odorif-
erous emissions. Gaseous, odoriferous emissions are the
result of anaerobic decomposition and volatilization of
wastes from beef cattle.
-------
The emissions for the cattle feeding industry in 1972 were
20,500 metric tons3 (22,600 tons) of total suspended partic-
ulates. Ammonia emissions were 3,480 metric tons (3,840 tons)
Total amine and sulfur compound emissions were 139 metric
tons (153 tons) and 522 metric tons (575 tons), respectively.
Emissions from the beef cattle feeding industry constituted
0.11% of the national emissions of total suspended particu-
lates. Four states had particulate emissions from beef cat-
tle feedlots which exceeded 1.0% of the total suspended par-
ticulate emissions in each state. These states were Arizona
(7.7%), New Mexico (1.5%), Colorado (1.4%), and Nebraska
(1.3%). Nine other states exceeded 0.1% of the state totals.
The source severity, S, was defined to indicate the hazard
potential of the emission source:
(1)
where x is the time-averaged maximum ground level concentra-
tion to which a population may be exposed of each pollutant
emitted from a representative beef cattle feedlot, and F is
the primary ambient air quality standard for criteria
pollutants (SO , NO , CO, hydrocarbons and particulates) or
A. J\.
a modified threshold limit value (i.e., TLV® • 8/24 • 1/100)
for noncriteria pollutants.
al metric ton = 106 grams = 2,205 pounds =1.1 short tons
(short tons are designated "tons" in this document); other
conversion factors and metric system prefixes are presented
in Section IX.
NEDS totals do not include beef cattle feedlots or most
other fugitive sources.
3
-------
The representative source was defined as a feedlot of 8,000-
head capacity on 0.11 km2 (27.5 acres), feeding and marketing
14,800 head per year, and located in a dry climate (south-
western U.S.) during the dry season in order to approximate
worst-case conditions. The particulate severity of this
source was 0.17; the ammonia severity was 0.033; the total
amines severity was 0.00057; and the total sulfur compounds
severity was 0.013. The distribution of source severities
for particulate emissions from beef cattle feedlots in the
dryland states showed that nearly 50% of all such feedlots
have a severity 50.1 and 90% have a severity <0.16. There
is no population affected above a severity of 1.0.
Specific air pollution control techniques for cattle feedlots
have been established by some state regulatory agencies for
odors. With the exception of good housekeeping activities,
no specific present or future control techniques are under
consideration. From the literature surveyed it is obvious
that particulate, gaseous and odoriferous emissions from
beef cattle feedlots can be controlled by conventional methods
now available. These simple methods and procedures require
an expenditure of managerial dedication and expertise as
well as the monetary investment to purchase, install and
maintain such systems.
The cattle feeding industry is presently growing at the rate
of 4.5% per year due to the strong demand for beef, but this
is expected to slow down in the mid-1970"s. The trend of
the industry is toward larger concentrations of beef animals
and fewer feedlots. The growth factor for the industry
(1978 emissions/1972 emissions) is projected (2.0% growth
per year) to be 1.13.
-------
SECTION III
SOURCE DESCRIPTION
A. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
1. Emission Sources
A beef cattle feedlot is an area within which beef animals
are confined for finish feeding, with grain and/or forage
that is transported to the animals for the purpose of fattening
prior to marketing. The beef cattle industry can be divided
into several stages; calf production, backgrounding, finish
feeding, and slaughtering. Production of beef calves
usually consists of raising calves to weaning weights of
145 kg to 218 kg (320 Ib to 480 Ib) as part of a range-
pasture cow-calf program.
Common methods of growing out or backgrounding the calves
from weaning to weights of 250 kg to 320 kg (550 Ib to
700 Ib) include: (1) grazing them on range pasture, small
grain pastures, or corn or sorghum stalks and other crop
aftermath; and (2) backgrounding the calves in feedlots,
where they are fed mostly harvested roughage with a little
grain. Development from newborn calf to adult beef animal
ready for finish feeding requires approximately 20 months.
During the finish, feeding stage, the beef cattle, which are
either steers (castrated males) or heifers (young females
that have never calved), are placed in feedlots and fed a
-------
high energy ration consisting mostly of feed grains for about
120 to 150 days until they reach slaughter condition and
weight, which is about 500 kg (1,100 Ib). This involves
over 146,000 feedlots which range from several-head up to
100,000-head capacity and which market over 2.5 x 107 cattle
each year.
The processing and selling phase involves 2,400 meat
packing plants that process over 3.0 x 107 cattle each
year. After 26 months, the cycle is completed.
In the U.S., 65% of the cattle were fed in lots which had a
capacity of 1,000 head or more.1 There were 2,040 such
feedlots in 1973. These feedlots were investigated for
atmospheric emissions in this study.
In all but rare cases, the feedlot is open to the atmosphere.
The animal density on the feedlot is generally in the range
of 12,500 to 125,000 head/km2 (50 to 500 head/acre), or
75 to 7 m2/head (800 to 80 ft2/head). During its stay in a
feedlot ei beef animal will produce over 450 kg of manure on
a dry weight basis. Wet manure production is about 27 kg/day
(60 Ib/day), usually deposited on less than 20 m2 of surface.
Air pollvition from feedlots consists of odors, dust, and
ammonia. Fugitive dust is emitted from the open feedlot
pens via wind forces acting on the surface, cattle movement
over dried surfaces, and access alleyway vehicular traffic.
Particul&tes are composed of soil dust and dried manure.
Gaseous emissions evolve from wet manure and urine deposited
in the pens. Odor may be attributed to both. Feedlot pens
lumber of Cattle Feedlots and Fed Cattle Marketed — By
Size and. Feedlot Capacity, by States. Crop Reporting Board.
Statistical Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington. 1962 up to 1973.
-------
are cleaned regularly to remove cattle wastes, but often
these wastes are temporarily stockpiled on another open
site. Particulate and gaseous emissions occur by evolu-
tion and wind force from these stockpiles.
Old established feeding areas, such as the Corn Belt states
and northeastern Colorado, have little difficulty disposing
of manure, but newer feeding areas such as southern Califor-
nia and the panhandle of Texas do encounter problems. Cattle-
men in the latter areas had preferred to build mountains of
manure, but the advent of fertilizer shortages has resulted
in this manure becoming saleable as a soil conditioner/
fertilizer.
The general method of manure disposal is to spread the solid
manure on adjacent feed grain production, although other
methods are used which vary from location to location as
illustrated in Table I.2
Table 1. DISPOSAL OF BEEF CATTLE WASTE2
State
California
Colorado
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Nebraska
Texas
. a
Feeders reporting methods of disposal, % of total
Solids
spread
on place
75.2
88.2
97.0
97.8
88.7
93.9
59.6
Slurry
or spray
4.4
1.6
2.5
2.0
4.6
2.4
11.7
Lagoon
4.3
0.4
0.3
0.5
2.3
1.3
11.8
Sold
6.5
2.7
0.7
0.6
3.2
1.0
13.4
Dumped on
wasteland
17.2
6.7
1.9
1.1
9.1
4.8
38.5
Incinerated,
limed,
or pitted
6.1
0.7
0.2
0.3
1.8
0.8
11.8
Totals may not add up to 100% due to the reporting of more than one
method per feeder.
2Census of Agriculture, 1969. Volume V, Special Reports.
Part 9, Cattle, Hogs, Sheep, Goats. Washington, U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1973. 667 p.
-------
Manure removal frequencies are dictated in part by climatic
conditions, animal comfort, labor scheduling, and air and
water pollution potentials. Usually, however, solid wastes
are collected from the feedlot surface after each pen of
cattle has been shipped, which is approximately twice per
year.
The magnitude of the potential of feedlot surfaces for
gaseous atmospheric contamination with nitrogen compounds
can be rated in the estimate that 360 cattle on a 4,000 m2
lot annually deposit 10.9 metric tons (12 tons) of urea-N2
in urine. This is about half of the total nitrogen that
cattle excrete. The urea in urine is rapidly hydrolyzed
to ammonia, up to 90% of which can be volatilized.3
2. Source Composition
The source of the particulate and gaseous emissions from
beef cattle feedlots is the open feedlot pen surface, which
is usually a native soil surface but can be a concrete sur-
face. Concrete surfaces facilitate waste removal and aid in
channeling and controlling runoff problems. However, few
feedlots have had the capital necessary for such an invest-
ment. Manure from the animals accumulates rapidly on the
feedlot surface due to high animal density (up to 125,000
head/km2 or 500 head/acre), and the feedlot surface becomes
a padded mixture of soil and manure because of animal
movement. Although the pens are cleaned regularly, the
manure pad remains at a thickness of 30 mm to 80 mm (1 in. to
3 in.). Under warm, dry weather conditions the feedlot
surface becomes a dry mixture/loose pad of soil and manure.
3Stewart, B. A. Volatilization and Nitrification of Nitrogen
from Urine Under Simulated Cattle Feedlot Conditions.
Environmental Science and Technology. £: 579-582, July 1970.
8
-------
The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics and
composition of cattle feedlot wastes cannot be readily
determined because the characteristics of animal wastes
are affected by the physiology of the animal, the feed
ration, and environmental conditions to which the animal is
subjected.** Although the characteristics of fresh beef
cattle wastes may be of general interest, they are of minimal
value in the assessment of air emissions from beef cattle
feedlots. The quantities and characteristics of the wastes
deposited on the feedlot surface bear only a slight resem-
blance to the emissions which actually enter the environment
outside the feedlot.
Data on the surfaces of beef cattle feedlots in California
are shown in Tables 2 and 3.5 Table 2 contains a proximate
constituent analysis, with phosphorus and potassium included,
from three different regions of multiclimatic California.
Little difference in surface constituents can be noted
between regions. Older feedlot pens have slightly more
organic matter, nitrogen, and protein accumulated on the
surface than newer feedlot pens. Newer feedlots have 3% to
8% more ash content than older feedlots due to added ash
present in the newer feed mixtures.
Table 3 displays the chloride salt content and the nitrate-
nitrogen content of the same California feedlots. Chloride
salt contents varied widely throughout California, but
nitrate-nitrogen compositions in feedlot surface soils were
^Taiganides, E. P., and T. E. Hazen. Properties of Farm
Animal Excreta. Transactions, American Society of Agri-
cultural Engineers. 2:374~376' 1966.
C. J., J. W. Algeo, T. Westing, and A. Martinez.
Feedlot Air, Water and Soil Analysis. California Cattle
Feeders Association. Bakersfield. Bulletin D. June 1972,
75 p.
-------
Table 2. PROXIMATE CONSTITUENTS, PHOSPHORUS, AND POTASSIUM IN THE DRY MATTER
OF FEEDLOT PEN SURFACE SOILS IN CALIFORNIA AREAS5
(percent by weight)
Item
Protein
Fat
Ash
Fiber
Nonf ibrous
elements
Phosphorus
Potassium
Nitrogen
Organic
matter
Central
valley
Old3
14.23
1.06
36.80
17.67
30.24
0.72
2.34
2.27
63.20
New
13.20
0.76
44.30
18.14
23.59
0.64
2.42
2.09
55.70
North and
central coast
Old
13.95
1.41
43.86
15.23
25.56
0.56
2.03
2.23
56.14
New
13.71
1.08
46.60
14.79
23.82
0.68
1.89
2.19
53.40
Desert
area
Old
16.52
2.34
28.63
18.29
34.21
0.82
3.07
2.63
71.36
New
15.42
1.40
34.28
17.28
31; 63
0.78
2.43
2.47
65.72
Mean
Old
14.90
1.60
36.43
17.06
30.00
0.70
2.48
2.38
63.57
New
14.11
1.08
41.73
16.74
26.35
0.70
2.25
2.25
58.27
Old feedlot pens (more than 10 years of use)
New feedlot pens (less than 10 years of use)
-------
much the same, probably due to the addition of organic mat-
ter to the soil. No ammonia-nitrogen was detected. Analyses
were performed using boric acid absorption followed by: titri-
metric analysis of the acid for ammonia-nitrogen, the potentio-
metric method for chlorides, the phenoldisulfonic acid method
for nitrate-nitrogen, a colorimetric method for phosphorus,
atomic absorption spectrophotometry for potassium, and AOAC
analytical methods for proximate constituents.
Table 3. CHLORIDE SALT, NITRATE-NITROGEN AND AMMONIA-NITROGEN
CONTENT OF SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES FROM 26 CALIFORNIA
FEEDLOTS 5
(dry basis)
Component
Chlorides
Nitrate-nitrogen
(as N03)
Ammonia-outcrops
(as NHU)
Mean
0.54%
0.01683%
_a
Standard
deviation
1.57%
0.00597%
_a
Range
0.0 to 7.48%
0.00697 to 0.03305%
a
None detected.
B.
FACTORS AFFECTING EMISSIONS
A schematic diagram of a beef cattle feedlot system is
presented in Figure 1. The major factors affecting the
emissions which were studied in this assessment are indi-
cated by superscripts and footnotes in Figure 1.
Of the factors indicated in Figure 1 the humidity, pre-
cipitation and temperature can be combined into one factor
which has known values for different regions of the U.S.
This factor is Thornthwaite1s precipitation-evaporation (P-E)
index. The P-E index is determined from total rainfall and
11
-------
GRAIN
PREMIX CONCENTRATES
FORAGE
ADDITIVES
WATER
RUNOFF WASTES AND
PERCOLATION WASTES
LOT FACILITIES
FEED STORAGE
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION
TOPOGRAPHY
GEOLOGY
PEN DENSITY
FEEDLOT AREA
MANAGEMENT FACTORS
EQUIPMENT OPTIONS
STOCKING RATE
GENERAL HOUSEKEEPING
CONFINEMENT PERIOD
LABOR
SLAUGHTER ANIMALS
AND
MARKETABLE PRODUCTS
Figure 1. Schematic of an animal feedlot system
Major factors affecting atmospheric emissions.
Emissions studied in this assessment.
-------
mean temperature.6 A map of P-E values for state climate
divisions is shown in Figure 2. The P-E index is calculated
as follows:
/ PM \ 10/<
Monthly P-E ratio = 11.5 (=—*-~
y M u
12
P-E index = / (Monthly P-E ratios) (3)
where PM = monthly precipitation, in.
TM = monthly mean temperature, °F, adjusted to a
constant of 30°F for all values below 30°F
Particulate emissions from feedlots are affected by wind
speed. This factor includes two separate but indistinguish-
able mechanisms: (1) cattle movement in the pen stirs up
dust which the wind then carries; and (2) the wind itself
erodes the feedlot surface. Both of these mechanisms must
be considered as one measurable transport factor: mean wind
speed. Feedlot size (area) affects particulate emissions
directly; the larger the feedlot, the greater the emissions.
Pen density, in head per area, has an inverse relationship
to particulate emissions. As more cattle become crowded
closer together, their waste production tends to keep the
pens more moist and less susceptible to dust production.
Depending upon location of the feedlot, dust problems from
dry weather occur for a minimum of 60 days to more than 120
Nonmetric units are designated for Equation 2 to conform to
the system of units reported by the author6 and commonly used.
6Thornthwaite, C. W. Climates of North America According to
a New Classification. Geographical Review. 2JL: 633-655, 1931.
13
-------
. 87
2S5
84 1 99 112 /V >7
Figure 2. Map of P-E values for state climatic divisions6
-------
days annually. Usually this occurs from late spring to
midsummer in the Southwest. Dust control is a periodic
rather than perennial need.
Ammonia, evolved by anaerobic manure decomposition, is the
most widely studied odorous gas. Ammonia is also evolved
or volatilized from the urine which beef animals excrete
and, thus, is emitted whether aerobic or anaerobic digestion
of feedlot wastes occurs. The evolution of ammonia was
investigated not only because of its contribution to the
odoriferous mixture of products emitted, but also because
of the potential for absorption by nearby surface water
bodies.
The factors affecting gaseous and odoriferous emissions
other than ammonia from volatilization and decomposition of
feedlot surfaces and manure piles are not necessarily the
same from one location to another. The feces, urine, and
feed deposited on the feedlot undergo continuing physical,
chemical, and biological change. Research has shown7 that
changes in housekeeping techniques will result in changes in
the volatile, odoriferous products emitted. The extent of
such changes on feedlot surfaces is variable from one loca-
tion to another and from time to time at the same location.
Natural drying can be an important factor at one location
and time but not necessarily at another place or time. Bio-
logical decomposition may proceed under either aerobic or
anaerobic conditions (or both) at different times or locations
on the same feedlot.
Odor from a feedlot occurs in three places:
7Narayan, R. S. Identification and Control of Cattle
Feedlot Odors. Texas Technological University. Lubbock.
M.S. thesis. 1971. 41 p.
15
-------
• Jijranonia escapes from the dry surface of the feedlot
• Complex odorous compounds (mercaptans, amines) from
a.naerobic metabolism come from the solid manure be-
r.eath the surface of the feedlot
• Odorous compounds are emitted from the runoff holding
ponds because of anaerobic decomposition.
In general, anaerobic decomposition causes feedlot odor.
Cattle manure contains the energy for metabolism. Micro-
organisms in the manure accomplish this metabolic process
which converts complex carbohydrates, proteins, and fats
into simpler compounds. When oxygen is present, the end
basic products of metabolism are heat, C02 and H20. This
processf called aerobic metabolism, depends upon temperature,
oxygen, and moisture. Some management of the last two
factors is possible for beef cattle feedlots.
In order to prevent odor, the oxygen transfer rate into
manure must exceed the bacterial demand.8 Microorganisms
consume oxygen in proportion to their growth rate, which
depends upon the amount of nutrients. The nutrients in
manure nay result in an oxygen demand greater than the rate
of transfer. When this occurs, anaerobic microorganisms
take ove;r and metabolism can be as much as 0.073 kg/day per
cow, or 73 kg/1,000 head per day.3 Figure 3 describes the
biological (inorganic-organic) phase of the nitrogen cycle
that is possible on a feedlot surface.
8Paine, M.D. Feedlot Odor. In: Great Plains Beef Cattle
Feeding Handbook. Cooperative Extension Service - Great
Plains States, 1972. 2 p.
16
-------
FIXATION
'»
N2,02
ORGAN 1C MATTER
_ NITRIFICATION^
-ORGANIC NITROGEN-*- N,H3- - ~ N02 -
REDUCTION
J
t
N2,02
DENITRIFICATION
N03
I
J
Figure 3. Feedlot nitrogen cycle
The optimum conditions for the production of odoriferous
gases consist of a fairly deep accumulation of manure with
the amount of moisture equal to that of a slurry. Unfavorable
weather conditions, poor runoff drainage and low spots in
pens ("ponding") will contribute to the formation of slurry
conditions. Feedlot operators consider unfavorable weather
conditions as similar to "upset" conditions in a chemical
plant; namely, inevitable, intermittent, and generally unpre-
dictable.
The cleaning of solid wastes from feedlot surfaces causes
odor emissions because of the release of anaerobic layers
at the bottom of the feedlot manure pack. Unless the manure
surface becomes a slurry, most operators will not remove the
manure more often than one to three times a year.
Feedlot disturbances, such as mounding and manure removal,
greatly increase the release of ammoniacal compounds to the
atmosphere. Also, precipitation seems to be followed by in-
creased ammonia gas release.9 In recent research the data
9Elliott, L. F., G. E. Schuman, and F. .G. Viets, Jr. Volatili-
zation of Nitrogen-Containing Compounds from Beef Cattle
Areas. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings. 35:752-
755, 1971.
17
-------
collected indicate that ammonia evolved from a feedlot surface
is closely associated with the temperature of the surface.
Humidity also had a direct effect on ammonia emissions; fol-
lowing a rainy day, the evolution from an initially dry sur-
face nearly tripled.10
While temperature, oxygen and moisture content affect odor
emissions, wind velocity, atmospheric stability and humidity
influence the transport of odoriferous gases. The diffusion
of odors from a feedlot is commonly accepted to be similar
to that of plume diffusion. However, some researchers11'12
suggest that there can be rings of odor around a feedlot,
particularly in the case of heavier molecular weight compounds
such as skatole and indole. These odor rings are similar
to the rings formed by dropping a pebble in a puddle, the
quantity and quality of the smell depending on the distance
to the s-ource, particularly under atmospheric inversion con-
ditions.
Improved management practices for the control of feedlot odor
can only be empirical until the factors of quantitative odor
determination and olfactory response are better understood.
A principal problem associated with odor analysis is that
of sampling, because compounds beyond the minimum analyt-
ical detection limit can be odorous. In addition, odorous
compounds can behave in an additive manner, i.e., an odor
10Miner, J. R. Evaluation of Alternative Approaches to Con-
trol of Odors from Animal Feedlots. Idaho Research Founda-
tion, Inc. Moscow. Grant No. ESR 74-23211, National Science
Foundation. December 1975. 83 p.
^Personal communication. Dr. R. M. Bethea, Department of
Chemical Engineering, Texas Technological University.
Lubbock. November 1974.
12Personal communication. Dr. J. M. Sweeten, Extension Agri-
cultural Engineer, Texas Agricultural Extension Service,
Texas A&M University System. College Station. October 1974.
18
-------
may be detected when individual compounds are present in sub-
threshold concentrations. In any odor study, analytical
evaluation must be correlated with sensory evaluation.
C. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
The seven leading beef cattle feeding states in order of
rank are Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Colorado, California,
and Illinois. They comprised nearly 75% of the U.S. fed
cattle marketed in 1973.l In 1963, this value for these
states was 67%. Generally, the feedlots are not located in
or close to major metropolitan areas, but in low population
density regions with access to major truck routes.
Because of the abundance and closeness of feed grain supplies,
cattle feeding is concentrated in four areas. One area is
in southern California and Arizona, where about 3 x 106 head
are fed annually. The area that has grown most spectacularly
is centered in the panhandles of Texas and Oklahoma, extending
into New Mexico and southwestern Kansas, where more than
5 x 106 cattle are fed annually. The third area of concen-
trated cattle feeding lies from eastern Colorado through
Nebraska to the South Dakota line. About 6 x 106 cattle are
fed there yearly. The fourth area is in the central corn
belt, where about 8 x 106 head are fed annually, mostly on
small (less than 1,000 head) lots.
Figure 4 displays the distribution of cattle, other than milk
cows, from which feeder cattle are drawn to feedlots.13 Fig-
ure 5 locates the areas where finish feeding of cattle occurs.13
13Census of Agriculture, 1969. Volume V, Special Reports.
Part 15, Graphic Summary. Washington, U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1973. 145 p.
19
-------
UNITED STATES
TOTAL
34,336,815
Figure 4. Cows other than milk cows, 196913
UNITED STATES
TOTAL
22,988,615
Figure 5. Cattle, excluding calves, fattened on grain
concentrates and sold for slaughter, 1969^
20
-------
SECTION IV
EMISSIONS
A. SELECTED POLLUTANTS
Fugitive dust from feedlot surfaces is considered a
"nuisance" dust, in contrast to fibrogenic dusts which
cause scar tissue to be formed in lungs when inhaled in
excessive amounts. Nuisance dusts have a long history of
little adverse effect on lungs and do not produce significant
organic disease or toxic effect when exposures are kept under
reasonable control. The nuisance dusts have also been called
(biologically) "inert" dusts, but the latter term is inappro-
priate to the extent that there is no dust which does not
evoke some cellular response in the lung when inhaled in
sufficient amount.14
A threshold limit value (TLV) of 10 mg/m3 is assigned to
"inert" fugitive dust. The fact that fugitive dusts, or
particulate pollutants, are one of five criteria pollutants
supplies an additional basis for their selection.
\
Although numerous compounds which comprise the gaseous emis-
sions from cattle feedlcts have been identified, because
lf+TLV's® Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with Intended
Changes for 1975. American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists. Cincinnati, 1975. 97 p.
21
-------
ammonia predominates in mass (methane excluded), it was se-
lected for quantitative determination in this source assess-
ment. Although probably not one of the prime odorants
associated with feedlots, ammonia has been measured and used
as an indicator of odor transport.10 Table 4 lists the com-
pounds which have been identified as odor contributors from
cattle i:eedlots. The TLV for ammonia is currently 18 mg/m3;
it has been undergoing reduction over the last 15 years. In
1962, it was 70 mg/m3; in 1963 it was changed to 35 mg/m3;
and its present value of 18 mg/m3 was established in 1973.
Based on preliminary field sampling results (Appendix C),
total amine emissions and total sulfide and mercaptan (sulfur
compounds) emissions were also included for assessment. A
TLV of 35.7 mg/m3 was assumed for amines. A TLV of 5.8 mg/m3
was ass'omed for sulfur compounds (Appendix A) .
B. MASS EMISSIONS
The emission rates for particulates, ammonia, amines, and
sulfur compounds have been estimated for dry season condi-
tions at average-sized California feedlots (Appendix A).
Because data on particulate emissions were available only for
California, annual statewide emission estimates for all other
states were made by dividing the number of fed cattle marketed
in California in 1972 by the number of over 1,000-head ca-
pacity feedlots. This resulted in an average feedlot size
(number of fed cattle marketed in 1 year per feedlot). Then,
dividing the average feedlot size into the number of fed
cattle marketed for each state yielded the number of average-
sized feedlots.
Thornthwaite1s P-E index6 was used to correct emission rates
for geographical differences in soil moisture, in a manner
22
-------
Table 4. COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED IN ODORS FROM CATTLE FEEDLOTS
Pollutant
Ammonia
Methylamine17
17
Dime thy lamine
Trimehty lamine 1
Ethylamine 1 7
17
Diethylamine
Triethylamine
Isopropylamine
i ft
Pyridine4-0
Skatole7' 19
Hydrogen sulfide18'20
1 ft
Ethyl mercaptan
Tert. -butyl mercaptan
Acetic acid
Butyric acid18
Formaldehyde18
Indole7'19
a
n-Propylamine
n-Buty lamine,
Q
n-Hexylamine
Methanol7'19
Ethanol7'19
i-Butyraldehyde
Isopropanol ' 9
Isobutyl acetate7'19
Ethyl formate7'19
Propionaldehyde
Methyl acetate7'19
Isopropyl acetate '
Isopropyl propionate '
Carbonyl sulfide20
TLV,
yg/m3
18
12
18
18
75
100
12
15
15
1
1.5
25
3
260
1,900
980
950
300
610
950
(ppm)
(25)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(25)
(25)
(5)
(5)
(10)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(10)
(2)
Odor threshold,15'16
ppm
46.8; 0.037
0.021
0.047
0.00021
0.021
0.000000075
0.0047
0.001; 0.000016
0.00009
1.0
0.001
1.0
100
10
40
4
200
30
Identified by presurvey sampling (see Appendix C).
Note: Blanks indicate data not reported.
15Leonardos, G., D. Kendall, and N. Barnard. Odor Threshold Determinations of 53 Odorant Chemicals. Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association. 12:91-95, February 1969.
16Summer, W. Methods of Air Deodorization. New York, Elsevier Publishing Co. 1963. p. 46-47.
17Mosier, A. R., C. E. Andre, and F. G. Viets, Jr. Identification of Aliphaic Amines Volatilized from Cattle
Feedyard. Environmental Science and Technology. 7_:642-644, July 1973.
18Stephens, E. R. Identification of Odors from Cattle Feedlots. California Agriculture. 25_:10-11, January 1971.
19White, R. K., Ohio State University, and J. R. Ogilive, McGill University. Developments in the Control of
Air Pollution Problems Associated with Livestock Production. (Paper No. 73-103, presented at the 66th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association. Chicago. June 24-28, 1973.) 21 p.
20Elliott, L. F., and T. A. Travis. Detection of Carbonyl Sulfide and Other Gases Emanating from Beef Cattle
Manure. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings. 37_(5): 700-702, September-October 1973.
23
-------
analogous! to that used in an earlier study21 which estimated
emissions inventory. This correction factor consists of
dividing the emission rate of a particular pollutant by the
term (P-IC/25)2 for each state to be computed. A P-E index
of 25 wa;> chosen to represent the dry season conditions ex-
perienced when the pollutant measurements were taken. The
methodology behind this correction factor is discussed in
the earlier study.21 An additional correction factor which
relates -:he number of dry days, d, per year (i.e., average
number of days with less than 0.25 mm [0.01 in.] of precipi-
tation) was included, simply by multiplying by the term
d/365. A summarization of the calculation procedure is out-
lined below:
(
n7 / Emissions of \
for state in 1972 x pollutant for
f0rni? . J/(of CalTfornia) \California feedlot/yr
cattle marketed^/ ^ f eedlots /
x (d/365) = statewide emissions in 1972 (4)
(P-E/25)2
State and national emissions and emission burdens (percent
of total emissions per state) are given in Table 5. Naturally,
states with the driest climates produce more particulate dust
emissions and evaporate more ammonia and related gases from
feedlot surfaces. All estimates assume control technology
in operation in dry climate cattle feeding states because
cattle feeders in those areas routinely sprinkle water for
dust suppression if only to ease cattle discomfort and im-
prove weight gain performance. Since a decrease in particulate
21 Cowherd, C. C., C. M. Guenther, and D. D. Wallace. Emis-
sions Inventory of Agricultural Tilling, Unpaved Roads and
Airstrips, and Construction Sites. Midwest Research Insti-
tute. Kansas City. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-
450/3-74-085 (PB 238 919). November 1974. 41 p.
24
-------
Table 5. STATE AND NATIONAL EMISSIONS, 1972
State
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Missouri
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
a
Kansas
Oklahoma
a
Texas
a
Montana
Idaho 3
Colorado
a
New Mexico
Arizona
Washington
Oregon
a
California
U.S. Total
Fed cattle
marketed
in 1972 l
9,000
62,000
70,000
117,000
51,000
26,000
52,000
430,000
48,000
25,000
107,000
2,375,000
1,916,000
579,000
4,210,000
221,000
391,000
2,118,000
369,000
890,000
330,000
118,000
2,054,000
16,568,000
Number of
1,000-
headlots
in 1972 l
3
28
24
60
25
13
35
170
26
18
54
543
131
41
230
72
88
191
43
46
25
30
139
2,035
Number of
California-
sized lots
0.61
4.20
4.74
7.92
3.45
1.76
3.52
29.1
3.25
1.69
7.24
161
130
39.2
285
15
26.5
143
25
60.2
22.3
7.99
139
1,121.7
State-
wide
P-E
index
120
105
106
95
93
98
106
93
95
63
64
66
73
77
79
51
47
42
25
21
129
153
43
Number
of dry
days per
year
232
225
244
250
218
244
241
260
263
269
272
267
282
284
290
266
274
278
307
330
227
213
314
1972
Particulate
emissions ,
metric tons
10.9
95.9
107
244
97.4
49.6
83.4
971
106
127
61.2
1,260
891
240
1,700
195
418
2,830
1,540
6,020
339
80.8
2,990
20,500
Percent
of total
emissions
0.0006
0.005
0.014
0.021
0.014
0.012
0.031
0.45
0.052
0.16
0.12
1.30
0.26
0.26
0.31
0.07
0.75
1.39
1.48
7.65
0.21
0.047
0.30
0.11
1972
Ammonia
emissions,
metric tons
0.24
2.10
2.49
5.33
2.13
1.08
1.82
21.3
2.13
2.78
11.55
237
168
45.5
320
36.9
79.1
536
291
1,137
7.40
1.76
566
3,480
1972
Amine
emissions,
metric tons
0.0096
0.084
0.10
0.21
0.085
0.043
0.073
0.85
0.092
0.11
0.46
9.48
6.72
1.82
12.8
1.48
3.16
21.4
11.6
45.5
0.30
0.070
22.6
139
1972 Sulfur
compound
emissions,
metric toi.
0.036
0.31
0.37
0.80
0.32
0.16
0.27
3.20
0.32
0.42
1.73
35.6
25.2
6.82
48.0
5.53
11.9
80.4
43.7
170
1.11
0.26
84.8
522
tn
Dryland state; particulate control technology used.
"statistical Abstract of the United States: 1973 (94th Edition). Washington, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973. p. 187.
-------
levels of about 900% is possible (see Section V.A.I), a
decrease of 400% (factor of 5) under uncontrolled conditions
was assumed for those dryland cattle feeding states.
Particulate emissions from the beef cattle feeding industry
were 20,500 metric tons in 1972, and comprised 0.11% of
national emissions of total suspended particulates. The
emission burdens were determined by dividing the statewide
emissions due to beef cattle feedlots by the state total
emissions of a pollutant as furnished by the National Emis-
sions Data System (NEDS) plus the statewide emissions due to
beef cattle feedlots. (The NEDS does not presently include
beef cattle feedlots in its inventory of source types, so
a truer emission burden is determined in this manner.) The
emission burdens for many of the southwestern states are
artificially high and misleading, also, because the NEDS does
not include most open and fugitive dust sources in its com-
pilation. This is why many western states have low emission
totals due to industry, yet have background particulate
levels chronically above ambient air quality standards.
Four states had particulate emissions which exceeded 1.0% of
the sta.te total suspended particulate emissions: Arizona
(7.7%), New Mexico (1.5%), Colorado (1.4%), and Nebraska
(1.3%). Nine other states had particulate emission burdens
which exceeded 0.1% (Table 5).
Ammonici emissions from beef cattle feedlots were 3,480
metric tons in 1972. The leading states were those with dry
climates and/or a large beef feeding capacity. No control
measures were assumed for gaseous emissions.
26
-------
C. DEFINITION OF REPRESENTATIVE SOURCE
The beef cattle feedlot representative of the industry was
chosen as a worst-case example because of the available
data (Appendix A). The representative feedlot is defined
as one which fed and marketed 14,800 head in a lot with a
capacity of 8,000 head on a square area of 111,300 m2 (27.5
acres). The length of the sides of the feedlot is 330 m,
which is taken to be the length of the line source of emis-
sions (Appendix A). The representative feedlot is assumed to
be located in a dry climate during the dry season, which
simulates worst-case conditions.
The emission rate of total suspended particulates is
3.61 x 10~2 g/s-m; the ammonia emission rate is 1.36 x 10~3 '
g/s-m; the total amines emission rate is 5.44 x 10~5 g/s-m;
and the total sulfur compound emission rate is 2.04 x lO'1*
g/s-m (no estimations of uncertainty can be ascribed to
these data).
The distance to the nearest neighbors is assumed to be 800
meters downwind because a feedlot of 8,000-head capacity is
likely to have at least one section of land (1 square mile,
or 640 acres) surrounding or adjacent to the feedlot for
supplementary feed grain production and manure disposal.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
1. Maximum Ground Level Concentration
The maximum time-averaged ground level concentration, ~x, at
the property edge of each pollutant resulting from the repre-
sentative beef cattle feedlot was estimated by Gaussian plume
dispersion theory. The concentration at the property edge
(800 m) was taken to be the maximum ground level concentra-
-------
tion to which a population could be exposed. The following
formula was used for the calculation of x"; 23
o.i7 / \o.i7
where x = concentration at property edge for a 3-min
sampling time, g/s
to = instantaneous averaging time, 3 min
t = averaging time used for ambient air quality
standard, 24 hr
TT = 3.14
Q = mass emission rate per length of a line source,
g/s'in
u = average wind speed (4.47 m/s, national average)
o = standard deviation in the vertical of the plume
z concentration distribution, m
H = effective height of emission, m
The effective height of emission was assumed to be 3.05 m
(10 ft), a nominal amount for a ground level source, and the
vertical dispersion coefficient, a , was estimated from:24
Z
where x = downwind distance (800 m), and class C atmospheric
stability is assumed (national average).
Turner, D. B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National
Air Pollution Control Administration. Cincinnati. Public
Health Service. Publication No. 999-AP-026. May 1970.
65 PO
2ttEimutis, E. C. , and M. G. Konicek. Derivations of Con-
tinuous Functions for the Lateral and Vertical Atmospheric
Dispersion Coefficients. Atmospheric Environment.
6^:859-863, November 1972.
28
-------
2. Source Severity at Representative Feedlot
The maximum severity from beef cattle feedlots was deter-
mined for each pollutant emitted. The source severity is
defined as the time-averaged maximum ground level concentra-
tion of a pollutant (x) acting on a population divided by
the hazard level of exposure for a particular pollutant (F) .
The hazard level, F, is defined as the primary ambient air
quality standard for criteria pollutants (with the same
averaging time as x") , or as a modified threshold limit value
(TLV • 8/24 • 1/100) for noncriteria pollutants. The source
severity equation (Equation 1, described earlier) is thus:
The source severity for each pollutant emitted from a repre-
sentative beef cattle feedlot is shown in Table 6. For
total particulates the severity is greater than 0.1 but less
than 1.0. It is emphasized that these calculations were based
on the emission rates described in Appendix A and applied to
a worst-case situation.
Table 6. SOURCE SEVERITY OF EMISSIONS FROM
REPRESENTATIVE BEEF CATTLE FEEDLOT
Emission
Total particulates
Ammonia
Amines
Sulfur compounds
Source severity
0.17
0.033
0.00057
0.013
3. Distribution of Source Severities
Industry size and emission data were used to calculate
source severities for particulate emissions from all feedlots
29
-------
in the dryland states of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Figure 5 presents a plot of source severity against cumu-
lative percent of feedlots having source severity less than
or equal to the indicated value. The methodology used to
generate this distribution was described in an earlier docu-
ment.25 The results indicate that, for particulate emissions,
nearly 50% of all feedlots in these dryland states have a
source severity less than or equal to 0.1 and 90% have a
source severity less than 0.16. Particulate emissions are
not recognized as a problem in states with wetter climates.
S 0.25
£
3
10 M 30 40 50 60
CUMUUTIVE PERCENT OF FEEDLOTS
BO 40 100
Figure 6. Beef cattle feedlots - source severity distribution
4. Affected Population
Affected population designates the average number of persons
exposed to high concentrations (i.e., those for which S >1.0)
of a given emission from a given source. Since the source
severity is less than 1.0 for each pollutant emitted from a
representative beef cattle feedlot, the affected population
is zero.
25Eimutis, E. C., B. J. Holmes, and L. B. Mote. Source
Assessment: Severity of Stationary Air Pollution Sources-
A Simulation Approach. Monsanto Research Corporation.
Dayton. Report No. MRC-DA-543. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-600/2-76-032e. July 1976. 133 p.
30
-------
SECTION V
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
A. STATE OF THE ART
1. Dust Control
Currently there is no officially required air pollution dust
control technology or methodology for beef cattle feedlots.
Dust generated from feedlot surfaces depends upon the dryness
of the area; hence, any method used to add moisture to pens
is helpful in controlling dust levels. Natural phenomena
such as rain or snow inhibit particulate dust emissions be-
cause, after precipitation occurs, the dust adheres to the
moisture and becomes confined within the pen.
Dust control techniques for feedlots must prevent air
entrainment of dust particles from the feedlot surface
since it is not feasible to remove them after suspension in
air. This can be effectively accomplished by maintaining
sufficient moisture levels in the manure pad-feedlot surface.
Recent investigations26 indicate that several methods can be
effective in controlling feedlot dust emissions. Increasing
26Elam, C. J., T. Westing, J. W. Algeo, and L. Hokit.
Measurement and Control of Feedlot Particulate Matter.
California Cattle Feeders Association. Bakersfield.
Bulletin C. February 1971. 30 p.
31
-------
cattle density has been shown to be promising with regard
to particulate matter levels and cattle weight gain perfor-
mance. Feed efficiency is improved and a lower cost of
weight gain is found in higher density cattle lots. Soil
moisture results indicate that high cattle density (6.5 to
7.5 m2/head) increases soil moisture and this/ in turn, con-
trols dust emissions.
In dry weather, dust problems are noticed first in pens in
which the moist manure pack has just been removed. Light
replacement cattle produce only half as much manure moisture
as slaughter-weight cattle. Animal spacing and body size
control the quantity of moisture added to the feedlot surface
in the form of manure and urine. The amount of moisture27
(mm/day) generated in this manner is shown in Figure 7. A
454-kg siteer at a spacing of 11.6 m2/head (125 ft2/head)
directly produces about 0.71 m of moisture per year. This
moisture, together with the water released through digestion
of organic matter and precipitation, essentially offsets
evaporation from a feedlot surface in a typical year in the
Texas panhandle region. Whenever moisture produced by cattle
or by precipitation is consistently less than the daily evap-
oration rate, dust emission problems will eventually follow.
High cattle density has a limiting factor, though, because
the pen;s must be cleaned of waste more often, odor problems
arise more often, and the health risks to the cattle rise.
While manure accumulations can be beneficial by storing
moisture, dry and pulverized manure is a liability to dust
control efforts because more moisture is required for dust
27Sweetan, J. M. Control of Dust from Cattle Feedlots.
Texas Agricultural Extension Service. College Station.
Publication No. GPE-7851. April 1974. 10 p.
32
-------
4.0
3.5
3.0
o
ID
O
Q_
LiJ
CC.
\—
to
o
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
181
(400)
J I
7(75)
9.3(100)
I I
272
(600)
363
(800)
454
(1,000)
544
(1,200)
CATTLELIVEWEIGHT.kgdB)
Figure 7. Amount of manure moisture produced by feedlot
cattle of various sizes and at various pen spacings27
33
-------
control than would be necessary if smaller accumulations
were present. Thus, minimizing manure accumulation increases
the effectiveness of dust control procedures. A maximum
depth oE loose manure of 20 mm to 80 mm (1 in. to 3 in.) is
recommended.
The most common and effective method of dust control is
application of water to the feedlot surface regardless of
whether the pen is maintained with loose manure or scraped
clean of manure. The rate of water application is critical
in this method since such application involves a delicate
balance between effective dust control and control of odors.
The moisture content of the surface manure should be main-
tained at 25% to 40%, insofar as possible. The moisture
content of the feedlot surface can be determined by the oven
drying procedure.27
During dry weather, surface manure may contain only 7% to
10% moisture and severe dust emission problems will occur at
this level. The moisture can be raised to the desirable
operating range by heavy initial water application and/or
reduction of pen space, followed by a daily water treatment
programo The sprinkled water will provide moisture for
aerobic metabolism of the manure. About 40% moisture content
is required for best aerobic bacterial activity, which pro-
duces no unpleasant odor. However, care must be taken to
avoid overwatering. Excessively wet spots and puddling
support anaerobic decomposition which is the primary source
of feedlot malodors.27
Water application rates should be adjusted according to
weather conditions, animal size, and manure depth. Effec-
tiveness of water treatment is enhanced by an initially
high application rate such as 0.0045 cubic meters of water
per square meter of area per day (1 gal/yd2-day) until
34
-------
a 25% to 35% moisture level is reached.26 Thereafter, water
should be applied at 0.00225 to 0.003 cubic meter per square
meter per day (0.5 to 0.75 gal/yd2-day) as long as dry weather
persists.
Research at California feedlots26 has shown that daily
watering yielded significantly better dust emission control
than alternate day watering. Watering frequency has proved
to be a more critical factor than depth of loose manure on
the feedlot surface.
Careful consideration must be given to any sprinkler installa-
tion design so that total pen coverage can be achieved. Over-
head sprinklers can be positioned to provide more complete
pen coverage than can be achieved with fence-line sprinklers.
If installed sprinklers are not possible, mobile systems such
as trucks or carts can be as effective in controlling fugitive
dust. The important criteria are that the complete area must
be covered and adequate amounts of water must be applied. It
is more effective to apply 0.00225 cubic meter of water per
square meter of area at less frequent intervals than to
apply lower measures of water more frequently.26 If either
of the two criteria is neglected, inadequate and ineffective
dust control will result.
The time of day for water application can also be an
important factor depending upon the specific region of the
U.S. in which the feedlot is located. For example, a feedlot
in the Imperial Valley in southern California exhibited the
condition displayed in Figure 8. For Lots A and B, tempera-
tures were highest and humidity lowest during the period
1100 to 1700 Pacific Daylight Time (PDT). During high
temperature periods, it is desirable to maintain humidity at
the lowest levels; thus water application during this
35
-------
-------
period is not indicated since it would cause greater dis-
comfort in the cattle with concomitantly lower weight gain
performance. The best time to apply moisture under high
temperature conditions in the low desert valleys is in the
evening hours from 1800 PDT on.
Water application in the time period indicated would not
only tend to eliminate animal health problems due to the
temperature-humidity interaction but would also protect
moisture from the excessive evaporation that occurs during
heat extremes. In addition to lowering dust levels, pro-
tecting moisture from excessive evaporation would lower the
ammonia emissions because gaseous emissions are highest
at high evaporation periods. Under moister climate condi-
tions the above precautions would probably not be as
necessary, since ambient temperatures do not reach levels
which cause cattle discomfort or hyper-respiration type
interactions with humidity.26
The most important step in effective dust control is to
attack the problem early and maintain steady control. This
requires periodic inspection and/or moisture sampling of
the feedlot surface to anticipate dust control requirements.
Dust control systems and equipment must be restored to peak
working effectiveness as the dry season approaches and must
be maintained in good repair throughout the period of use.
Table 7 illustrates the particulate matter level observed
after 6 days of regular water application and that observed
after no water application during the next 7 days for the
same Lot A in the Imperial Valley. Particulate emission read-
ings were taken within the pen, but demonstrate what could be
37
-------
Table 7. COMPARATIVE PARTICULATE MATTER LEVEL WITHIN PEN
FOR LOT A AS FUNCTION OF WATER TREATMENT
26
Treatment
Daily water
No water
Time,
days
6
7
Wind velocity,
km/hr
1.3 to 2.2
2.7 to 3.1
Particulate matter,
yg/m3
2,950
22,800
the effect on downwind particulate samplings. An 868%
increase in particulate matter level was observed within
the same lot after no water treatment for 7 days (following
daily watering) as compared to that observed after daily
water treatment for the previous 6 days. Such could be the
effect of irregular, sporadic dust control techniques or
equipment breakdown.
Permanent sprinkler systems offer the advantage of providing
water to most or all of the feedlot simultaneously immediately
prior to occurrence of dusty conditions so that their effec-
tiveness is maximized. These systems, which require minimum
labor for operation, can be fully automated to apply water
at preselected times of the day when dust is critical.
Major disadvantages of permanent sprinklers are high initial
costs, frequent maintenance requirements, dependence on
good weather conditions for adequate distribution uniformity,
possible puddling of water in pens, and water loss due to
evaporation. Poor uniformity resulting from improper design,
nozzle plugging, and/or high winds leads to ineffective dust
control on portions of the lot, and excessive moisture (and
subsequent fly and odor production) on the remainder of the
lot.
28
28Dust, Fly and Odor Control Methods Practiced by Western
Feeders. Texas Cattle Feeders Association. Amarillo.
Special Report. June 1972. 15 p.
38
-------
Mobile tank trucks have a lower initial cost than does the
permanent sprinkler system, and are quite versatile. These
units afford the capability of spraying water at high rates
if needed, and with sufficient operator skill they can achieve
equal or better watering uniformity. With properly designed
nozzles, all areas of the feedlot (even corners) can be
treated. Dusty "trouble spots" in a feedyard can be treated
independently at times when sprinkling the entire lot would
be unnecessary or unwise. Equipment "freezing" is less likely
than for sprinklers. Tank trucks can be equipped to spray
roads and alleys, and can also be used as fire trucks if
desired. Spray patterns from mobile equipment are less affected
by high winds than sprinklers, and evaporation loss is probably
lower. One major disadvantage of tank trucks is high labor
costs; another is the fact that the total dust control system
is inoperative if a breakdown occurs, unless another truck is
available.28
Pens with sun shades may. require mobile sprinkling from
both feed and cattle alleys to obtain good coverage without
creating a mud problem under the shades. The shaded area
is kept moist by the cattle and therefore should receive
little or no water. Feed bunks should also be kept free
from sprinkled water.29
Initial costs of stationary sprinkler systems typically
range from $3 to $10 per head of feedlot capacity. Operating
costs (exclusive of depreciation) of 20 cents to 40 cents
per head per year may be incurred.29
29Sweeten, J. M. Down with Dust. Feedlot Management,
1975 Planner Issue. p. 30-33.
39
-------
The largest mobile units can cost up to $2 per head of
feedlot capacity if purchased new. Used equipment may be
available at a far lower cost, but must be outfitted with
1.85 m3/min to 7.40 m3/min (490 to 1950 gal/min) output
pumps and multiple nozzles. A main nozzle with 30-m to
40-m maximum trajectory is required, along with one or more
additional nozzles to accomplish uniform distribution over
the area within 2 m to 30 m of the vehicle. Operating
costs of 4 cents to 14 cents per head per month up to 50
cents per head seasonally have been reported for mobile
dust control equipment.29
In terms of convenience, well-designed permanent sprinkler
systems provide an easy means of maintaining control over
feedlot dust problems since quantities can be regulated
virtually by clock, and the entire feedlot can be treated
quickly e.t the most opportune time. However, automation
requires frequent, routine inspection of the performance of
each sprinkler head as well as the entire system to prevent
or minimize poor distribution and/or overwatering. Sprinkler
heads plciced inside feedpens are inconvenient from the stand-
point of pen cleaning. Unlike mobile equipment, sprinkler
systems can suffer damage (hidden or visible) during idle
seasons which may entail unscheduled and untimely corrective
action. Sprinkler systems must be designed, installed, and
operated for a particular feedlot configuration. If the
feedlot is expanded, pens relocated, or water supply altered
appreciably, the system may not function properly.28
Use of mobile equipment in dust control requires more labor
than a sprinkler system. However, labor and maintenance
needs are probably more predictable. Management factors
against the use of water trucks are the inability to gain
quick control over the dust problems and the difficulty
40
-------
in regaining control after equipment trouble has occurred.28
The creation of additional vehicular traffic around the pens
may also pose slight problems. Mobile equipment for dust
control can, however, be readily adapted to changes in feed-
lot configuration.
2. Gas/Odor Control
The lack of oxygen in bacterial decomposition of cattle
manure causes feedlot odor. Odor control actions should
enhance aerobic metabolism on the feedlot surface, in the
runoff holding ponds, and in the manure stockpiles. Good
housekeeping procedures are the simplest and least costly
means for feedlot odor abatement.
Besides reducing the dust emissions, sprinkling provides
moisture for aerobic biodegradation of the manure. A 25%
to 40% moisture content is required for best aerobic
bacterial activity and good dust control. If no wet spots
are formed by sprinkling, it is possible to maintain a
moisture level for both dust suppression and good aerobic
conditions on the feedlot surface.8 Any spot with excess
moisture will turn anaerobic and cause malodors. To avoid
odors during pen scraping, only the surface manure layer
should be removed.
Odor control for the runoff holding ponds begins with re-
moving solids from the runoff. This dilutes the nutrient
concentration in the holding pond water. Odor from the
holding pond can be further reduced by adding more water
or using aeration equipment. Aeration of the surface of
the pond will reduce the formation and subsequent transfer
of odors into the air.
41
-------
Intermediate storage of manure in stockpiles allows regular
removal of solids regardless of the immediate readiness of
land for disposal or ponds for treatment. Mounding of
manure inside the pens, an intermediate step in collection,
promotes drainage and provides a dry resting area for cattle
during adverse weather. Further manure drying and decompo-
sition accompanied by weight and volume reduction occur
during storage. However, storage periods longer than 4 to
5 days without aeration will cause anaerobic conditions to
develop, and malodors will be released upon excavation.
Also, the presence of high, mounded, too-wet, encrusted
manure piles, inside which the manure is preserved in a
fresh state, further decreases pen space per head since
cattle tend to walk around them. This will augment odor
problems; in these pens until the manure piles can be removed.
When stockpiling outside the pens is required, the solid
manure should be piled in long narrow rows, called windrows
(1.2 m to 1.8 m high). Access lanes for trucks and earth
moving equipment should be left between rows. This stock-
piling procedure will enable rapid control of spontaneous
combustion fires and is compatible with present day composting
machines. The windrows are aerated by turning every 3 to 7
days or by injecting air using underlying perforated pipe.
Windrow composting requires 15 to 21 days to complete if
\
satisfactory moisture (40% to 60%) and temperature (54°C to
77eC) can be maintained. Aerobic composting produces no
offensive odors, generates enough heat to kill weed seeds,
fly larvae, and most pathogens, and reduces materials volume
by 10% to 45% and weight by 30% to 60%. Loss of nitrogen
through volatilization may lower the fertilizer value of
finished compost. Composting requires careful management,
42
-------
and difficulties can be expected during prolonged periods
of immoderate weather.30
Some governmental agencies are cognizant of problems caused
by odors from feedlots. Typical special provisions written
into operating permits issued by the Texas Air Control Board
include:31
Excess moisture must be drained from pen areas to
prevent ponding. Good pen drainage must be maintained
at all times either by uniform slopes of 2% to 4% or
by constructing permanent mounds in flat pens.
When it becomes necessary to stockpile manure outside
the pen area, the moisture content must be maintained
between 10% and 30% (wet basis) in the top 6 inches
of the pile or it must be successfully demonstrated
that the stockpile is not a source of odors. The
stockpile must be crowned with sloping sides and must
be located in a well drained area to assure rapid
dewatering.
Cleaning or scraping of pens and removal of manure
from stockpiles must be performed under favorable atmo-
spheric conditions (e.g., wind direction must not be
out of the southwest).
Runoff water in the holding ponds must not become a
source of obnoxious odors. It must be chemically or
biologically treated or aerated, if necessary, to pre-
vent nuisance conditions.
30Sweeten, J. M., W. S. Allen, and D. L. Reddell. Solid
Waste Management for Cattle Feedlots; Cattle Feeders
Information. Texas Agricultural Extension Service.
College Station. Publication No. L-1094. 1973. 4 p.
3 Sweeten, J. M. Feedlot Pollution Control Guidelines.
Texas Agricultural Extension Service Miscellaneous Publi-
cation No. MP-1155. College Station. July 1974. 12 p.
43
-------
Research32 has shown potassium permanganate (KMn04) to be
the most economical odor control chemical agent of seven
materials tested for total suppression of the release
of malodorous gases from beef cattle waste slurry experi-
ments. The quantity of KMnOit required to totally suppress
emissions of sulfurous gases was estimated to be 14 g/500 g
of manure (56 Ib/ton). Potassium permanganate was judged
to be effective in the reduction of malodors when applied
at a rat.e of 2.24 g/m2 (20 Ib/acre) in a 1% water solution.
Also cor.sidered were potassium nitrate, paraformaldehyde,
hydrogen peroxide, ozene (orthodichlorobenzene), Formula 2,
and a digestive deodorant.
Other research33 recommended the following procedure which
was found to be effective in a southern California feedlot
treated with
Remove manure from yards at least 3 times/yr and
scarify the ground to promote aerobic conditions.
Fol.low scarification with spraying of a 1% solution
of KMnOif so that treatments amount to 2.2 g/m2.
If excessively wet spots develop between regular
sprayings, these spots should be resprayed.
This procedure was found to be effective under both summer
(dry season) and winter (wet season) conditions. Also,
permanganate solutions were effective for odor abatement in
a variety of situations at the feedlot, e.g., odors develop-
ing in sumps and ditches were abated by KMn04 addition in
either solid or solution form. No data are available on the
32Ford, J. P., and W. L. Ulich. Odor Control for Confined
Beef Cattle Feedlots. In Proceedings of the First Annua'l
symposium on Air Pollution Control in the Southwest.
College Station, Texas A&M University, 1973. p. 189-204.
33 Faith, W. L. Odor Control in Cattle Feedyards. Journal of
the Air Pollution Control Association. 14:459-460,
November 1964.
44
-------
effect of the permanganate residues in the manure which may
be later sold and/or used on farmland.
In more recent research3 ** at an actual operating feedlot,
nine products were each applied to one or more pens to deter-
mine their effectiveness in reducing odor release from this
source. Relatively simple measurements - ammonia release rate
and odor intensity - served effectively to compare odor con-
trol effort successes. Of the nine products, sodium bentonite,
Odor Control Plus, and two natural zeolites were found to
consistently reduce the rate of ammonia release when the
treated areas were compared to untreated control areas. Odor
intensity measurements confirmed the effectiveness of sodium
bentonite. The pens treated with Odor Control Plus (a dried
bacterial and enzyme product) had a measurably less intense
odor 5 days after treatment but not 10 days after treatment.
Only one of the two observers was able to distinguish the zeo-
lite treated pens from the control. Interestingly, potassium
permanganate failed the odor abatement tests. The cost of
the effective materials ranged from $0.07/m2 to $0.15/m2
($300 to $600 per acre) for treatment during the odor pro-
duction season.
At the same feedlot10 a water spray system was installed which
creates a mist extending 6 m (20 ft) into the air along the
predominantly downwind borders. Although difficult to evalu-
ate in a highly variable natural setting, the data seemed to
suggest a more rapid decrease in ammonia release rate
with downwind distance when the water spray was in operation
34Miner, J. R., Oregon State University, and R. C. Stroh,
University of Idaho. Controlling Feedlot Surface Odor Emis-
sion Rates by Application of Commercial Products. (Paper
No. 75-4566, presented at the 1975 Winter Meeting of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Chicago.
December 15-18, 1975.) 16 p.
45
-------
than at other times. This system is effective only under
low wind velocities? the condition that causes greatest odor
transport is an inversion with low wind velocities.
The spray system was also used to spray a dilute KMnO^ solu-
tion, "he first application was made to demonstrate that
the practice would not damage wetted vegetation. When applied
at concentrations below 74 g/m3 (74 mg/1), no plant effects
were no-ted. When added to the spray at 10 g/m3 (10 mg/1) ,
potassium permanganate seemed to further speed the odor in-
tensity reduction with distance; however, that result must
still be substantiated.
From the literature surveyed, it is obvious that particu-
late, gaseous and odoriferous emissions from beef cattle
feeding operations can be controlled by conventional methods
now available. These simple methods and procedures require
an appreciable expenditure of managerial dedication and exper-
tise as well as the monetary investment to purchase, install
and maintain such systems.
B. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Calcium sulfate (gypsum) showed promise as a chemical agent
to increase moisture and control dust emissions.26 It has
long. beien used in the reclamation of alkaline soil. The mode
of action of calcium sulfate involves an exchange of sodium
for calcium ions which allows for greater water penetration.
Increasied water penetration should elevate pen moisture
levels and reduce dust.,
The application level of calcium sulfate tested in the
literature was 0.14 kg/m2 applied with a fertilizer spreader.
However, its cost was 50% to 80% higher than that for water
treatment.
46
-------
Chemicals for dust control are more effective and practical
in controlling dust from feed alleys, roads, and loading/
unloading areas around a feedlot than from the feedlot
surface itself. Other materials commonly used for roadways
include waste petroleum oil, coarse gravel, and asphalt.
47
-------
SECTION VI
GROWTH AND NATURE OF THE INDUSTRY
A. PRESENT TECHNOLOGY
Just after World War II the trend to confinement production
of livestock began. This trend was brought about by a de-
clining farm labor supply and the need to substitute
machine!; that could make it possible for one operator to
produce a better quality product without increasing compara-
tive consumer costs.35
Within bhe last 15 years, commercial feedlot operations
have been decreasing in number but expanding in size rapidly.
Large commercial feedlots were developed in the arid climates
of Arizona and California in the 1950's. In the mid 1960's,
innovative cattlemen on the Great Plains developed the
financial arrangements needed to duplicate these "California"
feedlots nearer the grain supply. The number of total feed-
lots decreased by 35% between 1962 and 1972, but the number
of over 1,000-head beef cattle feedlots increased 33% from
1,517 to 2,035. The number of fed cattle marketed from
these over 1,000-head feedlots increased threefold.1 Most
of the cattle fed in the Northern Plains, Southwest, Mountain
35Hazen, T. E. Discussion. Journal of the Air Pollution
. Control Association. 22:771-772, October 1972.
48
-------
and Pacific (Figure 9) regions are confined in feedlots
with a capacity of more than 1,000 head. Between 1961 and
1972 Texas had the greatest numerical increase (over 3.7
million head) in finish cattle feeding, followed by Nebraska,
Kansas, Colorado, and Iowa. Over 80% of the national in-
crease in cattle feeding during this period occurred in
these five states.
Figure 9. Cattle-raising regions
The increase in commercial confined beef feedlot operations
occurred as a result of the proximity to an adequate supply
of feeder cattle, the strong demand for beef, an adequate
supply of competitively priced feed grains, the availability
of slaughtering facilities, and a dry, stable climate. Costs
for feed itself amount to two-thirds or three-fourths of the
total feeding costs. Labor,'fuel and utilities, and depre-
ciation are other major components of the total feeding costs,
Because of weight shrinkage and transportation expenses,
49
-------
most caiitle are sold to packing plants within 80 km to
160 km of the feedlot location. Wet, muddy feedlots ad-
versely affect feeding efficiency; hence, a dry climate is
important in obtaining consistently efficient weight gains.
Meat consumption in the United States has been rising at
a steady rate since 1950. Between 1950 and 1960, the per
capita consumption of beef increased 34%, or 3.0%/yr.
Between 1960 and 1970, the per capita consumption of beef
increased 33%, or 2.9%/yr (Figure 10).36 In the early
1900"s, annual total meat consumption per capita ranged
between 46 kg and 49 kg, and pork consumption, which ex-
ceeded beef consumption, amounted to about 47% of the total.
o
co
45
o
0
23'
11
LAMB AND MUTTON
\
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
Carcass-weight basis (ordinate rounded to
nearest kg.
A Forecast values.
Figure 10. Annual mean consumption per person3
37
361973 Handbook of Agricultural Charts. Agricultural
Handbook No. 455. Washington, U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, October 1973. 152 p.
37Menzie, E. L., W. J. Hanekamp, and G. W. Phillips. The
Economics of the Cattle Feeding Industry in Arizona. The
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arizona.
Tucson. Technical Bulletin 207. October 1973. 82 p.
50
-------
Following 1950, some interesting changes have occurred in
the meat consumption patterns of the U.S. Total red meat
consumption rose from 44.1 kg per capita in 1950 to 57.2 kg
in 1972, an increase of 31%. In addition, beef became the
major source of increases in consumption, rising from 19.3 kg
to 35.2 kg, an increase of nearly 85%. Veal, lamb and mutton
declined while pork consumption remained relatively stable,
fluctuating between 17.7 kg and 22.3 kg per capita. Much
of the increasing beef consumption has been associated with
increasing incomes. Also, population has been rising and
this has added to the total demand for meat, especially
beef.
37
The rapid increase's in consumption have put stress on the
beef industry to meet the growing demand. In addition to
large increases in quantity, consumers have demanded a
better quality product with much more service provided.
Between 1962 and 1972, the amount of beef produced that was
classified as choice and prime rose from 50% to 64% of the
total (Figure 11). The lower grades involving utility,
canner and cutter, and standard commercial beef dropped
from 32% to 20%. While some of this shift was associated
with changes in grading standards during this period, the
major factor is considered to be pressure from consumer
demand.37
'PRIME
1962
1972
Figure 11. Beef production, by grade
51
36
-------
U.S. and world trade in meat products has been growing in
recent years and indications are that the rate of growth
will be increasing. The United States is a net importer of
red meats. Beef and veal imports, under quota, amounted to
8.0 x 1C5 metric tons (8.8 x 105 tons) in 1971 or about 7%
of U.S. consumption. These imports were largely of lower
grade be;ef and did not compete directly with the fed cattle
market.;l7
B. INDUSTRY PRODUCTION TRENDS
Rapid a:id significant changes are taking place in beef cat-
tle production and feeding, and in slaughtering, transpor-
tation and processing operations as well. 'Various economic
advantages have led to area specialization and long-
distance transportation of inputs and products due to the
strong demand for beef. These shifts and advantages have
created the firmly established trend to massive confinement
feeding and to ever increasing numbers of beef animals per
production unit. The change to intensive production has
altered, the traditional complementary relationship between
crop and livestock production in which the farmer fattens
the calves he raises or the carload that he buys, to consume
excess feed produced on the farm so that his return on that
feed will be higher, and in which the wastes from the live-
stock are returned to the land. Cattle feeding has become
an industry with huge capital requirements: purchase of
most of the feed, hormones, cookers, veterinary services,
computers for ration control, futures hedging, and manure
handling equipment on a scale befitting the construction
industry.
There has been a steady decline in the number of small
(less than 1,000-head) feedlots, particularly in the Corn
Belt states. The cattleman or farmer in the Corn Belt has
52
-------
traditionally either sold calves or fed out those raised
in his own small feedlot. The finishing phase of such
operations has been relatively unprofitable despite the
abundance of nearby feed; consequently, more farmers are
expected to discontinue their feedlot operations, emphasize
the cow-calf producing enterprise, and push for heavier
calves to increase returns, or grow into a larger feedlot
size category.
For cattle feeding to grow in an area, it must be relatively
profitable. Profitable feeding requires efficient and
economical marketing and processing systems as well as an
economical source of feed and efficient production. Illinois,
a state with large excess supplies of feed grains, suffered
a 20% decline in fed cattle marketed between 1966 and 1971
while the total U.S. enjoyed a 21% increase.1 In Illinois,
the more economical grain shipping techniques and facili-
ties that had been developed provided added incentive to the
exporting of feed in the form of grain rather than in the form
of meat. Thus, a large excess feed grain supply, by itself,
does not assure that cattle feeding in such an area will
grow or even be maintained.
The structure of the industry has changed from that of many
small feeders active seasonally to one with fewer and larger
year-round feeding operations. In the 23 major feeding states
for which continuous statistics have been maintained., the
percentage of cattle marketed from feedlots of greater than
1,000-head capacity increased from 36% to 55% between 1962
and 1970, and rose to 65% in 1973. The shift is more marked
in those states in which large-scale (16,000 head and over)
feedlots have emerged.1 The percentage of cattle placed on
feed, by quarters of the year, went from a 21-16-21-42 percent
distribution in 1960 to a 21-22-25-32 percent distribution
53
-------
in 1970.38 This change illustrates the movement away from
seasonal operations. The larger lots tend not to be seasonal
at all, but rather to be full-time operations which must
continually be kept nearly full in order to pay for fixed
labor costs and expensive equipment.
A major factor influencing the move to larger, less seasonal
cattle feeding enterprises has been the rise of custom feed-
ing. The shift by the industry to feeding cattle on a custom
basis far ranchers, cattlemen, and investors has been nec-
essary c.s a means of acquiring additional capital and of
spreading risks. Capital made available through custom
clients reduces the large reserves needed to finance feeding
operations and permits feedlots to expand and obtain econo-
mies of size. Capital required for the purchase of feeders,
feed, and other operating expenses exceeds investment in
plant facilities by three or four times.37 Table 8 illus-
trates -zhe percent of cattle which are fed on a custom basis
for the major cattle feeding states and the distribution of
clients owning the feeder cattle.
The client provides the capital for purchase of the feeder
and is 'billed monthly by the custom feeding firm for the
cost of feed and feeding services. Thus, the feedlot pro-
viding custom services provides capital only for the facili-
ties plus feed and operating expenses on a 30-day basis.
The full ownership feeder provides capital for facilities,
feeder cattle, and operating expenses for the full feeding
period involved. In addition to the reduction in capital
requirements to finance commercial feeding operations, cus-
tom feeding spreads the risks associated with feeding. Prices
38Van Arsdall, R. N., and M. D. Skold. Cattle Raising in
the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Washington. ERS Report 235. January 1973. 88 p.
54
-------
Table 8. BEEF CATTLE FED FOR OTHERS ON A CUSTOM BASIS2
State
Arizona
California
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Nebraska
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Colorado
Total
685,000
1,380,000
13,500
53,000
934,000
633,000
191,000
325,000
2,310,000
544,000
Percent owned by
Ranchers
21.6
32.6
46.3
40.5
70.4
43.6
60.5
54.8
37.6
37.1
Packers
7.4
7.3
7.3
16.3
9.7
11.1
13.9
5.6
25.0
25.7
Others
71.0
60.1
46.4
43.2
19.1
45.3
25.6
39.6
37.4
37.2
Percent of
fed cattle
77.8
76.6
1.2
1.7
59.0
23.2
64.9
62.5
82.9
32.8
and costs are subject to major changes in relatively short
periods of time. As a result, the industry can and does
experience, at varying times, high profits and high losses.
Since the custom feedlot owners make their returns based on
charges for services provided to clients, the market risks
associated with cattle feeding are transferred to their
clients.37
Fed cattle production increased from 1.29 x 107 head in 1960
to over 2.67 x 107 head in 1972.39 This expansion has been
due primarily to the growth of cattle feeding in seven
western states. Fed cattle marketings in Arizona, New Mexico,
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado soared to
1.5 x 106 head in 1972, representing 75% of the national
growth in the last 10 years (Figure 12). Expansion in fed
3livestock and Meat Statistics. Economic Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington. Bulletin
No. 333. Supplement for 1962-72. June 1971. 6 p.
55
-------
cattle marketings of 7.4%/yr also occurred in the northwestern
states, bringing marketings for this area to over 1.1 x 106
head (Figure 13).
15,000-,
YEARS
Figure 12. Fed cattle marketings of seven western states
(Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas
and Colorado), 1962-197237
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
YEARS
Figure 13. Fed cattle marketings in the northwestern states
(Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho), 1962-197237
The growth experienced by many western states, however, has
not bean shared by the cattle feeding regions of the Corn
Belt. After recording a gradual growth in fed cattle mar-
ketings in the early and middle 1960's, the Corn Belt states
reached a peak in 1969-1970 of 7.4 x 106 head. They have
56
-------
since declined each year to 6.4 x 106 head in 1972 (Figure 14).
A drop in fed cattle marketings in Iowa was mainly responsible
for the decline in output of the Corn Belt region. Numbers
marketed in Iowa decreased from 4.58 x 106 head in 1970 to
3.91 x 106 head in 1972. This reduction represented over 85%
of the total decline in the Corn Belt area.
3 8000-,
4000-
I
I9S4
1966 1968
YEARS
1
1973
Figure 14. Fed cattle marketings in the Corn Belt states
(Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri), 1962-197237
Declines in fed cattle were also registered as early as
1965 in California, one of the most active feeding states
in the country. Numbers marketed decreased from 2.28 x 106
head in 1965 to 1.97 x 106 head in 1970. However, following
1970, marketings increased slightly.
Figure 15 displays the change in fed cattle marketings in
total numbers and in percentages. The top seven cattle
feeding states - Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Colorado,
California, and Illinois - comprise 75% of the U.S. produc-
tion. The U.S. growth rate was 4.5%/yr from 1964 to 1973.
Each of the seven leading states exhibits a different growth
pattern (Tables 9 through 16) from the overall U.S. growth
pattern. The percentage distribution by feedlot size shows
that marketings from the small feedlots (under 1,000-head
capacity) declined while very large (16,000-head and over)
feedlots increased substantially until 35% of all fed cattle
57
-------
NUMBERS IN PARENTHESIS
I NO I GATE PERCENT CHANGE
Figure 15. Change in fed cattle marketings, 1961 to 1972
(thousand head)
came frori very large feedlots. The growth and distribution
are shown in Figures 16 and 17 for Nebraska and Texas. Nebraska
has thousands of small farmer-feeder concerns but was able
to increase its fed cattle output primarily through addi-
tion of [Large feedlots. Texas' growth was brought about
almost entirely by the springing up of a cattle feeding
industry and large feedlots.
The phenomenal growth in Texas cattle feeding (18%/yr) is
noteworthy. In the early 1960's, Texas was the nation's
leading exporter (to other states) of feeder cattle and
ranked about sixth in cattle feeding. However, Texas will
not be able to supply feeder cattle to feedlots in other
areas during the coming years if the recent trends continue
because the state will use all its feeder cattle in its own
feedlots.
58
-------
Table 9. CAPACITY OF FEEDLOTS IN UNITED STATES*
(4.5% GROWTH/YR)1
(percent of all marketings)
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Under
1,000 head
64
63
59
58
56
55
54
48
45
42
38
35
1,000 to
15,999 Head
28
29
31
30
31
31
30
30
31
31
30
30
16,000 Head
and over
8
8
10
12
13
14
16
22
24
27
32
35
23 Leading states.
Table 10,
CAPACITY OF FEEDLOTS IN TEXAS (18.0% GROWTH/YR)l
(percent of all marketings)
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Under
1,000 head
14
13
13
10
12
8
6
4
3
3
2
2
1,000 to
15,999 Head
86
72
69
67
67
63
50
38
38
32
24
22
16,000 Head
and over
0
15
18
23
21
29
44
58
59
65
74
76
59
-------
Table 11. CAPACITY OF FEEDLOTS IN NEBRASKA (4.5% GROWTH
(percent of all marketings)
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1962
197C
1971
1972;
1973
Under
1,000 head
38
71
61
61
56
53
52
47
45
45
41
39
1,000 to
15,999 Head
52
29
39
39
36
38
40
44
44
44
46
46
16,000 Head
and over
0
0
0
0
8
9
8
9
11
11
13
15
Table 12. CAPACITY OF FEEDLOTS IN IOWA (1.5% GROWTH/YR)l
(percent of all marketings)
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Under
1,000 head
97
97
96
96
95
93
93
91
90
90
89
87
1,000 to
15,999 Head
3
3
4
4
5
7
7
9
10
10
11
13
16,000 Head
and over
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
-------
Table 13. CAPACITY OF FEEDLOTS IN KANSAS (15.5 % GROWTH/YR)
(percent of all marketings)
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
.1970
1971
1972
1973
Under
1,000 head
68
64
55
48
46
46
40
33
26
25
20
16
1,000 to
15,999 Head
32
36
45
34
39
38
42
36
36
37
39
40
16,000 Head
and over
0
0
0
18
15
16
18
31
38
38
41
44
Table 14. CAPACITY OF FEEDLOTS IN COLORADO (9.5% GROWTH/YR)1
(percent of all marketings)
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Under
1,000 head
29
36
33
31
26
24
23
17
15
11
8
8
1,000 to
15,999 Head
71
64
67
39
44
38
40
38
42
40
44
40
16,000 Head
and over
0
0
0
30
30
38
37
45
43
49
48
52
61
-------
Table Ifi. CAPACITY OF FEEDLOTS IN CALIFORNIA (NO GROWTH)
(percent of all marketings)
Year
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
196£!
196<>
1970
1971
197:?
197.3
Under
1,000 head
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1.
a
a
1,000 to
15,999 Head
64
57
51
49
48
46
47
45
42
42
40
37
16,000 Head
and over
34
41
47
49
51
52
52
54
57
57
60
63
Less than 0.5%.
Table 16. CAPACITY OF FEEDLOTS IN ILLINOIS (3.1% DECLINE/YR)
(percent of all marketings)
Year
1962
19(53
19(54
19-55
1956
1957
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Under
1,000 head
95
94
92
91
91
91
93
93
91
90
88
89
1,000 to
15,999 Head
5
6
8
9
9
9
7
7
9
10
12
11
16,000 Head
and over
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
-------
LO
2,500
2,000
§ 1,500
o
z
1,000
500
OVER 1,000-HEAD CAPACITY
552 LOTS — -
-
-
—
-
fl
mi
MM
'
UNDER 1,000-HEAO CAPACITY
17. 800 LOTS
1
64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
YEARS
3,500
3,000
2,500
a
z
-------
The explosive growth in cattle feeding in the Texas high
plains developed from a corresponding growth in grain sorghum
production which, in turn, followed the introduction of new
irrigation equipment. The new equipment could lift water
economicc.lly from deep wells. Water levels have dropped
due to the intensive, irrigation that followed. If cotton
and grain sorghum are to continue as the major crops of the
Lower Texas Panhandle region, water will have to be imported.
If this Is not done, and Texas is to continue to grow in
cattle feeding, grain will have to be imported.
Feed grain areas that do not rely on irrigation may have
more long-run cattle feeding growth potential than an area
dependent upon shrinking groundwater supplies. Should
water for irrigation of local feed grains become too ex-
pensive in the Texas high plains, cattle feeding could
continue for some time on shipped-in grains. The investment
in highly efficient new feedlots and slaughter plants,
the ^concentration of finances and skills, the ideal weather
and nearby feeder cattle could continue to keep the area
highly competitive even if grain had to be imported.
Major adjustments in the cattle feeding industry can be
expected in the coming years. More feeding will be done by
the larger lots as a continuance of past trends, and the
operations will become increasingly competitive. Currently,
because of an oversupply of cattle and as a result of high
feed prices, commercial cattle feeding is undergoing diffi-
cult times. By the end of 1974, the cost of adding weight
to a steer in the feedlot had risen to $1.32/kg (60C/lb)•
versus $0.55/kg (25
-------
Since January 1973, the number of cattle in U.S. feedlots
had dropped 34% to 9.6 x 106 head in spring, 1975. **0 With
the higher cost of grain, cattlemen are leaving cattle to
fatten in pastures longer and sending more of them directly
from the pasture to the slaughterhouse. In 1973, almost 70%
of all cattle slaughtered in the U.S. had been fattened in a
feedlot. By 1974 that number had dropped to 60%, by mid-1975
that proportion was down to 50%, and it is not expected to
rise much past 60% in 1976.kl
The nation's largest feedlot operator is presently purchasing
steers reared on pasturelands to weights of 340 kg to more
than 363 kg (750 Ib to 800 Ib) versus 272 kg (600 Ib) last
year because it is cheaper to allow the animal to gain
weight on grass than on grain.k2 Meanwhile, the Department
of Agriculture has increased its involvement in improving
the technology of forage production and harvesting.42
Increased demand from other countries for U.S. assistance to
feed the world will affect the cattle feeding industry.
Since most of the grainstuff that cattle consume is not
adaptable for human consumption, world food demand will
change the priority for the types and uses of grains which
are raised in the U.S. Consequently, with cattle feed in
shorter supply the production of meat products will be
reduced.
The challenge posed by synthetic products has significantly
affected various agricultural products. In fibers, leather
and dairy products, for example, the levels of substitution
have grown rapidly. In foods, however, synthetics have
played a limited role to date.
lBullish Times for the Nation's Cattlemen. Business Week.
March 15, 1976. p. 46, 48.
Using Less Grain to Fatten Cattle. Business Week.
December 14, 1975. p. 72, 74, 75.
65
-------
For beef products, the competition will likely come from
soybean product substitutes rather than synthetics, at
least for the near future. Increasing worldwide needs for
protein sources and the preference for beef products have
helped s.pur the search for acceptable substitutes. The
relatively lower cost of vegetable protein has provided
the incentive for the development of vegetable substitutes
for meat products.
A USDA study1*3 estimates that up to 1980, various factors
will prevent meat "analogs" from becoming competitive for
direct consumer sale. Institutional usage will grow and
there will be increased use as processed meat extenders,
with amounts ranging from 10% to 15% of the total product.
Three levels of use were projected. With use at a low
level, it was estimated that nearly 2 x 10 6 cattle would be
replaced and about 4% of the total production of beef for
1980 would come from soy substitutes. The high level esti-
mate would replace over 4 x 106 head and provide 8.5% of
the total beef supply. The level of use will depend on
beef supplies and prices, technological advancements and
public attitudes toward the substitute products.
New developments in either cattle feeding or handling of
beef could cause further shifts in the scale and location
of feeding. These are not expected to seriously affect
the trends being developed and the projections for larger
feedlo-; growth in the near future. Consumer demand should
continue to be strong; this will tax the capacity of compet-
itive elements of the industry in all areas.
Synthetics and Substitutes for Agricultural Products:
Projactions for 1980. Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Washington. Marketing
Research Report No. 947. March 1972. 18 p.
66
-------
Surprisingly, U.S. demand for beef has remained high during
the cattle industry's present cost-price squeeze, despite
concurrent growing pressure on consumer purchasing power.
Annual beef consumption increased about 6% in 1974 to 52.5 kg
per capita and it is expected to rise to 55.3 kg per capita
in 1975.^ That compares to an average annual consumption
increase of about 3% per capita between 1960 and 1970.
The growth factor for the beef cattle feeding industry from
1972 to 1978 is anticipated to be 2.0%/yr, even with the
disastrous years of 1973 and 1974. The ratio of emissions to
production is assumed to be constant; consequently, the ratio
of 1978 production to 1972 production will be 1.13 or an
overall increase of 13%. This will manifest itself in a
13% increase in emissions over this period.
67
-------
SECTION VII
APPENDIXES
A. Data Treatment for Emissions and Source Severity
Calculations
B. Health Hazard Potential Attributable to Odorous
Emissions
C. Results form Presurvey Air Samples Taken at Two
Texas Cattle Feedlots
D. Raw Data
68
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA TREATMENT FOR EMISSIONS AND SOURCE SEVERITY
CALCULATIONS
Emissions originate from several points and mix in the
atmosphere surrounding the feedlot. Particulates are
generated from dry pen surfaces by wind and cattle movement.
Vehicular traffic along alleyways between the pens also
contributes to particulate generation. Ammonia is generated
by manure decomposition and evaporation from the pen sur-
faces, by urine breakdown to urea to ammonia evaporation,
and by desorption from runoff ponds, basins, and lagoons.
Odors are evolved from the same sources as ammonia and
from spilled feed decomposition and manure-pad/pen-surface
scraping operations. In addition, odoriferous compounds
may be adsorbed onto particulate matter or the dust may
contain a fraction comprised of manure dust.
1. PARTICULATES
Particulate matter levels have been measured and reported
in research sponsored by the California Cattle Feeders
Association (CCFA). In one study,26 control technology
experiments were conducted. Particulate levels were re-
ported as total particulates for 10 feedlots and particle
size distribution was not determined. Measurements were
conducted using a Staplex high-volume air sampler, which was
placed inside the pens. The average particulate level for
24-hr sampling of the 10 lots was 14,200 pg/m3 with a range
from 1,946 yg/m3 to 35,537 yg/m3 and an estimated population
of 11,814 yg/m3. These data were of little value for the
current source assessment study since much of the particulate
matter inside dusty pens will settle out rapidly, although
the amount that will settle is unknown. In addition, no
data exist on wind speed and its correlation with dust
69
-------
levels, atmospheric stability class, feedlot location, size,
number of cattle, and particulate levels leaving or outside
the feedlot. This study showed that particulate levels in
the pens vary throughout the day; the critical period of dust
production at the feedlots studied occurred in the early
evening, when the cattle commence playful activities.
In the second CCFA study,5 feedlot air, water, and soils
were analyzed. Twenty-five member feedlots were sampled
upwind and downwind with Staplex high-volume air samplers,
and atmospheric concentrations were reported as shown in
Table A-l. These data are useful in that a mean level can
be calculated and a standard deviation derived. However, the
limitations of these data are numerous: (1) all feedlots
were sampled during California's dry season; no data exist
for the remainder of the year or for other parts of the
U.S.; (2) the distances of the samplers downwind are not
reported; (3) the atmospheric conditions (i.e., wind speed,
wind shift, stability class) of the sampling period are not
defined; (4) no information is provided regarding the use
or absence of emission control techniques in the feedlots
sampled; and, (5) feedlot size, number of cattle on feed,
and cattle density in pens are not reported. Correlations
with geographic, topographic, or meteorological parameters
are not possible based on the data reported for particulate
air pollution from feedlots. However, this literature data
can be used to estimate the order of magnitude of ambient
concentrations that can be expected.
In order to estimate the emission rate from the downwind
concentration data of Table A-l, several assumptions were
made and a dispersion model was utilized. The most appro-
priate dispersion model for this application is the continu-
ous lim> source, shown in Figure A-l. As the wind moves
across the feedlot it picks up the dust generated by cattle
70
-------
Table A-l. PARTICULATE MATTER FROM 25 CALIFORNIA FEEDLOTS
Area
Los Angeles
Desert
Central Valley
Central Coast
North Coast
Overall average
Feedlot
number ,
19
25
avg
4
8
9
12
13
15
17
_2
-------
and carries it to the apparent place of emission - the edge
of the feedlot. The downwind sampler thus "sees" a contin-
uously emitting line source.
WIND VELOCITY AND DIRECTION
u
FEEDLOT AREA
YS/SSS/SS/S/////S///S/S/////SS,'/S/SS//SS/S/.
•"APPARENT "LINE SOURCE
OF EMISSION
o DOWNWIND SAMPLER
figure A-l. Representation of the continuous
line source dispersion model
The following equation was used to calculate the emission
2 QT
rate:23
X =
/2V a u
z
exP h ^ I —
(A-l)
or
where
"L-*
azu exp
t W) ]
(A-2)
C|L =
u =
H =
c =
concentration at downwind distance X, g/m3
emission rate per length of a line source, g/s-m
average wind speed, m/s
effective height of emission, m
standard deviation in the vertical of the plume
concentration distribution, m
ir = 3.14
72
-------
The value of a and the use of the above dispersion equation
z
are representative for a sampling time of about 10 minutes.
Since the data were taken from a 24-hr sampling period, it
was necessary to correct the reported concentration values
to a 10-min averaging time. The appropriate equation for
this correction is:23
0.17
xk = xs r- ) (A-3)
where x0 = concentration for actual sampling time
s
Xv = concentration for 10-min sampling time
K.
t, = 10 min
t = actual sampling time, min
S
The corrected concentrations for inclusion in the dispersion
model are shown in Table A-2.
Since data were lacking as to atmospheric conditions and
distance downwind from the feedlots sampled, the following
assumptions were made for each feedlot:
Downwind distance (x) = 50 m
Wind speed (u) =4.47 m/s (national average)
Stability class = C (national avarage)
Height of emission (H) = 3.05 m (10 ft)
Vertical coefficient (az) = 0.113^x° • 9 l lj = 4.0 m
The calculated emission rate per length is shown in Table A-2
for each feedlot.
The mean particulate emission rate for the 25 feedlots is
0.0361 g/s-m. In order to estimate the emission rate in
grams per second instead of grams per second per meter, the
length of the line source was estimated. Figure A-2 displays
73
-------
Table A-2.
CALCULATION DATA FOR CALIFORNIA FEEDLOT EMISSION
RATE PER LENGTH OF A LINE SOURCE
Feedlot
number
19
25
4
8
9
12
13
15
17
20
2
3
5
6
7
10
14
22
23
24
1
11
16
26
18
X (measured) ,
yg/m3
453.3
977.9
418.3
1,034.8
108.6
348.4
534.5
959.8
716.0
53.7
1,046.4
379.8
1,184.7
660.3
860.3
1,267.8
703.6
268.5
1,161.0
276.1
279.4
263.7
1,129.8
216.2
660.6
X (corrected) ,
vg/m3
1,056.2
2,278.5
974.6
2,411.1
253.0
811.8
1,245.4
2,236.3
1,668.3
125.1
2,438.1
884.9
2,760.4
1,538.5
2,004.5
2,954.0
639.4
625.6
2,705.1
643.3
651.0
614.4
2,632.4
503.7
1,539.2
QL
g/s-m
0.0256
0.0553
0.0237
0.0585
0.0061
0.0197
0.0302
0.0543
0.0405
0.0030
0.0592
0.0215
0.0670
0.0373
0.0487
0.0717
0.0398
0.0152
0.0657
0.0156
0.0158
0.0149
0.0639
0.0122
0.0373
QT = ±0.0361
j_i
the size distribution of California feedlot capacities; from
this an average-sized feedlot of 8,000-head capacity was
chosen. Typical cattle stocking rates for eastern portions
of Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, and for Illinois, Minne-
sota, Iowa, and other Corn Belt cattle feeding states is
about 1C acres per 1,000 head of cattle, or 436 ft2/head.
For California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado and
other dryland feeding areas, however, the stocking rates
74
-------
Figure A-2. California feedlot size distribution1
average 150 to 175 ft2/head including alleys and feed pens,
or 3.44 acres per 1,000 head of cattle.^ Hence, an area
of 27.5 acres was assumed as an average-sized California
feedlot. Assuming the area to be square, the length of its
sides is 330 m. This was taken to be the length of the line
source of emissions as depicted in Figure A-l. Thus, the
emission rate from an average-sized California feedlot during
the dry season is (0.036 g/s-m) x (330 m), or 11.9 g/s. On
an area basis, the particulate emission rate is 36.7 yg/s-m2
(0.15 g/s-acre).
2. AMMONIA
The method for determining the extent of air pollution from
ammonia volatilized from feedlot surfaces is much better
^Personal communication. Dr. J. M. Sweeten, Extension
Agricultural Engineer, Texas Agricultural Extension Service,
Texas A&M University System. College Station. April 1976.
75
-------
defined than that for particulates. The nitrogen, N, con-
tent of manure, as ammonia, can be lost by volatilization and
widely dispersed. This N is effectively lost to the atmo-
sphere, and decreases the fertilizer value of manure.
Animals Ingest N that has been taken up by crops in an in-
organic form and converted to organic N in the plant. During
digestion enzymatically labile organic N compounds are formed.
Following excretion enzymatic reaction with these labile
compounds releases ammonia which is subject to volatilization.
Inherently, animal production with volatile losses of ammonia
from manure allows a potentially significant "leak" or mass
flow of N from the agricultural N cycle. Ammonia volatili-
zation decreases the amount of N that could be recycled back
to a crcp where the N originated. Ammonia loss by volatiliza-
tion occurs in addition to other avenues of loss including
leachinc and runoff from manure in feedlots. However, volatile
losses of ammonia are considered more significant in total
flow of N than those other pathways because of the rapid dy-
namics of the volatilization process. Estimates show that
as high as 50% of N in manure is lost by ammonia volatilization.45
Two studies46'47 reported the rates at which ammonia was ab-
sorbed directly from the air by nearby water surfaces under
different conditions of temperature and climate at various
distances and directions from feedlots. Dilute sulfuric acid
45Lauer, D. A. Limitations of Animal Waste Replacement for
Inorganic Fertilizers. In: Energy, Agriculture and Waste
Management - Proceedings of the 1975 Cornell Agricultural
Waste Management Conference, Jewell, W. J. (ed.). Ann Arbor,
Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., 1975. p. 409-432.
46Hutchinson, G. L., and F. G. Viets. Nitrogen Enrichment of
Surfa.ce Water by Absorption of Ammonia Volatilized from
Cattle Feedlots. Science. 166:514-515, October 1969.
1+7Lueb£!, R. E., K. R. Davis, and A. E. Laag. Diurnal Fluctu-
ation and Movement of Atmospheric Ammonia and Related Gases
from Dairies. Journal of Environmental Quality. .3(3) :265-
269, 1974.
' 76
-------
traps were utilized to increase the water's ammonia retention
capacity and minimize biological transformation of the ammonia.
Dilute sulfuric acid absorbs ammonia at approximately twice
the rate of demineralized water.
In one study,46 it was found that surface lake water could
absorb from 0.9 g/m2 to 7.3 g/m2 (8 Ib/acre to 65 Ib/acre)
of nitrogen as ammonia per year throughout the year, even
when both the feedlot and the lake were covered with ice and
snow. Wide fluctuations in weekly absorption rates noted at
the testing sites were due to the moisture status of the feed-
lots. Absorption peaks coincided with the time when the feed-
lots were undergoing rapid drying, and low points paralleled
periods of precipitation or low evaporation. The researchers
reported that 3.4 g/m2 (30 Ib/acre) is sufficient to eutrophy
a lake averaging 6m (20 ft) in depth to two or three times
the concentration needed for algal blooms. Growth of algae
in a lake is dependent upon an adequate supply of approximately
16 different factors (temperature, light, carbon dioxide,
and many mineral nutrients). In many lakes the supply of
nitrogen and phosphorus appears limiting. Approximately
0.01 ppm of phosphorus and 0.5 ppm of nitrogen must be
present in water for algal growth.
In another study,3 it was found that cattle urine, when
added to laboratory soil columns, volatilized as ammonia.
When urine was added every 2 days to an initially wet soil,
20% to 25% of the added nitrogen was lost as ammonia and
^65% was converted to nitrate. When urine was added every
4 days to initially dry soil, essentially all of the water
evaporated between urine additions, and 85% to 90% of the
added nitrogen was lost as ammonia.
77
-------
Actual downwind atmospheric concentrations were reported by
researchers who used air samplers and dilute I^SO^ to
monitor ammonia levels around large and small dairies in
southern California.47 Local concentrations were discovered
which ranged from 20 to 40 times the distillable nitrogen
(80% to 95% ammonia) concentration that was present in an
urban area 11 km upwind from the large dairy area. Atmo-
spheric concentrations of 36, 38, 45, and 66 yg/m3 were
reported (subtracting upwind from downwind) at a distance
of 0.8 km from the dairy area. The acid trap findings used
in that study confirmed the work described earlier.46 The
report e.lso indicated that if large surface bodies of water
absorb c.nd retain ammonia at the rates observed in areas
where ccittle distribution and weather conditions were similar
to those: studied, such waters would soon have higher ammonia
concentrations than that recommended for public consumption
or industrial use.
Excellent data on ammonia volatilization rates from a cattle
feedlot were given in a study34 on commercial odor abatement
product efficacy. Comparisons between treated pens and un-
treated (control) pens of daily average ammonia release rates
were presented. In all, 56 data points for untreated pens
under varying temperature and humidity conditions were given.
In the study, the rate of ammonia evolution was used as a
measure of odor production since anaerobic conditions favor
production of ammonia as well as other odoriferous compounds.
To quantify the rate of ammonia release, a sampling box was
placed on the feedlot surface. The box covered a square area
of 0.37 m2 with a plywood deck 0.3 m from the bottom. A
diaphra.gm pump was used to pull air from beneath the deck
through: an absorption tube containing 10 ml of dilute sul-
furic c.cid. The acid solution absorbed the ammonia from the
pumped air. Replacement air entered the space beneath the
78
-------
deck through a tube which terminated in a can of crushed
charcoal. Thus, only ammonia-free air entered the chamber
beneath the deck.
The ammonia concentration of the absorbing solution was
measured by nesslerization. Knowing the area covered by
the sampling box, the sampling time, the absorbing solution
volume, and the ammonia concentration of the absorbing solu-
tion, the ammonia nitrogen release rate was calculated in mg
per m2-hr. The 56 data points ranged from 1.3 mg/m2-hr to
51 mg/m2-hr, with a mean value of 14.5 mg/m2-hr. For a
27.5 acre feedlot, the total emission rate is 0.45 g/s, and
the line source emission rate is 1.36 mg/m-s.
3. AMINES
Researchers have indicated that amines volatilized from
cattle feedlot surfaces comprise about 2% to 6% of the mass
emitted relative to ammonia.17 Air samples taken at two
feedlots (Appendix C) indicated no amines present at a level
of 10% relative to the ammonia detected. Based on litera-
ture data, it was assumed that emissions of amines were 4%
relative to ammonia emissions; thus, the emission rate of
all amines from an average-sized California feedlot is
0.04 x 0.45 g/s, or 0.018 g/s. No estimation of uncertainty
was possible.
All of the amines which have been identified in atmospheres
surrounding cattle feedlots were presented in Table 4.
Other amines have different TLV's and, since the relative
concentrations of the amines were not known, a composite
TLV could not be calculated. Instead, a mean TLV for all
amines was assumed by averaging those amines for which
TLV's have been established; thus, from Table 4, the TLV for
amines from cattle feedlots is 35.7 mg/m3, or 0.036 g/m3.
79
-------
4. SULFIDES AND MERCAPTANS
Air samples taken at two cattle feedlots (Appendix C) indi-
cated that total sulfur compounds constituted 4% to 25%
relative to ammonia concentrations. A simple average of
these two values, or 15%, was assumed as an estimate of the
emission rate of sulfur compounds from feedlots, 0.068 g/s.
No determination of uncertainty was attempted. Again, a mean
TLV was assumed for total sulfur compounds based on values
presented in Table 4, which resulted in a TLV of 5.8 mg/m3,
or 0.006i g/m3.
80
-------
APPENDIX B
HEALTH HAZARD POTENTIAL ATTRIBUTABLE TO ODOROUS EMISSIONS
Odor has always been associated with cattle feedlot opera-
tions. Owners and operators of feedlots usually become in-
sensitive to the odor or find it unobjectionable. However,
neighbors, especially those downwind, often object to the
odor. Complaints which arise are sometimes translated into
legal action which has forced changes in operation or removal
of feedlots. Reactions to odor are notoriously subjective.
It is generally accepted that odor production at a feedlot
is the result of anaerobic (oxygen-less, bacterial) digestion
of the cattle wastes on the feedlot surface. Aerobic
(oxygen-consuming, bacterial) digestion products are, in
theory, almost entirely C02 and H20. Anaerobic digestion
of organic matter produces gaseous products which are
typically ^60% CH^, ^35% C02/ and the remainder an odor-
iferous mixture of H2, N2, NH3, CO, 02, H20, sulfides,
alcohols, aldehydes, and volatile amines.
From the above list, it is logical to concentrate on those
compounds which are known to be strong odorants: the amines
(generally low molecular weight compounds); sulfur compounds;
low molecular weight organic acids; and low molecular weight
organic aldehydes. Several researchers7'17"20 have identi-
fied compounds in the atmosphere above cattle feedlots.
These compounds were listed earlier in Table 4 along with
their TLV's and odor thresholds (if known).
A common observation regarding feedlot odors is that odors
downwind from a feedlot are not of the same quality (i.e.,
"smell different") as those immediately outside a feedlot.
81
-------
The detection in feedlot air of the nitrogen heterocyclic
compounds indole and skatole (3-methyl indole) is useful.
Indole reportedly has a powerful, harsh a-naphthylamine
odor in large concentrations and a jasmine odor upon dilu-
tion. Skatole has been called "the odorous principle of
faeces" because of its powerful disagreeable odor, which
is present even upon great dilution.48 Skatole1s odor thresh-
old is the lowest in Table 4 (7.5 x 10~8 ppm). Both indole
and skatole are very tenacious odorants which cling to
clothing and other articles and persist for long periods.
Skatole lias been found to be present in concentrations
approximately 18 times higher than indole.48 Skatole is
evidently responsible for the strong fecal note in feedlot
malodor and probably is in part responsible for the tenacious
character of animal waste odor.
A persistence factor has been defined as a relative measure
of the time that odorous substances will remain olfactorily
perceptible.15 The persistence factor, P, is defined as:
where p = vapor pressure of gaseous compound, torr
M = molecular weight of gaseous compound
" = air temperature, °K
The subscript Q refers to water vapor as a standard under
the following conditions:
T0 = 15°C = 288°K; p0 = 12.7 torr; M0 = 18
48Burnett, W. E. Determination of Malodors by Gas Chromat-
ographic and Organoleptic-Techniques. Environmental
Science and Technology. _3:744-749, August 1969.
82
-------
Water vapor at these standard conditions has a persistence
factor of 1.0. Higher persistence factors would indicate a
more persistent compound. Lower P values would indicate
lesser persistence and thus less chance of transport and
perception downwind. Using the above equation, the persis-
tence factors of four odorous compounds emitted from feed-
lots are compared below. Note that trimethylamine, which
has a low odor threshold, is included. The persistence
factors shown in Table B-l refer to 68°F (293°K).
Table B-l. PERSISTENCE OF ODOROUS SUBSTANCES
Odorous gas
Ammonia
Hydrogen sulfide
Trimethylamine
Skatole
Persistence factor, P
0.0035
0.0012
0.0092
9.1
Odor threshold,
ppm
46.8
0.0047
0.00021
0.000000075
Table B-l demonstrates that ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and
trimethylamine have approximately the same level of persis-
tence; however, skatole is much more persistent. Hence,
skatole is a good compound for use in assessing the health
effects which might result from downwind exposure to feed-
lot odors.
The question to be addressed here is: What is the hazard
potential of skatole and can it be considered as a hazardous
material emitted from cattle feedlots? No TLV has been
established for skatole, but the LDLo for 3-methyl indole
LDLo = lethal dose low; the lowest dose of a substance, other
than LD50, introduced by any route other than inhalation,
over any given period of time and reported to have caused
death in man, or the lowest single dose introduced in one or
more divided portions and reported to have caused death in
animals.
83
-------
(skatole) is 1,000 mg/kg applied subcutaneously on frogs.1*9
The human respiration rate can be estimated as 0.01 m3/min
and the assumption can be made that subcutaneous applica-
tion on frogs is equal to human inhalation. This assumption
may be of C by a factor of 10, but not much more than that
(based on comparison with other chemical substances where
the TLV is known). The irritation of the epithelium is
markedly similar in either the subcutaneous tissue or the
primary and secondary lobules in the lung. Hence, irritation
will be equated to toxicity in this case.
Next, it is assumed that the LDLo dosage may be equated to
a concentration by assuming that the maximum retention of
the chemical substance will be 1 year. This assumption is
out of proportion but will compensate for any error associ-
ated with, the first assumption. Then, for a 70-kg person,
the hazardous concentration is calculated by:
(1,000 mg/kg) (70 kg) = .
(0.01 m3/min)(60 min/hr)(24 hr/day)(365.25 day/yr) 'J g/
Thus, the hazardous concentration for a 70-kg person would
be 13 mg/m3 on a continuous dosage basis. Applying a fur-
ther safety factor of 100, the hazard potential concentra-
tion wou.'td be 130 pg/m3. This value is about six orders of
magnitude above the odor threshold (0.0004 ng/m3) for skatole
and probably three or more orders of magnitude above the
highest concentration around a cattle feedlot. Therefore,
skatole is not apt to exist in high enough concentrations
to be a hazard to public health, even though it may cause
a severe odor nuisance.
U9The Toxic Substances List, 1974 Edition. U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare. Rockville, Maryland.
HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 74-134. June 1974. 904 p.
84
-------
APPENDIX C
RESULTS FROM PRESURVEY AIR SAMPLES TAKEN AT TWO
TEXAS CATTLE FEEDLOTS
Air samples were taken earlier within the confines of two
beef cattle feedlots located in the high plains region of
Texas in order to identify the gases emanating from the
feedlot surface. These results were to be used to prioritize
the compounds to be sampled, should field sampling have
occurred.
Fiber glass filters impregnated with sulfuric acid and mounted
in a cassette were used for the collection of ammonia and
amines. In addition, the following four types of porous poly-
mer packings in Porapak Q stainless steel sampling tubes were
treated for the collection of different classes of gases:
Packing Material to be treated
Chromosorb 101 Acidic materials
Chromosorb 104 Sulfides and mercaptans
Chromosorb 103 Low molecular weight amines
Tenax-GC Basic materials (ammonia)
Bendix Unico personal samplers were utilized as pumps. Samp-
ling flow rates through the filters were approximately 2.5 to
3.0 liters/min for 10-min durations. Flow rates through the
polymer tubes ranged from 1.3 to 3.1 liters/min for the same
duration. The sampling apparatus is shown in Figure C-l.
1. AMMONIA AND AMINES
The fiber glass filters impregnated with I^SO^ were desorbed
with a 20% aqueous solution of NaOH and were collected for
analysis in water cooled externally with ice. From this
water solution, ammonia analyses were performed using an
ion specific electrode and the addition method. The following
results were obtained:
85
-------
AIR DRAWN IN
Filters
AIR DRAWN IN
POROUS
PACKED
POLYMER
TUBE
FLOWMETER
(ROTAMETER)
PUMP
Figure C-l. Preliminary sampling setup
86
-------
Quantity of ammonia Calculated ammonia
Feedlot collected/ yg level, yg/m3
A 2.6 104
B 3.0 120
From this water solution, an amine analysis was performed
using a gas chromatograph (F&M 810) equipped with a flame
ionization detector and a column composed of 4 ft x 1/4 in.
Teflon-GP 4% Carbowax plus 0.8% KOH on Carbopack B. No
amines were detected at the 8 x 10~5 g/filter level (10 yg/m3)
A Chromosorb 103 packed porous polymer tube was used to
collect air samples of low molecular weight amines. Polymer
decomposition fouled results with these samples.
Tenax-GC packed porous polymer tubes were also used for
basic material collection. Several weak GC-FID peaks were
obtained and tentatively identified based on comparison with
standard mixtures of primary and secondary amines. The low
intensity of these peaks precluded the use of a gas chromato-
graph-mass spectrometer system for component identification.
The gas chromatograph operational parameters were:
• Program from 50°C to 200°C after 8-min port injection
• Port injection 190°C to 210°C
N2 flow 20 mm on rotometer using the stop flow method
Chart speed Lo-1 or 4 in./min
Desorption was accomplished by insertion into the injection
port and the following materials were observed:
Feedlot Material identified
A n-Propylamine
B n-Ethylamine
Dimethylamine
n-Propylamine
n-Butylamine
n-Hexylamine
87
-------
The collection and desorption efficiencies for the polymer
tubes have not been established; consequently, a rough
quantitative determination could not be made.
2.
CARJ3OXYLIC ACIDS
Chromosorb 101 packed porous polymer was used for air
sampling. No materials were detected at the lower limit
of detection, 1 x 10~7 g (or 4 yg/m3).
3.
SULFIDES AND MERCAPTANS
Chromosorb 104 packing was used and the following materials
were noted. No single species were identified because their
concentrations were too small.
Feedlot
A
B
Quantity of
total sulfides
collected, yig
0.64
0.12
Calculated quantities and
materials observed
27.5 pg/m3 total sulfides; n-propyl
mercaptan identified, others not
identified
5 yg/m3 total sulfides
88
-------
APPENDIX D
RAW DATA
1. AMMONIA-AMINE ANALYSES ON FEEDLOT ATMOSPHERES
a. Summary of Sample Collecting Systems and Analyses
Two types of sampling systems were used: (a) fiber-glass
filters impregnated with sulfuric acid50 and (b) short
(4 to 6 in.) tubes (approximately 1/4-in. Pyrex) packed with
Chromosorb 103 and Tenax GC.51
The ammonia and amines were desorbed from the sulfuric acid
impregnated filters with 20% aqueous solution of NaOH and
were collected for analysis in water cooled externally with
ice. (See Reference 50 for desorption apparatus.)
Ammonia analyses were performed by using an ion specific
electrode and the addition method. Measurements for amines
were made with a gas chromatograph (F&M 810) equipped with
a flame ionization detector and column composed of 4' x
1/4" Teflon-GP 4% Carborwax 20M +0.8% KOH on Carbopack B.
b. H2SO^-Impregnated Filters
No amines were detected in the desorbates (H20 solutions)
from .the sulfuric acid impregnated filters. The detection
limit for the individual amines with the GC-FID system is
approximately 2 x 10~5 g/ml or 8 x 10~5 g/filter.
5. °0kita, T. Filter Method for the Determination of Trace
Quantities of Amines, Mercaptans, and Organic Sulphides
in the Atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment, £: 93-102, 1970,
51Mieure, J. P., and M. W. Dietrich. Determination of Trace
Organics in Air and Water. J. Chromatog. Science,
11:559-570, 1973.
89
-------
The ammonia results are as follows:
Quantity of ammonia
Filter _ collected, \ig
No. 34 amines - I^SO^ 2.6
No. 26 amines - ISO^ 3.0
c. Porous Polymer Tubes
The GC-FID patterns obtained with the Chromosorb 103 porous
polymer were too complicated by polymer decomposition to be
useful.
Several weak GC-FID peaks were obtained from the Tenax-GC
packed ^ubes. The low intensity of these peaks precluded
use of our current GC-mass spectrometer system for component
identification. Tentative peak assignments were made based
on GC retention data, as determined by comparison with stand-
ard mixtures of primary and secondary amines.
The gas chromatographic operational parameters are as
follows:
Instrument: F&M 810
Program: From 50°C to 200°C, after 8 min post inject.
Injection port: 190°C to 210°C
N2 flow: 20 mm on rotometer - stop flow method
Chs.rt speed: Lo-1 or 4 in. /min
Column: 4' x 1/4" Teflon-GP4% Carbowax 20M +
0.8% KOH on Carbopack B, Lot B 4302
Desorption from the porous polymers was accomplished by
inserting the tube containing the polymer into the injection
part oJ: the chroma tograph. 51
The ga:; chromatographic measurements are as follows:
90
-------
Porous
polymer
tube
Tenax GC No. 19
Tenax GC No. 20
Retention
time , min
7.5
11.7
14.1
18.9
26.9
13.1
Peak
height,
mm
7
34
4
3
55
54
Tentative assignment
Possibly n-ethyl
amine
Unknown (Dimethyl
amine??)
Possibly n-propyl
amine
Possibly n-butyl
amine
Possibly n-hexyl
amine
b
Estimated
quantity of
amine, ym
2.7
a
13
1.5
1.2
21
g
21
Calculated as propyl amine equivalent.
Retention time short of n-propyl amine.
L. Metcalfe
J. E. Strobel
J. V. Pustinger
Addendum:
The collection and desorption efficiencies have not been
established. Methyl and ethyl amines probably would not
have been retained on the porous polymers.
J.V.P.
Project No: 6912-48-9(5)
Date: 18 November 1974
91
-------
2. ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTS COLLECTED FROM BEEF CATTLE FEED-
LOTS - MERCAPTANS, SULFIDES
Porous polymer
tube number
No. 17
No. 23
Peak
height,
mm
70
105
48
5
10
15
Retention
time, min
4.0
7.9
11.8
5.6
10.3
17.5
Tentative
assignment
Unknown
n-propyl
mercaptan (?)
Unknown
??
??
??
Estimated
quantity , g
2.1 x 10~7
3.1 x 10~7
1.4 x 10- 7
0.2 x 10~7
0.4 x 10~7
0.6 x 10~7
Calculated based on n-propyl mercaptan equivalents.
Remarks:
Broad peaks were obtained from tube No. 23, whereas much
sharper peaks were observed in the pattern for effluent
from No. 17. Tubes contained Chromosorb 104. No positive
component identification can be made based on GC retention
data alone.
Project No. 6912-48
Date: 4 December 1974
ANALYST: L. Metcalfe
GROUP LEADER: J. V. Pustinger
92
-------
3. ANALYSIS OF POROUS POLYMER TUBES No. 13 and No. 21 -
CARBOXYLIC ACIDS FROM FEEDLOT SAMPLING
We were unable to make a positive identification of compounds
desorbed from the Chromosorb 101 polymers. The low levels of
the atmospheric contaminants required the use of high sensi-
tivity settings with the FID-GC systems which empahsized the
background from the polymer. Although some weak peaks were
observed, all of these appear due to components being emitted
from the polymer itself.
Comparison of retention times for a standard mixture of
carboxylic acids - propionic acid, butyric acid, valeric
acid, caproic acid, and heptanoic acid - show no evidence
for the presence of these materials at the 1 x 10~7 g level.
L. Metcalfe
J. E. Strobel
J. V. Pustinger
Project Number-: 6912-48-9(5)
Date: 19 November 1974
93
-------
SECTION VIII
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ATMOSPHERIC STABILITY CLASS - An alphebetic designation for
dispersion categories used to describe the turbulent structure
of the atmosphere.
CONFIDENCE LEVEL - The probability that a random variable
lies within a specified range given a known distribution
of that variable.
CONFIDENCE LIMITS - Upper and lower boundaries of values within
which a. random variable will occur with a given probability.
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS - Pollutants for which ambient air quality
standards have been defined.
ELEVATED SOURCES - Sources with a point of emission above
ground level.
EMISSION BURDEN - Ratio of emissions from a source to the
total emissions per state or nation.
FED CATTLE - Cattle which have been finish fed with grain
concentrates in a confined space prior to slaughter.
FEEDER CATTLE - Cattle which have been range or pasture
grazed prior to entering a feedlot.
HAZARD FACTOR - Toxicity of a pollutant corrected for a
24-hr exposure with a safety factor of 100.
NESSLERIZATION - Method of detection of ammonia using a
solution of KI-HgI2 in H2O and KOH, called Nessler's reagent.
NONCRITERIA POLLUTANTS - Pollutants for which ambient air
quality standards have not been established.
NUCLEPORE - A polycarbonate filter medium.
94
-------
OPEN SOURCES - Fugitive sources which do not have a definable
point of emission such as a stack or vent.
THORNTHWAITE'S P-E INDEX - A relationship expressing the
amount of precipitation and the mean temperature in a given
region.
95
-------
SECTION IX
CONVERSION FACTORS AND METRIC PREFIXES 52
CONVERSION FACTORS
To convert from
degree Celsius (°C)
degree Kelvin (°K)
kilogram (kg)
kilometer2 (km2)
meter (m)
meter (m)
meter2 (m2)
meter2 (m2)
meter3 (m3)
meter3 (m3)
metric ten
paschal (Pa)
paschal (Pa)
Prefix Symbol
kilo k
milli m
micro p
nano n
to
degree Fahrenheit
degree Celsius
pound-mass (Ib mass
avoirdupois)
acre
foot
inch
acre
yard2
gallon (U.S. liquid)
inch3
pound
pound-force/inch2 (psi)
torr (mm Hg, O°C)
PREFIXES
Multiplication
Factor
103
10- 3
10- 6
io-9
Multiply
t.p = 1.8 t
toC = toK ~
2.204
2.470 x 102
3.281
3.937 x 101
2.470 x 10"
1.196
2.642 x 102
6.102 x 101*
2.205 x 103
by
°c + 32
273.15
"
1.450 x 10-1*
7.501 x 10"
Example
1 kg = 1 x 103
1 mm = 1 x 10~3
1 pg = 1 x 10~6
1 ran = 1 x 10-9
3
grams
meter
gram
meter
52Metric Practice Guide. American Society for Testing and Materials.
Philadelphia. ASTM Designation: E-380-74. November 1974. 34 p.
96
-------
SECTION X
REFERENCES
1. Number of Cattle Feedlots and Fed Cattle Marketed — By
Size of Feedlot Capacity, by States. Crop Reporting
Board. Statistical Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Washington. 1962 up to 1973.
2. Census of Agriculture, 1969. Volume V, Special Reports.
Part 9, Cattle, Hogs, Sheep, Goats. Washington, U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1973. 667 p.
3. Stewart, B. A. Volatilization and Nitrification of
Nitrogen from Urine Under Simulated Cattle Feedlot
Conditions. Environmental Science and Technology.
£:579-582, July 1970.
4. Taiganides, E. P., and T. .E. Hazen. Properties of Farm
Animal Excreta. Transactions, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers. 9_: 374-376, 1966.
5. Elam, C. J., J. W. Algeo, T. Westing, and A. Martinez.
Feedlot Air, Water and Soil Analysis. California
Cattle Feeders Association. Bakersfield. Bulletin D.
June 1972. 75 p.
6. Thornthwaite, C. W. Climates of North America Accord-
ing to a New Classification. Geographical Review.
2JL:633-655, 1931.
7. Narayan, R. S. Identification and Control of Cattle
Feedlot Odors. Texas Technological University. Lubbock.
M.S. Thesis. 1971. 41 p.
8. Paine, M. D. Feedlot Odor. In: Great Plains Beef
Cattle Feeding Handbook. Cooperative Extension Service -
Great Plains States, 1972. 2 p.
9. Elliott, L. F., G. E. Schuman, and F. G. Viets, Jr.
Volatilization of Nitrogen-Containing Compounds from
Beef Cattle Areas. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings. 3_5:752-755, 1971.
97
-------
10. Miner, J. R. Evaluation of Alternative Approaches to
Control of Odors from Animal Feedlots. Idaho Research
Foundation, Inc. Moscow. Grant No. ESR 74-23211,
National Science Foundation. December 1975. 83 p.
11. Personal communication. Dr. R. M. Bethea, Department
of Chemical Engineering, Texas Technological University.
Lubbock. November 1974.
12. Personal communication. Dr. J. M. Sweeten, Extension
Agricultural Engineer, Texas Agricultural Extension
Service, Texas A&M University System. College Station.
October 1974.
13. Census of Agriculture, 1969. Volume V, Special Reports.
Pe.rt 15, Graphic Summary. Washington, U.S. Bureau of
the Census, 1973. 145 p.
14. TLV's® Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances
and Physical Agents in the Workroom Environment with
Intended Changes for 1975. American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Cincinnati, 1975.
97 p.
15. Leonardos, G., D. Kendall, and N. Barnard. Odor Threshold
Determinations of 53 Odorant Chemicals. Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association. 1_9: 91-95, February
1969.
16. Summer, W. Methods of Air Deodorization. New York,
ELsevier Publishing Co. 1963. p. 46-47.
17. Mosier, A. R., C. E. Andre, and F. G. Viets, Jr.
Identification of Aliphatic Amines Volatilized from
Cattle Feedyard. Environmental Science and Technology.
7:642-644, July 1973.
18. Stephens, E. R. Identification of Odors from Cattle
Feedlots. California Agriculture. 25:10-11, January
1971.
19. tthite, R. K., Ohio State University, and J. R. Ogilvie,
KcGill University. Developments in the Control of Air
Pollution Problems Associated with Livestock Production.
(Paper No. 73-103, presented at the 66th Annual Meeting
of the Air Pollution Control Association. Chicago.
June 24-28, 1973.) 21 p.
20. Elliott, L. F., and T. A. Travis. Detection of Carbonyl
Sulfide and Other Gases Emanating from Beef Cattle
Manure. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings.
37_(5) :700-702, September-October 1973.
98
-------
21. Cowherd, C. C., C. M. Guenther, and D. D. Wallace.
Emissions Inventory of Agricultural Tilling, Unpaved
Roads and Airstrips, and Construction Sites. Midwest
Research Institute. Kansas City. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-450/3-74-085 (PB 238 919).
November 1974. 41 p.
22. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1973. (94th
Edition). Washington, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973.
p. 187.
23. Turner, D. B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion
Estimates. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, National Air Pollution Control Administration.
Cincinnati. Public Health Service. Publication No.
999-AP-026. May 1970. 65 p.
24. Eimutis, E. C., and M. G. Konicek. Derivations of
Continuous Functions for the Lateral and Vertical
Atmospheric Dispersion Coefficients. Atmospheric
Environment. 6^:859-863, November 1972.
25. Eimutis, E. C., B. J. Holmes, and L. B. Mote. Source
Assessment: Severity of Stationary Air Pollution
Sources—A Simulation Approach. Monsanto Research
Corporation. Dayton. MRC-DA-543. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-600/2-76-032e. July 1976. 133 p.
26. Elam, C. J., T. Westing, J. W. Algeo, and L. Hokit.
Measurement and Control of Feedlot Particulate Matter.
California Cattle Feeders Association. Bakersfield.
Bulletin C. February 1971. 30 p.
27. Sweeten, J. M. Control of Dust from Cattle Feedlots.
Texas Agricultural Extension Service. College Station.
Publication No. GPE-7851. April 1974. 10 p.
28. Dust, Fly and Odor Control Methods Practiced by Western
Feeders. Texas Cattle Feeders Association. Amarillo.
Special Report. June 1972. 15 p.
29. Sweeten, J. M. Down with Dust. Feedlot Management.
1975 Planner Issue. p. 30-33.
30. Sweeten, J. M., W. S. Allen, and D. L. Reddell. Solid
Waste Management for Cattle Feedlots; Cattle Feeders
Information. Texas Agricultural Extension Service.
College Station. Publication No. L-1094. 1973. 4 p.
99
-------
31. Sweeten, J. M. Feedlot Pollution Control Guidelines.
Texas Agricultural Extension Service Miscellaneous
Publication No. MP-1155. College Station. July 1974.
12 p.
32. Ford, J. P., and W. L. Ulich. Odor Control for Confined
Beef Cattle Feedlots. In Proceedings of the First Annual
Symposium on Air Pollution Control in the Southwest.
College Station, Texas A&M University, 1973. p. 189-204.
33. Faith, W. L. Odor Control in Cattle Feedyards. Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association. 14;459-460,
November 1964.
34. Miner, J. R., Oregon State University and R. C. Stroh,
University of Idaho. Controlling Feedlot Surface Odor
Emission Rates by Application of Commercial Products.
(Paper No. 75-4566, presented at the 1975 Winter Meet-
ing of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Chicago. December 15-18, 1975.) 16 p.
35. Hazen, T. £„ Discussion. Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association. 2_2: 771-772, October 1972.
36. 1973 Handbook of Agricultural Charts. Agricultural
Handbook No. 455. Washington, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, October 1973. 152 p.
37. Menzie, E. L., W. J. Hanekamp, and G. W. Phillips.
Th.e Economics of the Cattle Feeding Industry in Arizona.
The Agricultural Experiment Station, University of
Arizona. Tucson. Technical Bulletin 207. October
1973. 82 p.
38. Vein Arsdall, R. N., and M. D. Skold. Cattle Raising in
the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Washington. ERS Report 235. January 1973. 88 p.
39. Livestock and Meat Statistics. Economic Research Ser-
vice, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington.
Bulletin No. 333. Supplement for 1962-72. June 1971.
6 p.
40. Laan Times for Cattlemen. Business Week. March 17, 1975,
p. 94, 96.
41. Bullish Times for the Nation's Cattlemen. Business
Week. March 15, 1976. p. 46, 48.
42. Using Less Grain to Fatten Cattle. Business Week.
December 14, 1975. p. 72, 74, 75.
100
-------
43. Synthetics and Substitutes for Agricultural Products:
Projections-for 1980. Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Washington. Marketing
Research Report No. 947. March 1972. 18 p.
44. Personal communication. Dr. J. M. Sweeten, Extension
Agricultural Engineer, Texas Agricultural Extension
Service, Texas A&M University System. College Station.
April 1976.
45. Lauer, D. A. Limitations of Animal Waste Replacement
for Inorganic Fertilizers. In: Energy, Agriculture and
Waste Management - Proceedings of the 1975 Cornell Agri-
cultural Waste Management Conference, Jewell, W. J. (ed.)
Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., 1975.
p. 409-432.
46. Hutchinson, G. L., and F. G. Viets. Nitrogen Enrichment
of Surface Water by Absorption of Ammonia Volatilized
from Cattle Feedlots. Science. 166:514-515, October
1969.
47. Luebs, R. E., K. R. Davis, and A. E. Laag. Diurnal
, Fluctuation and Movement of Atmospheric Ammonia and
Related Gases from Dairies. Journal of Environmental
Quality. 3_(3) : 265-269, 1974.
48. Burnett, W. E. Determination of Malodors by Gas
Chromatographic and Organoleptic Techniques. Environ-
mental Science and Technology. 3_: 744-749, August 1969.
49. The Toxic Substances List, 1974 Edition. U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. Rockville,
Maryland. HEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 74-134. June
1974. 904 p.
50. Okita, T. Filter Method for the Determination of Trace
Quantities of Amines, Mercaptans, and Organic Sulphides
in the Atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment, 4_: 93-102,
1970.
51. Mieure, J. P., and M. W. Dietrich. Determination of
Trace Organics in Air and Water. J. Chromatog. Science,
1^:559-570, 1973.
52. Metric Practice Guide. American Society for Testing
and Materials. Philadelphia. ASTM Designation:
E 380-74. November 1974. 34 p.
101
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPOHT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-1C7
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE SOURCE ASSESSMENT: BEEF
CATTLE FEEDLOTS
5. REPORT DATE
June 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
J0A. Peters and T.R. Blackwood
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
MRODA-540
9. PERFDRMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, Ohio 45407
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB015; ROAP 21AXM-071
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1874
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, ,NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PI
Final; 7/74-11/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES T£RL_RTp project officer for this report is Dale A. Denny, Mail
Drop 62, 919/549-8411 Ext 2547.
16. ABSTRACT Tne rep0rt describes a study of atmospheric emissions of fugitive dusts and
volE.tile products from beef cattle feedlots. Total particulate emissions are affected
by feedlot area, cattle density in pens, wind speed, and the regional precipitation-
evaporation index. The predominant volatile product, ammonia, constitutes 70% to
90% of the total gaseous emissions. Emissions from the beef cattle feeding industry
constitute 0. 35% of the national emissions of total particulates. Eight states have
emissions of tots.1 dust which exceed 1.0% of the state total particulate emissions
burden. Source severity for total particulate is 0.069 (+ or - 0.017); for ammonia,
0. 88 (+ or - 0.451); and for sulfide and mercaptan gas, 0. 395 (+ or - 0.19), with all
errors stated at :he 95% confidence level. (Source severity is defined as the ratio of
the maximum ground level concentration of an emission to the ambient air quality
standard for criteria pollutants or to a hazard potential for noncriteria pollutants.)
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Feeders
Beef Cattle
Dust
Gases
Ammonia
Thiols
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Feedlots
Source Assessment
Particulate
Sulfides
Source Severity
13B
06C,02E
11G
07D
07B
07C
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
110
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
102
------- |