• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Part 1: Investment costs
 Part 2: Operating expenses
 Part 3: Total feedlot costs, energy...
 Summary and conclusions
 Reference
 Appendices
 Appendix 1. Investment costs
 Appendix 2. Footnotes to table...
 Appendix 3. Footnotes to table...
 Appendix 4. Footnotes to table...
 Appendix 5. Footnotes to table...
 Appendix 6. Footnotes to table...
 Back Cover














Title: Investment and operating costs for two types and three sizes of Florida feedlots
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027567/00001
 Material Information
Title: Investment and operating costs for two types and three sizes of Florida feedlots
Series Title: Investment and operating costs for two types and three sizes of Florida feedlots
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Simpson, James R.
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027567
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: electronic_aleph - 003233930
electronic_oclc - 60361486

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Cover
    Title Page
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
    List of Figures
        Page v
    Abstract
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Part 1: Investment costs
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Part 2: Operating expenses
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    Part 3: Total feedlot costs, energy analysis, and economic comparisons
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 53
    Reference
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
    Appendices
        Page 57
    Appendix 1. Investment costs
        Page 58
        Page 59
    Appendix 2. Footnotes to table 7, investment, flume type system, 1979
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
    Appendix 3. Footnotes to table 8, investment, dirt open-lot type system, 1979
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
    Appendix 4. Footnotes to table 12, operating expenses for 500-head feedlot, 1979
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
    Appendix 5. Footnotes to table 13, operating expenses for 5,000-head feedlot, 1979
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
    Appendix 6. Footnotes to table 14, operating expenses for 10,000-head feedlot, 1979
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
    Back Cover
        Page 82
Full Text
January 1981 Bulletin 817

Investment and Operating Costs for--
Two Types and Three Sizes ME UBRAR
of Florida Feedlots

'James R. Simpson, L. B. Baldwin, and F. S. Baker, Jr.
inv. ot Florid,
Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural ces
University of Florida, Gainesville
F. A. Wood, Dean for Reseak















INVESTMENT AND OPERATING COSTS
FOR TWO TYPES AND THREE SIZES OF
FLORIDA FEEDLOTS


James R.


Simpson, L. B. Baldwin, and
F. S. Baker, Jr.


James R. Simpson is an associate professor in the Department of
Food and Resource Economics, and L. B. Baldwin is an associate pro-
fessor in the Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of
Florida, Gainesville. F. S. Baker is a professor of animal husbandry at the
Agricultural Research and Education Center, Quincy, Florida.







TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
List of Tables .......... .......................... ....... . iv
List of Figures ........... .......... ................ . v
Abstract........... ................................... vi

INTRODUCTION ................. ....................... 1

PART: INVESTMENT COSTS
LAYOUT AND TECHNICAL RELATIONSHIPS ................ 2
Flume Floor System ....................................... 3
Dirt Open-Lot System ................. .................. 3
WASTE SYSTEMS .................. ......... ... .... 11
Florida Constraints .................................. 11
Flume Floor ........................................ 11
Dirt Open-Lot ........... ...... ......... .......... 12
FEED RATIONS, STORAGE AND DELIVERY................. 19
L A N D ................................... .... ... .... .. 19
INVESTMENT, FLUME FLOOR SYSTEM....................... 21
INVESTMENT, DIRT OPEN-LOT SYSTEM ..................... 24
COMPARISON OF UNIT COSTS AND SUMMARY .............. 24

PART2: OPERATING EXPENSES
ADMINISTRATIVE AND PERSONNEL STRUCTURE ........... 29
CATTLE ON FEED ....................................... 29
FEED STORAGE, MIXING AND DELIVERY ................... 31
WASTE MANAGEMENT ..................... ......... 31
Flume Floor System .................................... 33
Dirt Open-Lot System ..................................... 33
OPERATING EXPENSES, 500 HEAD LOTS .................... 34
OPERATING EXPENSES, 5,000 HEAD LOTS .................. 35
OPERATING EXPENSES, 10,000 HEAD LOTS ................. 35
OPERATING EXPENSES, COST PER HEAD BASIS ............ 35
REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS ........................... 41

PART 3: TOTAL FEEDLOT COSTS, ENERGY ANALYSIS AND
ECONOMIC COMPARISON
TOTAL COST PER HEAD .................................... 41
ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF THE TWO SYSTEMS ............ 49
ENERGY USE COMPARISON ................... ........ .. 50
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................. 53








APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Unit Investment Costs, Flume and Dirt Open-Lot
System by SizeofLot, 1979 ............. ..... ........... 58
Appendix 2 Footnotes to Table 7, Investment, Flume Type
System, 1979 ..................... .......... ............. 60
Appendix 3 Footnotes to Table 8, Investment, Dirt Open-Lot
Type System, 1979 .................. ................. .... 68
Appendix 4 Footnotes to Table 12, Operating Expenses for
500 Head Feedlot, 1979 .................. .................. 72
Appendix 5 Footnotes to Table 13, Operating Expenses for
5,000 Head Feedlot, 1979 ................................... 75
Appendix 6 Footnotes to Table 14, Operating Expenses for
10,000 Head Feedlot, 1979 ................................... 79







LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Technical relationships by type and size of facility ............... 6
2. Waste management capital costs, flume floor system, 1979 ....... 13
3. Investment, waste management, flume system, scheme 3, 1979 .... 13
4. Investment, waste management, dirt lot system, scheme 3, 1979 ... 17
5. Feed consumption for two types of rations ..................... 20
6. Land requirements ...................................... 21
7. Investment, flume type system, 1979 ......................... 22
8. Investment, dirt open-lot type system, 1979 .................... 26
9. Summary of total and per unit costs for flume and open-lot
system by size of facility, 1979 ........................... 28
10. Calculation of turnaround ................................. 32
11. Number of head on feed by size of facility and percentage of
capacity utilized ...................... ................ 33
12. Annual operating expenses for 500 head feedlot, flume and
open dirt-lot types at 90 and 60 percent of capacity, 1979 ...... 36
13. Annual operating expenses for 5,000 head feedlot, flume and
dirt open-lot types at 90 and 60 percent of capacity, 1979 ...... 37
14. Annual operating expenses for 10,000 head feedlot, flume and
dirt open-lot types at 90 and 60 percent of capacity, 1979 ...... 38
15. Cost per head of operating expenses calculated on an as-fed
basis, 500, 5,000 and 10,000 head flume and dirt open-lots
operating at 90 and 60 percent of capacity, 1979 ............. 39
16. Technical specifications for calculation of replacement cost by
year, flume lot ......................................... 42
17. Technical specifications for calculation of replacement cost by
year, dirt open-lot ...................................... 44
18. Projections of replacement requirements, flume lot .............. 46
19. Projections of replacement requirements, dirt open-lot ........... 47
20. Total annual investment, operating and replacement costs, and
cost per head fed, three sizes of flume and dirt open-lot
systems at 90 and 60 percent of capacity, 1979 .............. 48
21. Comparison of present worth of expenditures for flume feedlot
system operating at 90 percent of capacity, 5,000 head unit .... 51
22. Comparison of present worth of expenditures for dirt open-lot
feedlot system operating at 90 percent of capacity, 5,000
head unit .................. ........................... 52
23. Energy comparison for flume and dirt open-lot systems, 1979 ..... 53







LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Facilities for 5,000 head flume floor feedlot ................... 4
2. Dirt lot layout for 5,000 head feedout ....................... 5
3. Plan view of flume floor ................................... 8
4. Cross section of flume floor ................. ........... 9
5. Dirt-lot layout ............................ .......... 10
6. Scheme 1 Total waste to lagoon, return
lagoon water ..................... .......... 14
7. Scheme 2 Waste to settling pond, return
flow from settling pond, all
solids to lagoon ............................ 15
8. Scheme 3 Waste flow over screens, return
flow from settling pond, 50% of
waste load to lagoon ........................ 16
9. Turn-key investment cost per head of capacity ................ 25
10. Administrative and personnel structure ...................... 30
11. Operating cost per head on flume floor at 60 and 90 percent
of capacity, 1979 .................. ........ ......... 40
12. Total feedlot cost per head fed, flume floor and dirt open-lots
at 90 percent of capacity, 1979 .......................... 49







ABSTRACT

Investment and operating costs for the traditional, dirt, open-lot
system were compared with those for a total confinement, all con-
crete, flume floor cattle feeding facility. Three different sizes of
operation were also evaluated. They were, on a one-time capacity
basis, 500 head, 5,000 head, and 10,000 head. Considerable
economies of size were apparent when moving from 500 to 5,000
head, but little unit cost reduction was noted by increasing lot size
to 10,000 head. A final evaluation by using standard project
analysis procedures indicated that the flume floor system is the
lower cost alternative.


KEY WORDS

Feedlot, flume floor, confinement feedlot, cattle feeding facility, and cat-
tle beef feedlot.











INTRODUCTION

Florida, along with the Southeast in general, produces a surplus
of feeder calves, many of which are now shipped to western feedlots
for finishing to slaughter weights [8, 9, 29]. Florida has 70,000 to
80,000 head of cattle on feed in the winter months, and there has
been considerable discussion about increasing the number and size
of confinement feeding facilities [12, 22]. One impediment to growth
of the industry is lack of public information on investment and
operating costs for different types and sizes of lots. This report pro-
vides data and, more importantly, a methodology which can be used
for an investment decision process.
Investment costs and operating expenses for two types of
feedlots are presented in this bulletin. One is the traditional dirt
open-lot system; the other is a total confinement, all concrete, flume
floor cattle feeding facility. Other types of feedlots are possible, but
the open lot and concrete floor systems were chosen because they
represent two radically different types. Three different sizes of
operations are also evaluated. They are, on a one-time capacity
basis, 500 head, 5,000 head, and 10,000 head. These sizes are the
range typically used for commercial-type operations in Florida. The
analysis centers, first, on the investment costs, then on the
operating expenses, and finally on machinery replacement cost.
These items are then aggregated to obtain total cost. A profitability
analysis of the facility or cattle ownership is not included in this
report, as its purpose is to provide investment information on the
facilities. The models should not be considered as the ideal or recom-
mended plan. Rather, the analysis is set forth as a guide for two
potentially useful systems.
The concrete floor system examined in this study is expected to
be applicable anywhere in Florida, while the dirt lot system would
be limited to certain well-drained soil types in more remote loca-
tions. Waste from both systems is expected to be applied to
farmland, with variations in cost depending upon the plant nutrient
content and transportation costs to usable areas. Because of the
uncertainty of returns from waste as fertilizer, neither system was
designed to optimize nutrient content or transportability of the
waste leaving the feedlot area [13, 31]. The flume lot could be inter-
faced with a methane plant [15], but this alternative is not evaluated
in this report.







There is very little research on feedlot wastes and little opera-
tional experience with large paved feedlots in Florida. Consequent-
ly, systems developed in other areas have been evaluated for prob-
able success in performance and economy in Florida [12]. The con-
crete floor system presented herein appears acceptable by these
standards, but until such a system has been constructed and used in
Florida, it cannot be unconditionally recommended. The dirt lot is
known to produce waste management problems in Florida during
wet periods. The severity of these problems depends upon soil type
and on location relative to residential areas. The dirt lot alternative
is presented to establish its economic relationship to a paved lot
system.
Physical conditions vary greatly in Florida and in the Southeast.
Each feedlot owner will construct or modify a feedlot according to
these conditions, as well as the owner's personal specifications and
interests. The emphasis in this report is therefore on explaining how
each cost item is calculated. This approach provides considerable
flexibility: it allows for cost increases due to inflation as well as for
cost changes due to personal choices. For example, if an individual
prefers an upright silo for corn silage, rather than the bunker type
facility projected, that change can easily be made in the analysis.
Even though the analysis is set forth as a guide, the costs in this
report are valid for 1979 and can be considered a true representation
of investment and operating costs for the types and sizes indicated.
For accuracy, each of the costs was checked with state and national
feedlot construction companies, with machinery dealers, and with
feedlot operators in Florida and other Southeastern states. Thus,
the physical and economic criteria reflect actual industry practices
and costs in 1979, even though the costs and returns are not based
on averages developed from survey data. In fact, given the extreme
diversity of the industry in the Southeast, such averages would be
meaningless. Other studies on feedlot costs are either out of date or
have limited applicability, as they are from other areas of the
United States with radically different climatic conditions and
feeding practices [3, 5, 7, 14, 16, 18, 26, 27].


PART 1: INVESTMENT COSTS

Layout and Technical Relationships
Layouts of the flume floor and dirt lot facilities are presented in
Figures 1 and 2. (Figures are not drawn to scale, as they are for il-
lustrative purposes rather than for use as construction plans.)
Technical specifications are given in Table 1.







Flume Floor System
"Flume floor" is the name given to a system having flush gutters
at 8 to 15 foot (2.4 to 4.6 m) intervals across pens which are 30 to 40
feet (9.1 to 12.2 m) wide. The floor slopes to the gutter from each
side, utilizing animal trampling to move manure downslope to the
gutter. Water is circulated through the gutters continuously, or
nearly so. The gutters may be open semi-circular arrangements
which are about 10 inches (25 cm) across, or a more complete circle
of the same size just below the floor, with a slot on the top. Both
methods, reportedly, function satisfactorily, with the slotted
system (full circle gutter) keeping floors somewhat dryer [12].
The plan view and floor cross section for the flume floor system
are given in Figures 3 and 4. The discussion in most of the bulletin
will center on the 5,000-head facility, but details on the other two
sizes can be gained by reviewing the appropriate tables. Pens in the
5,000-head facility are designed to hold 160 head each, with about
27 square feet (2.5 sq. m) per animal (Table 1). The pens are 120 feet
(36.6 m) long by 36 feet (10.0 m) wide. Each row is 960 feet (292.6 m)
long and has eight pens. The 500-head unit has one row, the
5,000-head lot has four rows, and the 10,000-head unit has eight
rows. The rows in the two larger lots are back to back, with alter-
nating asphalt feed roads 12 feet (3.7) m) wide and concrete work
alleys 10 feet (3.0 m) wide. The larger units have 16 feet between the
feed road fences, as there are 2-foot bunks on each side of the feed
road. The cattle are worked on foot.
Fences are of five-rail design, built from oil field sucker rods. The
pen area is covered by 30-foot (9.1 m) wide saran cloth shades, which
provide about 23 square feet (2.1 sq. m) of shade per animal. The
working facilities have a metal roof, and a 1,000 square foot (92.9 sq.
m) office is included. The five shipping and receiving pens are 2,500
square feet (232.2 sq. m) each. Part of the feed pens are used as
hospital pens. It is estimated that 30 acres (12.1 ha) are required for
the 5,000-head facility.


Dirt Open-Lot System
Pens in the dirt lot system are 160 feet wide (48.8 m) by 220 feet
(67.1 m) deep. They, just like the pens in the flume lot, can hold 160
head of cattle. However, the pens in the dirt lot are much larger,
with an average of 220 square feet (20.4 sq. m) of pen space per
animal. There are eight pens per row, just as with the flume system,
but each row is 1,280 feet (390.1 m) long rather than 960 feet (292.6
m). The asphalt feed road is 12 feet (3.7 m) wide. The 10-foot (3.0 m)

























BUNKER SILO
tI" BNER


\\\ I /


Figure 1. Facilities for 5000-head flume floor feedlot.





STABILIZED WORK ROAD
DRAINAGE SWALE
160' I I I I I 160'
24 WIDE SHADE 0
-o

S12' ASP LT FEED -ALLEY
160' 2' FE D BUNK 160

-oo
1160'
24 WIDE SHADE
_DRAINAGE SWALE TO DETENTION POND
STABILIZED WORK ALLEY
DRAINAGE SWALE TO DETENTION POND


1280' LONG ROWS OF PENS

Sd SAME LAYOUT 12' ASPHALT FEED ALLEY

ABOVE:




DRAINAGE SALE TO DETENTION POND
STABILIZED WORK ALLEY



Figure 2. Dirt lot layout for 5000-head feedlot.








Table 1. Technical relationships by type and size of facility.
Flume Lot, by capacity Open Lot, by Capacity
Item and Units 500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000


Land (acres)
Cattle turnaround (lots of cattle per yr.)
Feed storage capacity (bu.)
Total pens
Pen capacity (head)
Area per animal (sq. ft.)
Total area per pen (sq. ft.)
Pen width (ft.)
Pen depth (ft.)
m Number of rows of pens
Pens per row
Row length (ft.)
Receiving and shipping (pen size) sq. ft.
Receiving and shipping (no. of pens)
Concrete depth in pens (inches)
Bunk width (inches)
Bunk space per head (inches)
Type of bunk
Feeding apron width (ft.)
Type of fence (feeding facilities)
Feed road, type feed road
Feed road width (exclusive of bunks, ft.)


8
2.73
10,000
7
72
30
2,160
60
36
1
7
420


30
2.73
50,000
32
160
27
4,320
120
36
4
8
960
2,500
5


55
2.73
100,000
64
160
27
4,320
120
36
8
8
960
2,500
10


4
24
9
Poured concrete


13
2.73
10,000
7
160
220
35,200
160
220
1
7
1.120



24
12
F


55
2.73
50,000
32
160
220
35,200
160
220
4
8
1,280
2,500
5


24
12
poured concrete
10


100
2.73
100,000
64
160
220
35,200
160
220
8
8
1,280
2,500
10


5 rail, sucker rod 5 rail, sucker rod
asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt
12 12 12 12 12 12




Table 1. (continued)
Flume Lot, by Capacity Open Lot, by Capacity


Item and Units
Work alley, type work alley
Work alley width
Type of shade
Shade width (ft.)
Shade sq. ft./animal
Office (sq. ft.)
Corn storage capacity (tons)1
Corn storage capacity (days at 90%
feedlot fill)
Total silage capacity (tons)
Capacity as a pct. of total annual silage
needs
Silage facility
Floor (type)
Wall (type)
Length (ft.)
Width (ft.)
Depth (average) (ft.)
Density (cu. ft./ton)
Apron length (ft.)
Distance between posts (ft.)


500 5,000 10,000
dirt concrete concrete
10 10 10
Saran cloth, metal posts 60 ft. apart
30 30 30
25 23 23
1,000 1,200
280 1,400 2,800

60 30 30
760 7,560 15,120


500 5,000 10,000
dirt stabilized stabilized
10 10 10
Saran cloth, metal posts 60 ft. apart
24 24 24
24 24 24
1,000 1,200
280 1,400 2,800


66 percent


30 30
7,560 15,120


4" concrete (3,000 Ib. mix) with 6-10-10 reinforcing wire
2" x 6" dressed tongue-in-groove lumber
108 440 624 108 440
40 70 100 40 70
10 14 14 10 14
57.1428
20
6


1. 56 Ibs. per bu.








TO LAGOON


Figure 3. Plan view of flume floor.






FEED BUNK


TYPICAL
SLOPE 4%


8t 8s 1 8,-8"


DETAIL OF SEMICIRCULAR FLUSH GUTTER
WITH OPTIONAL METAL COVER



Figure 4. Cross section of flume floor.


,.F ,IF ---







7 / 7 / 7 7 7- 7- 7_/
SSABILIZED WORK ROAD

DRAINAGE SWALE
S 160' PEN WIDTH

24' WIDE SARAN SHADE CLOTH /
\CONTINUOUS THRU PENS /
-_I_________\____________-




\ /

FENCE LINE
a /I
S\ / WATERING TANK
Z /

o \/
b \ /
V






--10' CONCRETE APROI
2' FEED BUNK
12' ASPHALT FEED ALLEY


Figure 5. Dirt lot layout.


work alley is constructed of stabilized aggregate material suitable
for workers on horseback. Figure 5 gives a plan view and cross sec-
tion of the dirt lot pen. All other working facilities are the same as
the flume system, but much more land is required (55 acres or 22.2
ha). Water facilities are on cross fences about center in the pens.
Dirt in the pens is shaped into swales or ridges running diagonally
to the back of each pen. This allows rain runoff to enter lateral ditch-
es running between the work alley and the back of the pens. Fences
are of five-rail sucker rod construction, and a 24-foot (7.3 m) wide
saran cloth shade runs the length of the rows at the back of the
pens. Placing shades and water facilities in this manner, away from
the feed bunks, assists in spreading manure more evenly over the
pens, thus reducing the number of cleaning periods.







Waste Systems


The method selected for satisfactory waste management in a
feedlot operation is dependent on climate, site characteristics, and
value of the manure. Both Federal and Florida laws require that
animal wastes not be discharged to surface or groundwater, and
nuisances due to excessive odor and flies are to be avoided [6, 11].
These physical and legal constraints narrow the alternatives
available to a feedlot operator at any given location, and will in-
fluence the type of feedlot facilities selected for a new enterprise.

Florida Constraints
The climate is a significant consideration in selecting feedlot and
waste management facilities in Florida. First, extended periods of
frequent rainfall and high humidity can cause problems in feedlots
and waste management systems [25]. During wet periods, manure
may have to be removed from the pens frequently, and a low-
moisture manure cannot be expected. Second, intense solar radia-
tion, combined with high humidity, makes shading and good air cir-
culation necessary for high animal productivity. Further, it is im-
portant to note that mild winter temperatures result in continuous
biological activity in manure, and also allow for year-long land-
spreading of solids and waste water.

Flume Floor
The large amount of water circulated daily through the gutters of
a flume requires considerable reuse of water after most of the waste
load is dropped out. Some additional water is needed to maintain
suitable volume and quality for flushing. Because there is no ex-
perience in Florida with reuse of waste water, three alternative
schemes have been evaluated. Table 2 shows a capital cost com-
parison between the three schemes for 500-head, 5,000-head, and
10,000-head operations. A detailed list of capital costs involved for
scheme 3, the least expensive in terms of investment and operating
cost, is given in Table 3. The three alternatives are:
Scheme 1: Flush flow to an anaerobic lagoon, with 90 percent
flush volume returned from the far end of the lagoon (Figure 6).
The lagoon is sized for a full waste load to meet Florida stand-
ards [2].
Scheme 2: Flush flow to a concrete settling chamber, with set-
tled solids going to an anaerobic lagoon, and 90 percent of the
flush volume returned from the settling chamber. The lagoon is
sized for a full waste load (Figure 7).






Scheme 3: Flush flow is discharged over stationary screens.
Solids are piled for disposal. The liquid portion flows to an
earthen sump. Ninety percent of the flush volume is returned
from the sump, with periodic pumping to the lagoon from the
sump bottom. The lagoon, sized for 50 percent of waste load,
meets Florida standards (Figure 8).
In all three situations, lagoon discharge would be distributed to
land at the rate of approximately two inches per week by means of a
seepage ditch system. There are contradictory reports by Florida
feeders about the use and sale of manure. Reports from Texas also
vary; at times manure sales result in a slight profit, while at other
times manure is a net expense [28]. In scheme 3 disposal of screened
solids is assumed to be non-profit, but self supporting through sale,
refeeding, or use as a soil conditioner.
Schemes 2 and 3, which provide for settling ponds, thereby offer
an advantage over scheme 1. Aeration of all or part of the lagoon in
scheme 1 might become necessary to control odor in the flush water
and pickup of sludge in the return water. This cost has not been in-
cluded in our analysis. If built to Florida standards, none of the
lagoons would need aeration for proper function.
Mechanical aeration in lagoons to minimize odor, reduce lagoon
volume, and improve nitrogen recovery is being studied in some
northern states, where anaerobic lagoons do not function the year
around [24]. This alternative is being investigated for use in Florida,
but present data are not sufficient to report in, this bulletin. Pro-
spective entrants into the cattle feeding business are urged to be
cautious of any systems which increase energy use (such as
mechanical aeration) unless there is solid evidence of savings to off-
set the cost.

Dirt Open-Lot
Waste removal from dirt lots will be accomplished in part by rain
runoff, with supplemental removal by a tractor with leveling and
loading capability. Frequent waste removal by tractor during dry
periods would avoid many of the problems and expense of working
wet manure on wet soil. Scheduling and providing labor and
management for wet and dry manure removal is addressed in Part 2
of this bulletin. This aspect of dirt lot operation can become very ex-
pensive and disruptive during extended wet periods.
Rain runoff from the lots will contain varying amounts of animal
wastes and eroded soil, depending upon rainfall intensity and the
condition of the lots. In order to comply with State and Federal
regulations, feedlot runoff must not be discharged from the proper-










Table 2. Waste management capital costs, flume floor system
(excludes floor flumes and headers), 1979.
Feedlot Capacity (Head)
Layout 500 5,000 10,000
------------------------------ dollars ---------------------------
Scheme 1 25,410 168,600 327,400
Scheme 2 26,450 168,575 322,650
Scheme 3 27,490 130,500 247,200


Table 3. Investment costs, waste management, flume system,
scheme 3, 1979.


Item

Excavation cost1
Field distribution system2
Pipe from lot to screen3
Screen pump4
Solids separation screen,
nonmoving5
Screen mounting6
Sump7
Lagoon pump8
Flush return pump & pipe9
Other
TOTAL


3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.


Capacity (Head)
500 5,000 10,000
------------------------ dollars ...--------...... ----...
10,000 80,000 160,000
960 4,400 8,800
500 2,800 4,200
1,000 3,500 5,000


7,500
2,000
330
1,400
2,800
1,000
27,490


15,000
3,000
1,600
4,500
10,700
5,000
130,500


30,000
5,000
3,100
7,100
16,000
8,000
247,200


10,000 cu. yds. @ $1.00; 100,000 yds. @ $0.80 (highly site dependent)
Gravity flow system to seepage ditches. Eight, 37 and 73 acres are utilized by
the seepage system. The installation cost is $120 per acre.
PVC 6 or 8 inch. (Lengths highly site dependent)
Pump to lift solids above separating screen.
Number required is 1, 2, and 4 at $7,500 each.
Concrete or treated wood base.
Earthen receiving sump below screen calculated at $0.90 per yard.
Submerged pump in sump for transfer of waste water to lagoon.
Centrifugal pump and pipe for transfer of flush water back to lot.









FRESH WATER
10% OF FLOW


RETURN FLOW
90% OF FLUSH


S."'ANAEROBIC
- : SIZED FOR


FPSTURE HAY--.
OR SILA Gr-+


OVERFLOW


Figure 6. Scheme 1: Total waste to lagoon, return lagoon water.











FRESH WATER
10% OF FLOW


FLOW


ANAEROBIC LAGOON,,.
SIZED FOR TOTAL WASTE


SETTLING CHAMBER
SOLIDS AND LIQUIDS >,
PUMPED FROM BOTTOM'
TO ANAEROBIC LAGOON



PASTURE HAY
OR SILAGE^


:-.:~xOVERFLOVI


~


Figure 7. Scheme 2: Waste to settling pond, return flow from settling
pond, all solids to lagoon.


* / /,<.-..**//>.'-/


\,










FRESH WATER
10% OF FLOW


RETURN FLOW
90% OF FLUSI


WASTE


-"-^E'''ANAEROBIC LAGOO
.SIZED FOR 50%
S ;OF WASTE
SETTLING POND --
LIQUID PUMPED FROM ~
BOTTOM TO ANAEROBIC
LAGOON


PASTURE
OR


-i >
/ .


Figure 8. Scheme 3: Waste flow over screens, return flow from settling
pond, 50% of waste load to lagoon.







ty except as a result of rainfall events exceeding the 24-hour-
duration, 25-year-frequency storm [6, 11]. The dirt layout shown in
Figures 2 and 5 is designed to convey runoff to a detention pond for
storage until rainfall ceases and the pond contents can be pumped to
the field. The ditches between the lots and the detention pond will
serve as debris basins. These ditches are designed for low velocity
flow to allow solids to settle out. The settled material would be
removed periodically to maintain a constant flow and to maintain
the solids-collecting capability of the debris basins [24].
The debris basins are sized to contain the lot runoff anticipated
from a two-hour storm of once-in-five-year intensity. In Florida this
is about a 3.5 inch (8.9 cm) rain. Eighty percent of the rainfall
from such a storm would be expected to reach the conveyance
swale/debris basin system. More intense rains would result in a
faster flow through the basin, with less of the solids settling prior to
entering the detention pond. There are no regulations on debris
basin design.
The detention ponds are designed to store feedlot runoff resulting
from a 24-hour storm of the intensity which is expected to occur
once in 25 years. This'is about 9 inches (23 cm) of rainfall in Florida.
The cost of a detention basin would depend upon the natural slope
of the land and many other site-specific factors. This study assumes
relatively flat terrain the more expensive situation.
Table 4 summarizes waste management facility costs for the 500-,
5,000-, and 10,000-head dirt lots. Footnotes for Table 4 describe cost
calculation procedures.


Table 4. Investment costs, waste management, dirt lot system, scheme
3, 1979.
Cost by Size of Lot
Item 500 5,000 10,000
.------------------------ dollars ---------------------
Debris basins' $ 1,870 $ 9,340 $ 18,700
Detention pond2 $ 5,510 $24,300 $ 48,600
Pumps to empty detention
pond3 $ 5,500 $25,500 $ 38,000
TOTAL $12,880 $59,140 $105,300

1. Debris basins: These are first stage settling ponds for collection of solids.
They are rather shallow structures which also act as conveyances to the de-
tention ponds.
500 Head
Assuming 80% runoff of 3.5 inches of rain: 275,520 sq. ft. (lot area) times 3.5,
divided by 12, times 0.8 = 64,288 cu. ft. of runoff water. Excavation needed:







64,288 divided by 27 (cu. ft. per cu. yd.), times (to provide freeboard) = 3,333
cu. yds. Cost, at $0.50 per yd.: $1,667. Assuming one culvert crossing is
needed, at $200, total is $1,870 (rounded).
5,000 Head
Runoff: 1,213,440 sq. ft. times 3.5, divided by 12, times 0.8 = 283,136 cu. ft. of
water. Excavation: 283,136 divided by 27, times 1.4 = 14,681 cu. yds. Cost, in-
cluding 10 culvert-crossings: 14,681 times $0.50, plus $2,000 = $9,340.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head cost.
2. Detention pond. The detention pond is an excavated and/or diked
facility to store runoff until it can be discharged to the field.
500 Head
Assuming 80% runoff of 9 inches of rain: 275,520 sq. ft. times 9, divided by
12, times 0.8 = 165,312 cu. ft. water to store. Excavation is highly site
dependent. Assume excavation equals storage volume: 165,312 divided by
27 = 6,123 cu. yds. Cost at $0.90 per yard = $5,510.
5,000 Head
Storage: 1,213,440 sq. ft. times 9, divided by 12, times 0.8 = 728,064 cu. ft.
of water. Cost: 728,064 divided by 27, times $0.90 = $24,300 (rounded).
10,00 Head
Double 5,000 head cost.
3. Pumps. The need for pumps in lieu of gravity discharge from the detention
pond, the size of pumps, and the piping required are highly site dependent.
We have assumed that sufficient pump capacity is needed to discharge a
stored runoff of 7 inches of rain (from the 25-year record 24-hour storm of
9 inches) plus an additional 7 inches of rain in one week.
500 Head
Assuming 80% runoff of 7 inches of rain: 275,520 sq. ft. times 7, divided by
2, times 0.8 = 128,576 cu. ft., or 964,320 gallons to be pumped (7.5 gallons
per cu. ft.). Pumping 6 days, 8 hours per day means that a 335-gallon-per-
minute pump is required. Assuming 1,000 ft. of 6-inch PVC pipe is required
to distribute the pumped water to land, cost would be: 1,000 times $4.50 (in
place price), plus $1,000 pump cost = $5,500.
5,000 Head
Pumpage: 1,213,440 sq. ft. times 7, divided by 12, times 0.8 = 566,272 cu. ft.
or 4,247,040 gallons. Pump required: 4,247,040 gallons divided by (6 times 8
times 60) = 1,475,GPM. Assuming 3,000 ft. of 10-inch PVC pipe, cost would
be: 3,000 times $7.50, plus $3,000 pump cost = $25,500.
10,000 Head
Pump size doubles, i.e. 2,950 GPM. Assuming 3,000 ft. of 14-inch pipe, cost
would be: 3,000 times $11.00, plus $5,000 pump cost = $38,000.







Feed Rations, Storage, and Delivery

A ration must be projected as a guide for determining the invest-
ment in feeding facilities and operating capital requirements. The
proposed ration is 45 percent ground shelled corn, 40 percent corn
silage, 10 percent cane molasses, and 5 percent supplement (such as
minerals, salt, protein, and vitamins). It is recognized that rations
will vary considerably depending on the availability and price of in-
gredients, but the proposed ration is one that has been used by
Florida feeders. A critical point for the investment analysis is that a
silage ration has been chosen. If a non-silage ration is intended by a
potential feedlot owner, then the investment cost for the bunkers
can be dropped, and the cost of other facilities added. Daily feed
consumption, estimated at 30 pounds per head for all three lot sizes
and both types, is presented in Table 5. Ration A is used for all
calculations in this report.
All feed mixing is carried out in mixing trucks, except for special
rations which are mixed in a small facility. Corn and supplement are
transferred from metal storage bins to mixing trucks via an auger,
while the corn silage is loaded by tractors equipped with front-end
loaders. The quantity of feed delivered for each pen of cattle is easily
controlled by the driver, as the combination mixer-feed trucks are
equipped with scales. A feed wagon pulled by a tractor rather than a
truck is included for the 500-head operations.



Land

The method for determining the cash outlay is different from the
economic analysis. In both cases, if a prospective entrant owns land
that is not being used for other activities, then he would have no
capital investment in land. If, however, land is owned but in use,
then for the economic analysis the potential feedlot owner would
add the opportunity cost of taking that land out of its present use.
For example, land earning a capitalized value of $500 per acre ($202
per ha) should represent a capital investment in that amount for a
feedlot. In both the cash outlay and economic analysis, if land has to
be purchased, then the full cost is included. For this report a charge
of $1,000 per acre ($405 per ha) is used.
Land requirements for both types of feedlots are presented in
Table 6. As can be noted in the table, a small "extra" amount of
land is added as a contingency factor. No buffer zone has been
calculated.





Table 5. Feed consumption for two types of rations.


Intake 500 Head Capacity 5,000 Head Capacity


134 days Daily'


10,000 Head Capacity


Annual2 Daily' Annual2 Daily' Annual2


-- percent ------------------------------------- pounds-----------------------------------------------------
Ration "A" corn silage and cane molasses


Ground shelled corn
Corn silage
Cane molasses
65% protein-mineral
vit. A. supp.
Total


13.68
12.16
3.04
1.52


1,833
1,629
408
204


824,850
733,050
183,600
91,800


2,251,841
2,001,227
501,228
250,614


8,248,500
7,330,500
1,836,000
918,000


22,518,405
20,012,265
5,012,280
2,506,140


16,497,000
14,661,000
3,672,090
1,836,000


100 30.40 4,074 1,833,330 5,004,909 18,333,000 50,049,090 36,666,000


Tons corn silage
Tons corn silage x 1.123
Cu. ft. storage needed
(57.1428 cu. ft. ton)


Ground shelled corn
Citrus pulp
Corn silage
Cane molasses
65% protein-minderal
vit. A. supp.
Total
Tons corn silage
Tons corn silage x 1.123
Cu. ft. storage needed
(57.1428 cu. ft. ton)


367
411
23,486


1001
1,121
64,057


3,665
4,105
234,571


10,006
11,207
640,399


7,331
8,210
469,142


20,012
22,414
1,280,799


Ration "B" corn silage, citrus pulp and cane molasses


9.24
4.31
12.32
3.08
1.85


1,238
578
1,650
413
248


557,100
260,100
742,500
185,850
111,600


1,520,883
710,073
2,027,025
507,371
304,668


5,571,000
2,601,000
7,425,000
1,858,500
1,116,000


15,208,830
7,100,730
20,270,250
5,073,705
3,046,680


11,142,000
5,202,000
14,850,000
3,717,000
2,232,000


100 30.80 4,127 185,715 5,070,020 18,571,500 50,700,195 37,143,000


371
416
23,771


1,014
1,136
64,914


3,713
4,159
,657


10,135
11,351
648,628


7,425
8,316
475,200


30,417,660
14,201,460
40,540,500
10,417,410
6,093,360

101,400,390

20,270
22,702
1,297,256


1. Calculated at 90% of capacity.
2. Based on a 2.73 turnaround at 90% of capacity.
.1 Tn allow for 190/_ Etrtaa In e in h, rL-rar


Ingredient


Intake
as Fed Dail


ly


45,036,810
40,024,530
10,024,560
5,012,280

100,098,180


----------------------------------------------------







Table 6. Land requirements.
Lot Capacity (Head)
Item
Item 500 5,000 10,000
.---------------------------- acres -----------------------


Supporting facilities
Pen facilities
Lagoon
Subtotal
Extra
TOTAL

Supporting facilities
Pen facilities
Sediment basins and
detention pond
Subtotal
Extra
TOTAL


Flume type system
10
5
12
27
3
30
Open dirt lot
10
28

10
48
7
55


Investment: Flume Floor System

The various unit costs used in estimating the total cost are listed
in Appendix 1. Total and per head investment costs by item for the
flume type system are presented in Table 7; the footnotes (Appen-
dix 2) provide details on cost calculation. By modifying the unit
costs and recalculating the totals in Table 7, potential investors can
adjust the costs to account for particular situations as well as infla-
tion.
The investment costs for the feeding facility alone, which are
fixed costs having very little alternative use, are calculated at
$64,000, $451,000, and $872,000 for the three sizes of flume lots
(500-, 5,000-, and 10,000-head). On a per head of capacity basis,
these total costs translate to $127, $90, and $87 per animal.
The next set of investment items are supporting facilities. They
have alternative uses, and since some operators may have some
items already, it may not be necessary to charge fully for them.
These support items land requirements and other investment
charges such as feed storage, rolling stock, wells, perimeter fencing,
a scale, and a contingency factor would add another $123,000,









Table 7. Investment, flume type system, 1979*.
Total Cost by Size of Lot Cost per Head by Size of Lot
Item500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000
----------------.............................................---------------........------------...........-- dollars --------------------------------------------------------
Feeding Facilities
Concrete, pens1 7,431 67,945 135,890 14.86 13.59 13.59
Concrete, work alleys2 467 9,437 18,874 0.93 1.88 1.89
Reinforcing wire, pens3 847 7,742 15,484 1.70 1.55 1.55
Reinforcing wire, work alleys4 1,075 2,150 0.22 0.22
Asphalt5 560 13,533 27,067 1.12 2.71 2.71
Shades6 24,150 201,600 403,200 48.30 40.32 40.32
Bunks7 3,780 26,880 53,760 7.56 5.37 5.37
Cable over bunks8 126 1,152 2,304 0.25 0.23 0.23
Pen fences and gates9 6,195 37,710 75,420 12.39 7.54 7.54
Water troughs10 3,150 15,525 31,050 6.30 3.11 3.11
Water pipe" 247 1,616 3,232 0.49 0.32 0.32
Other water connections12 700 7,000 14,000 1.40 1.40 1.40
Survey & site engineering13 1,500 3,000 4,000 3.00 0.60 0.40
Building permits14 100 500 750 0.20 0.10 0.07
Site preparation"5 2,400 20,000 40,000 4.80 4.00 4.00
Cattle working area'6 10,750 31,250 37,250 21.50 6.25 3.72
Construction insurance17 500 1,500 2,500 1.00 0.30 0.25
Lighting & elec. service18 675 3,700 5,260 1.35 0.74 0.53
Subtotal 63,578 451,165 872,191 127.15 90.23 87.22






Table 7. (continued)
ItTotal Cost by Size of Lot Cost per Head by Size of Lot
500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000
--------------------------------------- ---------------- dollars --------------------------------------- -----------------
Supporting Facilities & Equip.
Office building1 25,000 30,000 5.00 3.00
All weather access roads20 5,333 10,889 12,889 10.67 2.18 1.29
Silage facility21 8,405 42,014 84,028 16.81 8.40 8.40
Other storage & mixing equip.22 11,800 73,300 115,300 23.60 14.66 11.53
Scale 23 6,000 27,500 27,500 12.00 5.50 2.75
Land 24 8,000 30,000 55,000 16.00 6.00 5.50
Well25 3,500 14,000 14,000 7.00 2.80 1.40
Rolling stock26 72,500 118,000 199,000 145.00 23.60 19.90
Perimeter fence27 1,305 2,540 3,425 2.61 0.51 0.34
Contingency & misc. equip.28 6,000 60,000 120,000 12.00 12.00 12.00
Subtotal 122,843 403,243 661,142 245.69 80.65 66.11
Accumulated total 186,421 854,408 1,533,333 372.84 170.88 153.33
Waste management29 27,490 130,500 247,200 54.98 26.10 24.72
Accumulated total 213,911 984,908 1,780,533 427.82 196.98 178.05
Construction management30 10,000 90,000 150,000 20.00 18.00 15.00
GRAND TOTAL 223,911 1,074,908 1,930,533 447.82 214.98 193.05
*See Appendix 2 for footnotes.






$403,000, and $661,000 for the three different sizes of lots. These
costs are $245, $81, and $66 on a per head basis for the three sizes.
Waste management would cost another $27,000, $130,000 and
$247,000, or $55, $26, and $25 per head.
It is possible that the potential investor might wish to have the
feedlot built by a feedlot construction company, and to have some
limited management help provided by the construction company. A
survey indicates they would charge about $10,000, $90,000, and
$150,000 for the three sizes. There is wide variation in charges,
depending on the company and the amount of management desired.
The total investment for a lot built by a construction company on
purchased land in effect, a complete turn-key operation ready to
have cattle and feed purchased and placed in the lot has a 1979
estimated cost of $224,000, $1,070,000, and $1,930,000 for the three
different feedlot sizes.

Investment, Dirt Open-Lot System
Total and per head investment costs for 1979 by item for the dirt
lot system are presented in Table 8; the footnotes (Appendix 3) pro-
vide details on cost calculations. Appendix 1 contains the unit costs
used for the estimates. As with the flume floor system, changing
unit costs and individual circumstances can be analyzed to provide
an up-to-date estimate for a potential entrant.
The feeding facilities, fixed costs with little or no alternative use,
are $109,000, $475,000, and $918,000 total, or $218, $95, and $92
per head of capacity, for the 500-, 5,000-, and 10,000-head dirt
feedlots.
Supporting facilities, which include land and other items not fully
chargeable in all cases, are $134,000, $508,000, and $804,000 total,
or $268, $102, and $80 per head for the different lot sizes (Table 8).
Waste management, a fixed cost, adds $13,000, $59,000, and
$105,000, or $26, $12, and $11 per head for the different lot sizes.
Adding construction management fees and operating capital in
the same amounts as for the flume floor system brings the complete
turn-key operation for dirt lots to $266,000, $1,130,000, and
$1,980,000 for the 500-, 5,000-, and 10,000-head capacities.

Comparison of Unit Costs and Summary
A summary comparing the total and per head investment cost is
given in Table 9. There is some cost difference between the two
systems on both a total and per head basis. The flume system is
about $84 per head less expensive than the dirt lot for a 500-head
operation, but that advantage is narrowed as the lot size increases.







Cost of the facilities on a per head basis for the flume system is
$428, $197, and $178 for the three sizes, respectively, while it is
$512, $209, and $183 for the open lot system. If a charge is also
made for construction management (in other words, a turn-key
basis), then the entire cost of a flume type lot ready for feed and cat-
tle is $448, $215, and $193, while it is $532, $227, and $198 for the
open lot type operation.
The per unit costs for the investment on a turn-key basis are
presented graphically in Figure 9. The substantial economies of size
between the 500- and 5,000-head operations are evident, as the in-
vestment cost of the larger operation is about half that of the
















-J
01




S-
o

2 \DIRT LOT
g o \\


a-
81
z FLUME FLOOR R-

hi .


-I I I-
500 5,000 10,000
CAPACITY (HEAD)

Figure 9. Turn-key investment cost per head of capacity.










Table 8. Investment, dirt open-lot type system, 1979.*
Total Cost by Size of Lot Cost per head by Size of Lot
item500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000
---------------------------------------- ----------------- dollars --------------------------------------- ------------------
Feeding Facilities
Concrete, pens1 3,303 30,198 60,396 6.61 6.04 6.04
Stabilizing, work alleys2 1,244 4,267 7,111 2.48 0.85 0.71
Reinforcing wire, pens3 376 3,441 6,882 0.75 0.69 0.69
Reinforcing wire, work alleys4 -
Asphalt, feed alleys5 1,493 8,533 17,067 2.99 1.71 1.71
Shades' 47,040 215,040 430,080 94.08 43.01 43.01
Bunks7 10,080 35,840 71,680 20.16 7.17 7.17
Cable over bunks8 336 1,536 3,072 0.67 0.31 0.31
Pen fences and gates9 25,200 97,800 195,600 50.40 19.56 19.56
Water troughs10 3,150 14,400 28,800 6.30 2.88 2.88
Water pipe" 556 2,570 5,140 1.11 0.51 0.51
Other water connections12 75 750 1,500 0.15 0.15 0.15
Survey & site engineering1' 1,500 3,000 4,000 3.00 0.60 0.40
Building permits14 100 500 750 0.20 0.10 0.07
Site preparation'5 2,400 20,000 40,000 4.80 4.00 4.00
Cattle working area'6 10,750 31,250 37,250 21.50 6.25 3.72
Construction insurance17 500 1,500 2,500 1.00 0.30 0.25
Lighting & elec. service'8 745 4,550 6,180 1.49 0.91 0.62
Subtotal 108,848 475,175 918,008 217.70 95.04 91.80
(Continued)







Table 8. (continued)


Total Cost by Size of Lot


5,000


Cost per Head by Size of Lot


10,000


5,000


10,000


Supporting facilities & equip.
Office building19
All weather access roads20
Silage facility21
Other storage & mixing equip.22
Scale23
Land24
Well25
Rolling stock26
Perimeter fence27
Contingency & misc. equip.28
Subtotal
Accumulated total
Waste management29
Accumulated total
Construction management30
GRAND TOTAL


....--------------.------------------------........ -. dollar. --.---------------------------------------------------


11,556
8,405
11,800
6,000
13,000
3,500
72,500
1,445
6,000
134,206
243,054
12,880
255,934
10,000
265,934


25,000
19,556
42,014
73,300
27,500
55,000
14,000
188,000
3,262
60,000
507,632
982,807
59,140
1,041,947
90,000
1,131,947


30,000
30,222
24,028
115,300
27,500
100,000
14,000
339,000
4,380
120,000
804,430
1,722,438
105,300


23.11
16.81
23.60
12.00
26.00
7.00
145.00
2.89
12.00
268.41
486.11
25.76


1,827,738 511.87
150,000 20.00
1,977,738 531.87


5.00
3.91
8.40
14.66
5.50
11.00
2.80
37.60
0.65
12.00
101.52
196.56
11.83


3.00
3.02
2.40
11.53
2.75
10.00
1.40
33.90
0.44
12.00
80.44
172.24
10.53


208.39 182.77
18.00 15.00
226.39 197.77


*See Appendix 3 for footnotes.


Item










Table 9. Summary of total and per unit investment costs for flume and open-lot system, 1979.


Item 500
500


Flume Lot
5,000


10,000


Dirt Open-Lot
500 5,000 10,000
........................-----------------------------------------------


...------------. ...---------------....--------------- aoiiars


Feeding facilities
Supporting facilities
Waste management
Subtotal
Construction mgt.


Feeding facilities
Supporting facilities
Waste management
Subtotal
Construction mgt.
TOTAL


63,578
122,843
27,490
213,911
10,000
223,911


451,165
403,243
130,500
984,908
90,000
1,074,908


90
81
26
197


Total investment
872,191 108,848
661,142 134,206
247,200 12,880
1,780,533 255,934
150,000 10,000
1,930,533 265,934


Investment per head of capacity
87 218
66 268
25 26


532 227 198


475,175
507,632
59,140
1,041,947
90,000
1,131,947


918,008
804,430
105,300
1,827,736
150,000
1,977,738


95
102
12
209


448 215 193







smaller one. The important point is that the greatest savings are ob-
tained by moving to a larger operation rather than to a different
type of facility. There are only minor economies of size to be ob-
tained by moving from the 5,000-head unit to the 10,000-head fa-
cility.

PART 2: OPERATING EXPENSES
Administrative and Personnel Structure

The proposed administrative and personnel structure is presented
in Figure 10. Most of the physical work as well as management func-
tions are carried out by the owner-operator for the 500-head unit. A
5,000-head capacity flume floor lot, on the other hand, requires
seven employees in addition to the owner-operator, who is now con-
sidered to function mainly in a management capacity. The dirt lot
operation of that size requires eight employees.
The 10,000-head unit is assumed to have most management func-
tions taken over by a hired manager. A hired manager is recom-
mended because the feedlot owner will have to devote considerably
more time to business promotion, feed purchase, and cattle sales in
order to maintain a high percentage of capacity utilization. A total
of 12 employees are required for the flume floor system and 15 for
the dirt system. Because the operations have relatively few
employees, nearly all of the employees will perform various func-
tions at times, such as working incoming cattle.

Cattle on Feed

Because of delays in purchasing and receiving cattle, as well as
logistical problems incurred by moving cattle and maintaining
facilities, it is unlikely the lot could be continually kept at 100 per-
cent of capacity. Therefore, two different levels of feedlot use are
evaluated, 90 percent of capacity (on a one-time basis) and 60 per-
cent of capacity.
Operating at an average of 90 percent capacity means that the
variation in cattle numbers would be quite small, with the range
generally fluctuating between 85 and 95 percent of capacity. The
variation around the 60 percent average would probably be much
higher, since the feedlot operator would constantly be striving for a
greater use of the lot. For instance, the range of capacity use might
oscillate between 40 and 90 percent. In all likelihood, most
operators would have cattle on feed at rates between 60 and 90 per-
cent of capacity. Thus, these two percentages can be considered
high and low boundaries of costs and returns.



















o


O
0
0


0


L-






0



















U.
S
C






















0
0

S




















4-
0L
c-


(D
Ct
c
0
(D




(D
C
0
C

0
0.



V)
0
T3


0
U-


O .L = CD 0)
= 0 Ca) 0

00.0 xR
m,-5 E .





O-ooo






S- ~ ooa)
S0 Co -



Z C C 0.0
2 =OcQ-
e-'-- .-- D


C"I
cs

0

0-
(D
n

c
c)
E

a.


x
0,
2
0


0.

0
0


0


.,8
co

-a,


II


o)

yC
0
no,
J3r =O


0.




E

0
a


IL


0





E
1)










0
o


rI

I






E
I U




--J


- M I


0





I u
0

-o

0
o



*-


0?
vU E

CU C

0~ CD
6-00



0C
0 c
CD
----__r-


--v-


I


. -


"""
?"







The variation in cattle on feed has little effect on the analysis, as
nearly all variable costs are tied to the total number of animal days
rather than the actual number of cattle on feed at any one time.
Labor costs offer an example of this principle. Although labor is
usually considered a variable expense, feedlot operators are reluc-
tant to reduce the number of workers if cattle numbers fall during a
short period, since training good people is costly.
The calculation of turnaround is illustrated in Table 10. To make
the analysis as realistic as possible, it is assumed there are four dif-
ferent weight classes placed on feed. In this example, 40 percent of
incoming cattle enter the lot at 700 pounds and are sold at 1,050
pounds after 140 days on feed. Three other groups of cattle occupy
the feedlot during the same period, but for varying numbers of days
on feed. For each group, weighted days of gain is calculated as de-
scribed in the table. The total weighted days of gain for all classes is
used to determine the annual turnaround 2.62 pens of cattle per
year for the cattle populations described in this example.
It is assumed that all cattle enter the facility ready to go on feed.
In the analysis, no provision is made for a backgrounding or warm
up type of operation on pasture, even though it is recognized this
type of operation could well complement the facilities set forth in
this report. The number on feed by size of facility and percentage of
capacity on a one time and annual basis is presented in Table 11.
The figures show, for example, that if the facilities were operated at
60 percent of capacity, a 10,000-head capacity feedlot would have
6,000 head on feedlot at one time, and would feed 16,380 annually,
assuming a turnaround of 2.73 pens of cattle per year.

Feed Storage, Mixing and Delivery

Feed is mixed in the feed trucks rather than in a feedmill. Corn
and supplement are transferred from metal storage bins to mixing
trucks via an auger. The corn silage is loaded with front-end loaders
or with silage loaders. The quantity of feed delivered for each pen of
cattle is easily controlled by the driver, as the feed trucks are
equipped with scales. Truck loads are reweighed on platform scales
to verify weights. A feed wagon pulled by a tractor rather than a
truck is used for the 500-head operation.

Waste Management

As noted, federal and state laws prohibit discharge of animal
wastes into streams or lakes. This study assumes that wastes will
ultimately be spread on land for crop production; however, charges
for spreading the manure are not considered as a cost in this study.
















Table 10. Calculation of turnaround.

Lot Population Weight Classes
Weight Weight Percent Percent
in out Steers Heifers
Ibs. Ibs.
co 300 500 10 90
400 700 20 80
600 975 80 20
700 1,050 80 20
Total
1. Includes death loss
2. Percent in class times total days
3. 365 days 133.7 = 2.73


Percent of
Total Lot
Population
in Class


Average
Daily
Gain'


Total Weighted
Days Gain Time2


18.0
31.2
35.5
49.0
133.7


Annual
Turnaround3
lots per year


2.73







Table 11. Number of head on feed by size of facility and percentage
of capacity utilized.
Percent Number at One Time Total Fed per Year
of by Size of Lot by Size of Lot'
Capacity 500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000
-------.......................................----------------------...... head ---------------------------------------------
100 500 5,000 10,000 1,365 13,650 27,300
90 450 4,500 9,000 1,229 12,290 24,750
60 300 3,000 6,000 819 8,190 16,380
1. 2.73 turnaround. See Table 10.



Flume Floor System
Water from the flumes is routed over screens to separate most of
the solids from the waste stream. Fresh water is injected into cir-
culation, and a small portion (about 10 percent) of the waste stream
is run into a lagoon to maintain an acceptable dissolved solids level.
Overflow from the lagoon is dispersed to a field. The costs involved
for this facility, together with all other waste facilities, are included
in this study. Removal of the screened solids, however, is assumed
to incur no costs, as these solids are considered to be of sufficient
value that they would be removed by others at no expense to the
feedlot operation.

Dirt Open-Lot System
The open-lot system is composed of unpaved pen areas served by
paved and stabilized access roads. The pens are shaped to drain
storm water into collection ditches, which serve to settle out some
of the waste solids before runoff flows to a detention pond. Runoff
from each rainfall event is eventually discharged to a field. The
costs associated with maintaining drainage, detention, and field
dispersal systems are included in this study. Manure accumulations
in the lots are loaded into trucks and transported to some collection
site. The cost of this work is included in this study. The collected
manure is considered to be of such value that it would be removed
by others at no cost to the feedlot operations.
Whereas the flume system waste operation is quite automated,
the open-lot operation requires more management, personnel, and
equipment. In order to facilitate comparison between the systems,
it is assumed that the manure from the open-lot is loaded on a truck
and transported up to one mile from the feedlots in the 5,000-and
10,000-head units. For the 500-head unit it is assumed that the


S 33






manure is collected outside the pens during the cleaning operation,
where it remains until removed by others.
There are about 47 pounds of manure produced per 750-pound
animal daily. With high humidity and rainfall, this amount of
manure would not be reduced substantially before cleaning. This
weight also includes dirt inadvertently picked up.
In the 5,000-head lot there are 106 tons of manure produced per
day or 38,690 tons per year. Assuming a tractor scrapes 100 tons
per hour, then 387 hours are required annually to scrape up manure
[28]. Manure loading onto the feedlot-owned dumptruck, at 120 tons
per hour, adds another 322 hours annually. The lots can be shaped
while the tractor driver is waiting for the truck to return.
Some backfill is needed to maintain pen height. Assuming that an
amount equivalent to 20 percent of the material removed is replaced
by backfill, then 258 hours are needed to load and haul backfill. The
total of 1,935 hours is equivalent to 242 work days. By this analysis,
manure removal from the 5,000-head lot will require one tractor and
one dump truck, both with operators. Other work involving this
equipment would include removal of dead animals, and maintenance
of drainage facilities and roadways.
The extended periods of daily rainfall which are common to most
parts of Florida could easily create a situation where the feedlot per-
sonnel and equipment would have to be augmented by outside help.
Such costs are not considered in this analysis because the frequency
and seriousness of these events are variable, depending largely on
the soil type and general drainage situation at the feedlot location.

Operating Expenses for 500-Head Lots
The annual operating expenses for the 500-head unit are given in
Table 12. The footnotes are in Appendix 4. The largest item is wages
and salaries ($26,400). For the flume type operation, gas and oil,
maintenance and repair, and utilities are all about $6,700 at the 90
percent level. The total expenses for the open-lot system are about 1
percent less than the flume type ($59,796 versus $60,591) at 90 per-
cent of capacity. Annual expenses are only reduced a small amount
(about 7 percent) by moving from 90 to 60 percent of capacity.
Each of the expenses for the 500-head units, as well as for the
5,000-and 10,000-head operations, have been checked by comparing
them with expenses from actual Southeastern feedlots. The pen
cleaning expenses in items 6 and 8 of Table 12 are adapted from
time and motion studies done in Texas [28].







Operating Expenses for 5,000-Head Lots
Total annual operating expenses for the 5,000-head flume type lot
operating at 90 percent of capacity are estimated at $191,300, ver-
sus $222,000 for the dirt open-lot type system (Table 13 and Appen-
dix 5). Utilities are more expensive in the flume lot operation
because a large amount of waste water is recirculated from the set-
tling pond back to the feedlot.
The additional expense of cleaning the pens in an open-lot system
offsets the savings realized on utilities. For example, maintenance
and repair is calculated at $35,988, versus $24,803 for the flume lot.
More labor ($79,200 versus $64,800) is used in the open lot, and the
expense of gas and oil is considerably higher ($60,394 versus
$37,608).
The flume lot operating at 60 rather than 90 percent of capacity
has about 10 percent less operating expenses. In contrast, the open
lot has about a 16 percent differential under the same conditions.

Operating Expenses for 10,000-Head Lots
The 10,000-head flume type lot operating at 90 percent of capaci-
ty has an estimated total annual expense of about $356,000, versus
$417,000 for the dirt open-lot system (Table 14 and Appendix 6).
The cost reduction, on a percentage basis, from operating at 60
rather than 90 percent of capacity is about the same as the
5,000-head unit.

Operating Expenses, Cost per Head Basis
Lot size increases are accompanied by reductions in per unit
operating costs. To arrive at a cost per head for each size of lot, the
direct out-of-pocket operating expenses, presented earlier, were
divided by the annual number of head fed (Table 15). Considerable
economies of size are apparent when moving from 500 to 5,000 head,
but little unit cost reduction is noted by increasing lot size to 10,000
head.
The cost for the flume type system operating at 90 percent of
capacity drops from $49 per head for a 500-head unit to $16 and $14
for the 5,000- and 10,000-head units, respectively. The same costs
for the open lot are $49, $18, and $17.
Operation of the lot at 60 percent of capacity rather than 90 per-
cent results in higher costs on a per animal fed basis. This is because
few of the expenses are reduced in direct proportion to the number
of head fed. For example, the feedlot manager can be expected to
receive the same salary regardless of whether the lot is operating at
60 or 90 percent of capacity. One would, therefore, expect feedlot










Table 12. Annual operating expenses for 500 head feedlot, flume and open dirt-lot types at 90 and 60 percent of capacity,
1979.*
90 Percent of Capacity 60 Percent of Capacity
Flume Open Flume Open
Expense type lot type lot
----------------------------------------- --------------- dollars --------------------------------------- --
Salaries and wages' 26,400 26,400 26,400 26,400
FICA, insurance and other2 3,960 3,960 3,960 3,960
Property insurance3 17 17 17 17
Telephone and market news4 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
co Utilities5 6,780 3,072 6,102 2,304
Maintenance and repair6 6,600 7,906 4,950 5,930
Office and supplies7 200 200 200 200
Gas and oil8 6,716 7,783 5,037 5,837
Advertising, dues, subscriptions9 400 400 400 400
Travel and entertainment'1 600 600 600 600
Legal, bookkeeping, and audit" 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600
Nutrition & vet. consulting'2 300 300 300 300
County taxes13 768 1,308 768 1,308
Miscellaneous'" 750 750 750 750
TOTAL 60,591 59,796 56,584 55,106
*See Appendix 4 for footnotes.







Table 13. Annual operating expenses for 5,000 head feedlot, flume and dirt open-lot types at 90 and 60 percent of capacity,
1979.*
90 Percent of Capacity 60 Percent of Capacity
Flume Open Flume Open
Expense type lot type lot
.-----.-------------------------------------------dollars-------------------------------------------
Salaries and wages' 64,800 79,200 64,800 71,280
FICA, insurance and other2 9,720 11,880 9,720 10,692
Property insurance3 84 84 84 84
Telephone and market news4 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Utilities5 28,272 8,160 25,445 6,120
Maintenance and repair8 24,803 35,988 18,602 26,991
Office and supplies7 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Gas and oil8 37,608 60,394 28,206 45,296
Advertising, dues, subscriptions9 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Travel and entertainment10 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Legal, bookkeeping and audit11 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700
Nutrition and consulting12 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700
County taxes'1 5,412 5,700 5,412 5,700
Miscellaneous14 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
TOTAL 191,299 222,006 172,869 186,763
*See Appendix 5 for footnotes.










Table 14. Annual operating expenses for 10,000 head feedlot, flume and dirt open-lot types at 90 and 60 percent of
capacity, 1979.*
90 Percent of Capacity 60 Percent of Capacity
Flume Open Flume Open
Expense type lot type lot
----------------------------------------- dollars -------------------------------------- --------------
Salaries and wages' 18,800 147,600 118,800 147,600
FICA, insurance and other2 17,820 22,140 17,820 22,140
Property insurance3 168 168 168 168
Telephone and market news4 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Utilities5 55,560 14,772 50,004 11,079
Maintenance and repair6 48,086 70,456 36,065 52,842
Office and supplies7 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800
Gas and oil8 75,216 120,788 56,412 90,591
Advertising, dues, subscriptions9 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Travel and entertainment10 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Legal, bookkeeping and audit11 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200
Nutrition and consulting12 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600
County taxes13 10,464 11,016 10,464 11,016
Miscellaneous14 11,250 11,250 11,250 11,250
TOTAL 355,964 416,790 319,583 365,286
*See Appendix 6 for footnotes.






Table 15. Cost per head of operating expenses calculated on an as-fed basis, 500, 5,000, and 10,000 head flume and
dirt open-lots operating at 90 and 60 percent of capacity, 1979'.


90 Percent of Capacity


60 Percent of Capacity


Flume Open-lot Flume Open-lot
500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000
-- --- -----------------------------------------
doll
s-----------------------------------------------------------------------
a


Salaries and wages
FICA, insurance and other
Property insurance
Telephone and market news
Utilities
Maintenance and repair
Office and supplies
Gas and oil
Advertising, dues, subscriptions
Travel and entertainment
Legal, bookkeeping and audit
Nutrition and consulting
County taxes
Miscellaneous
TOTAL


--------------------- -
21.48 5.27 4.84
3.22 0.79 0.72
0.01 0.01 0.01
1.22 0.24 0.20
5.52 2.30 2.26
5.37 2.02 1.96
0.16 0.10 0.07
5.46 3.06 3.06
0.33 0.12 0.08
0.49 0.24 0.16
4.56 0.14 0.09
0.24 0.22 0.15
0.63 0.44 0.43
0.61 0.61 0.46
49.30 15.56 14.49


21.48 6.44 6.01 32.23 7.91
3.22 0.97 0.90 4.84 1.19
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
1.22 0.24 0.20 1.83 0.37
2.50 0.66 0.60 7.45 3.10
6.43 2.93 2.87 6.04 2.27
0.16 0.10 0.07 0.24 0.15
6.33 4.92 4.91 6.15 3.44
0.33 0.12 0.08 0.49 0.18
0.49 0.24 0.16 0.73 0.37
4.56 0.14 0.09 6.84 0.21
0.24 0.22 0.15 0.37 0.33
1.07 0.46 0.45 0.94 0.66
0.61 0.61 0.46 0.92 0.92
48.65 18.06 16.96 69.09 21.11


7.25 32.23 8.70 9.01
1.09 4.84 1.31 1.35
0.01 ,0.02 0.01 0.01
0.31 1.83 0.37 0.31
3.05 2.81 0.75 0.68
2.20 7.24 3.29 3.23
0.11 0.24 0.15 0.11
3.45 7.13 5.53 5.53
0.12 0.49 0.18 0.12
0.24 0.73 0.37 0.24
0.13 6.84 0.21 0.13
0.22 0.37 0.33 0.22
0.64 1.60 0.69 0.67
0.69 0.92 0.91 0.69
19.51 67.29 22.80 22.30


1. Operating expense divided by number of head actually fed. For example, the annual salaries and wages for 500 head capacity
flume lot operating at 90 percent of capacity are estimated to be $26,400. This expense, divided by 1229 fed per year gives $21.48.


Expense


90 Percent of Capacity







owners to be constantly attempting to operate at a higher level of
capacity. Moving to a lower operating level with the flume lot in-
creases cost per head to $69, $21 and $20, respectively, for the three
lot sizes. Cost per head is $67, $23, and $22 for the open facility at
60 percent capacity.
The per unit costs for the flume type facility operating at 90 and
60 percent of capacity are presented in Figure 11. The great advan-


0










-J
o




\



\ \
IL

9 \ 60 PERCENT OF CAPACITY
\








0--




500 5,000 10,000
CAPACITY (HEAD)

Figure 11. Operating cost per head on flume floor at 60% and 90% of
capacity, 1979.






tage of operating at least a 5,000-head unit is readily apparent. The
graph also clearly demonstrates that economies of size are more im-
portant in cost reduction than is operation at a higher level of
capacity.

Replacement Requirements

Periodic replacement of capital cost items will be necessary dur-
ing the operating life of a feedlot. For this study, 15 years of opera-
tion, followed by a salvage estimate, are used to develop the invest-
ment maintenance and residual value figures needed. Replacement
costs are especially important in the two facilities evaluated in this
study because of radical differences in waste management systems.
The technical specifications used in calculating the replacement
costs for the two different operations are given in Table 16 for the
flume lot, and in Table 17 for the dirt open-lot. The estimated
replacement costs are presented in Table 18 and 19. The total
replacement cost for the flume lot in 1979 dollars, for a 15-year
period, is estimated at $745,440, while the open lot is calculated at
$797,200. In other words, the open lot is estimated to have about 7
percent higher replacement expenses than the flume operation.




PART 3: TOTAL FEEDLOT COSTS,
ENERGY ANALYSIS,
AND ECONOMIC COMPARISONS

The initial investment was amortized at 10 percent over a 15-year
period to place it on an annual basis. The total replacement was
divided by 15 years to place it on an annual basis also. The annual
operating expenses are then added, and a total annual cost is
calculated (Table 20). Each of the unit costs, plus the total, is divid-
ed by the number of head fed to define a cost per head fed (Table 20).
The cost of cattle, feed, and mortality loss is not included.
The total feedlot cost per head fed varies from $127 for a 500-head
open-lot unit operated at 60 percent of capacity, down to $29 for a
10,000-head flume lot operating at 90 percent. Operating expenses
account for about 60 to 65 percent of feedlot expenses. The cost rela-
tionship between flume lots and dirt open lots at 90 percent of
capacity is presented in Figure 12. The great economies of size
available from operating a 5,000-head versus a 500-head unit are
quite apparent.












Table 16. Technical specifications for calculation of replacement cost by year, flume lot.


Size of Lot
and Item

500 Head
Feed wagon
Stock truck
Tractor
t Saran shade
Pumps
Total
5,000 Head
Feed trucks
Stock truck
Tractor
Pickup truck
Saran shade
Pumps
Total


Annual Use Number of
per Unit Units
hours


730
730
1,095

continuous2



1,460
730
2,190
1,460

continuous2


1
1
1
13,800 sq. ft.


2
1
1
1
115,200


Annual
Use, All
Units
hours


730
730
1,095


2,920
730
2,190
1,460


Replacement
Cost per
Unit1
dollars


9,000
9,000
40,000
0.80
12,700



15,000
9,000
40,000
5,000
0.80
29,700


(continued)


Years of
Depreciation


Average
Annual
Depreciation
Cost
dollars


1,800
1,800
5,714
3,680
4,233
17,227


6,000
1,800
13,333
1,667
30,720
9,900
63,420








Table 16 (continued)


Size of Lot
and Item

10,000 Head
Feed trucks
Stock truck
Tractors
Pickup trucks
Saran shade
Pumps
Total


Annual Use Number of
per Unit Units
hours


1,460
1,460
2,190
1,460

continuous2


4
1
2
2
230,400


Annual Replacement
Use, All Cost per
Units Unit'


hours


5,840
1,460
4,380
2,920


Years of
Depreciation


dollars


15,000
9,000
40,000
5,000
0.80
50,700


1. Feed wagon: For 500 head assume the whole wagon is replaced, so $10,500 $1,500 = $9,000; for 5,000 & 10,000 head assume the
mixer unit is retained, so $25,000 $10.000 = $15,000; Stock truck: $3,000 salvage value; Pickup truck: $1,000 salvage value; Tractor:
$10.000 salvage value: Saran shade: $0.25 per sq. ft. material and $0.55 per sq. ft. labor for a total of $0.80 per sq. ft. 3 year life; Dump
truck: $5.000 salvage value.
2. 365 days per year. 24 hours per day.


Average
Annual
Depreciation
Cost
dollars


12,000
3,000
26,667
3,333
61,440
16,900
123,340











Table 17. Technical specifications for calculation of replacement cost by year, dirt open-lot.
Average
Annual Replacement Annual
Size of Lot Annual Use Number of Use, All Cost per Years of Depreciation
and Item per Unit Units Units Unit' Depreciation Cost
hours hours dollars dollars


500 Head
Feed wagon
Stock truck
Tractor
t. Saran shade
1 Pumps
Total
5,000 Head
Feed trucks
Stock truck
Tractors
Pickup truck
Dump truck
Saran shade
Pumps
Total


730
730
1,385

400



1,460
730
2,062
1,460
1,548

400


1
1
1
26,880 sq. ft.


2
1
2
1
1
122,880


730
730
1,385


2,920
730
4,125
1,460
1,548


9,000
9,000
40,000
0.80
500



15,000
9,000
40,000
5,000
15,000
0.80
3,000


1,800
1,800
8,000
7,167
83
18,850


6,000
1,800
20,000
1,667
5,000
32,767
5,000
72,234


(continued)









Table 17. (continued)
Average
Annual Replacement Annual
Size of Lot Annual Use Number of Use, All Cost per Years of Depreciation
and Item per Unit Units Units Unit' Depreciation Cost
hours hours dollars dollars
10,000 Head
Feed trucks 1,460 4 5,840 15,000 5 12,000
Stock truck 1,460 1 1,460 9,000 3 3,000
Tractors 2,062 4 8,250 40,000 4 40,000
Pickup truck 1,460 2 2,920 5,000 3 3,333
Dump truck 1,548 2 3,096 15,000 3 10,000
Saran shade 245,760 0.80 3 65,533
Pumps 400 4,500 6 750
Total 134,616
1. Feed wagon: 500 head assume whole unit is replaced, so $10,500 $1,500 = $9,000; for 500 and 10,000 head assume the mixer unit
is retained, so $25,000 -$10,000 = $15,000; Stock truck: $3,000 salvage value; Pickup truck: $1,000 salvage value; Tractor: $10,000
salvage value; Saran shade: $0.25 per sq. ft. material and $0.55 per sq. ft. labor for a total of $0.80 per sq. ft. material and $0.55 per sq.
ft. labor for a total of $0.80 per sq. ft. 3 year life; Dump truck: $5,000 salvage value.






Table 18. Projections of replacement requirements, flume lot.


Replacement Cost by Year1 Total
Cost over
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 1 15 Yr.


500 Head

Feed Wagon
Stock truck
Tractor
Saran shade
Pumps
Total
5,000 Head

Feed trucks
S Stock truck
Tractors
Pickup truck
Saran shade
Pumps
Total
10,000 Head
Feed trucks
Stock truck
Tractors
Pickup trucks
Saran shade
Pumps


9,000
9,000


11,040
12,700


11,040
12,700


40,000


0 0 0 23,740 0 18,000 23,740 40,000 0


40,000
5,000
92,160
29,700


30,000
9,000


40,000
5,000
92,160
29,700


0 0 0 166,860 0 39,000 166,860 0 0


9,000
80,000
10,000
184,320
50,700


60,000


9,000
80,000
10,000
184,320
50,700


9,000
9,000


11,040
12,700
23,740 18,000


40,000
5,000
92,160
29,700


30,000
9,000


40,000
11,040
12,700
0 23,740 0 40,000


40,000
5,000
92,160
29,700


166,860 39,000 0 166,860 0 0


9,000
80,000
10,000
184,320
50,700


60,000


9,000
80,000
10,000
184,320
50,700


2,000
4,000
30,000
0
0
210,960 36,000


20,000
3,000
10,000
1,000
0
0
745,440 34,000


40,000
3,000
20,000
2,000
0
0


Total 00 0 334,020 0 60,000 334,020 0 0 334,020 60,000 0 334,020 0 0 1,456,080 65,000
1. Replace feed truck and tractor at 7,500 hours, replace pickup stock truck and feed wagon (500 head lot) at 4,000 hours, re DacedumD


Size of Lot
and Item


Salvage
Value
Year 15




Replacement Cost by Year'


Size of Lot
arid Item



500 Head


Total
Cost over
10 11 12 13 1415 15 Yr.


................................................................................................ oollars ......................................................................................-------------------.........--


Feed Wagon
Stock truck
Tractor
Saran shade
Pumps
Total
5,000 Head
Feed trucks
S Stock truck
Tractors
Pickup truck
Dump truck
Saran shade
Pumps
Total
10,000 Head
Feed trucks
Stock truck
Tractors
Pickup truck
Dump truck
Saran shade
Pumps
Total


21,500

0 0 0 21,500


5,000
15,000
98,300


9,000
9,000
40,000
21,500
500
0 58,000 22,000 0


80,000


0 0 0 118,300 80,000


9,000

10,000
30,000
196,600


30,000
9,000

5,000
15,000
98,300
3,000
39,000 121,300 0


60,000


160,000


0 0 0 245,600 160,000 60,000


9,000

10,000
30,000
196,600
4,500
250,100 0


9,000
9,000
40,000
21,500 21,500
500
0 21,500 58,000 0 22,000 0


30,000
9,000
80,000 80,000
5,000 50,000
15,000 15,000
98,300 98,300
3,000
80,000 118,300 39,000 0 201,300 0


160,000


9,000

10,000
30,000
196,600


60,000


9,000
160,000
10,000
30,000
196,600


4,500
160,000 245,600 60,000 0 410,100 0


1. Replace feed truck and tractor at 7,500 hours, replace pickup stock truck and feed wagon (500 head lot) at 4,000 hours, replace dump
truck at 5,000 hours. Salvage for dump is $5,000. New is $15,000. See technical specifications in Table 17.


5 6 7 8 9


12 3 4


Salvage
Value
Year 15


2,000
4,000
15,000


0 203,000


0
21,000


20,000
3,000
30,000
1,000
5,000


0 797,200


0
59,000


40,000
6,000
60,000
2,000
10,000


0
118,000


0 1,591,400






Table 20. Total annual investment, operating and replacement costs, and cost per head fed, three sizes of flume and
dirt open-lot systems at 90 and 60 percent of capacity, 1979.


Total Annual Cost
Equipment


Feedlot Capacity Initial replacement
and Type of Lot investment' cost2


Operating
expenses3 Total


Cost Per Head
Equipment
Initial replacement
investment cost


---90 percent of capacity----------------------------------------
90 percent of capacity


500 Head
Flume
Dirt open-lot
5,000 Head
Flume
Dirt open-lot
10,000 Head
oo Flume
Dirt open-lot

500 Head
Flume
Dirt open-lot
5,000 Head
Flume
Dirt open-lot
10,000 Head
Flume
Dirt open-lot


29,438
34,962

141,318
148,817

253,807
260,013



29,438
34,962

141,318
148,817

253,807
260,013


14,064
13,533


60,591 104,093
59,796 108,291


49,696 191,299 382,313 12
53,147 222,006 423,970 12

97,072 355,964 706,843 10
106,093 416,790 782,896 11
60 percent of capacity


14,064
13,533


56,584 100,086
55,106 103,601


49,696 172,869 363,883
53,147 186,763 388,727

97,072 319,583 670,462
106,093 365,286 731,392


1. Amortized over 15 years at 10 percent from data in Table 9.
2. From Tables 16 and 17 over 15-year period.
3. From Tables 12, 13, and 14.


Fed4


Operating
expenses


Total







Economic Comparison of the Two Systems

This section provides a final evaluation of the flume and dirt open-
lot operations by comparing the present worth of expenditures for
each of the systems. The present worth of expenditures is simply
the present worth of the cash flow stream. It must be calculated,
because the replacement and operating costs are non-coincident.
The discounting procedure is just a method of placing all costs on a


0-1
w


0



CL O


Q


o
a-

LC '
WS

1-



8"I
0
C-


01


DIRT LOT


FLUME FLOOR-- ----
FLUME FLOOR-----'A


-I I I--


5,000
CAPACITY (HEAD)


10I000


Figure 12. Total feedlot cost per head fed, flume floor and dirt open lots
at 90% of capacity, 1979.






comparable basis. It should be noted that a longer or shorter time
horizon, say 20 or 10 years, would not affect the results.
All future expenses are discounted to the present because the cost
of using money is measured in terms of earning power. This earning
power is continuous over time, so the total cost of using it mounts
up as the period of use increases. A dollar today is worth more than
a dollar in the future because today's dollar could be invested at
some interest rate. The discounting concept is just the opposite of
compounding. For instance, if 42 and 4/10 cents were compounded
at 10 percent for 9 years, the result would be $1.00. Conversely,
discounting $1.00 for 9 years at 10 percent would yield 42 and 4/10
cents. Thus, the present value factor for 9 years at 10 percent, as
shown in Table 21, is 0.424.
The discounting process and results for the two systems are
presented in Tables 21 and 22. In these tables, the initial turn-key
basis investment costs developed earlier, which were about $1.07
and $1.11 million for the two 5,000-head lots, respectively, are com-
bined with the equipment replacement cost and annual operating
expenses, and discounted at 10 percent over a 15-year period.
The present worth of expenditures is $2,755,003 for the flume
system versus $3,030,903 for the dirt open lot, indicating that the
flume system is the lower cost alternative. In other words, taking
investment, replacement costs and operating expenses into account,
the 5,000-head flume lot is 9 percent less expensive than a com-
parable dirt open-lot operation. Flume lots of the 500- and
10,000-head size are also about 9 percent less expensive than the
comparable open lots.
The total of $2,755,003 for the flume lot is the amount which
would be required today to pay all the expenses, for all the years,
during the project life, assuming that the money were invested at 10
percent interest while waiting to pay the expenses. It should be
observed that the other interest rates could be varied and the pro-
jects would still have the same ranking. Also, the totals have little
meaning, as the important point is not what the total present worth
of expenditures is, but rather the difference between them.

Energy Use Comparison
The two major items in an energy comparison for feedlots are
utilities, and fuel and oil. The comparisons, presented in Table 23,
indicate that for a 500-head lot the dirt open type uses 20 to 25 per-
cent less energy than the flume type regardless of whether it is
operating at 90 or 60 percent of capacity.
Both the 5,000- and 10,000-head flume lots are about 4 percent
more energy efficient than the dirt open lots when operating at 90







Year,


1
2
3
4
5
6
7


5,000 heal


15
Minus salvage1


d unit.
Initial Equipment Present Present
Investment Replacement Operating Total Value Worth of
(turnkey) Cost Expenses Expenses Factor (10%) Expenditures
-------------------------------------------------dollars------ ---------------- dollars


1,074,908


70,295


166,860
0
39,000
166,860
0
0
166,860
39,000
0
166,860
0
0
34,000


191,299
191,299
191,299
191,299
191,299
191,299
191,299
191,299
191,299
191,299
191,200
191,299
191,299
191,299
191,299
191,299


1,266,207
191,299
191,299
358,159
191,299
230,299
358,159
191,299
191,299
358,159
230,299
191,299
358,159
191,299
191,299
104,295


.909
.826
.751
.683
.621
.564
.513
.467
.424
.386
.350
.319
.290
.263
.239
.239


1,150,982
158,013
143,666
244,623
118,797
129,889
183,736
89,337
81,111
138,249
80,605
61,024
103,866
50,312
45,720
-24,927
2,755,003


1. Calculation of salvage value:


Percent of
original cost


Bunks
Office
Storage & Mix.
Scale
Land
TOTAL


Depreciated cost
dollars
6,720
12,500
18,325
2,750
30,000
70,295




Table 22. Comparison of present worth of expenditures for dirt open-lot feedlot system operating at 90 percent of capacity,
5,000 head unit.
Initial Equipment Present Present
Investment Replacement Operating Total Value Worth of
Year (turnkey) Cost Expenses Expenses Factor (10%) Expenditures
-...--...........-----.. -----... .. -------- dollars---------- ---------------- dollars
1 1,113,807 0 222,006 1,335,813 .909 1,214,254
2 0 222,006 222,006 .826 183,377
3 0 222,006 222,006 .751 166,727
4 118,300 222,006 340,306 .683 232,429
5 80,000 222,006 302,006 .621 187,546
6 39,000 222,006 261,006 .564 147,207
7 121,300 222,006 343,306 .513 176,116
8 0 222,006 222,006 .467 103,677
9 80,000 222,006 302,006 .424 128,051
10 118,300 222,006 340,306 .386 131,358
11 39,000 222,006 261,006 .350 91,352
12 0 222,006 222,006 .319 70,820
13 201,300 222,006 423,306 .290 122,759
14 0 222,006 222,006 .263 58,388
15 0 222,006 222,006 .239 53,059
Minus salvage' 92,535 59,000 222,006 151,535 .239 -36,217
3,030,903
1. Calculation of salvage value:

Percent of
Item original cost Depreciated cost


Bunks
Office
Storage & Mix.
Scale
Land
TnTAI


dollars
8,960
12,500
18,325
2,750
50,000






Table 23. Energy comparison for flume and dirt open-lot systems, 1979.
Lot Size and Type
500 5,000 10,000
Item Flume Open-lot Flume Open-lot Flume Open-lot
------------------------------------ dollars r ----------------------------------------
90 percent of capacity
Utilities 6,780 3,072 28,272 8,160 55,560 14,772
Gas and oil 6,716 7,783 37,608 60,394 75,216 120,788
Total 13,496 10,855 65,880 68,554 130,776 135,560
60 percent of capacity
Utilities 6,102 2,304 25,445 6,120 50,004 11,079
Gas and oil 5,037 5,837 28,206 45,296 56,412 90,591
Total 11,139 8,141 53,651 51,416 106,416 101,670
Source: Tables 4, 5, and 6.

percent of capacity. However, the advantage is almost exactly
reversed when the capacity utilization drops to 60 percent.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The investment, operating, and capital equipment replacement
costs for 500-, 5,000-, and 10,000-head feedlots of the flume and dirt
open-lot types have been developed in this bulletin. An economic
analysis of the two types of lots indicates that, on a total basis, the
flume lot is about 9 percent less expensive than the dirt open-lot
system. Furthermore, each of the cost items investment, replace-
ment, and operating is lower for the flume than the open-lot
system.
It was determined that substantial economies of size are available
by moving from a 500- to a 5,000-head unit, but there is little addi-
tional advantage in the 10,000-head unit. For example, when oper-
ating at 90 percent of capacity, the total per head of cattle fed cost
in 1979 (exclusive of feed, cost of cattle, and other animal related
costs) for the flume system is $84, $31, and $29. These are similar to
costs in other areas [13, 30]. Also, the economies of size found in this
study are similar to those calculated by other researchers [4, 19, 20,
21, 23].
Much more advantage is gained by moving to a larger lot than by
shifting from one system to another. The dirt open lot per-head-fed
costs, for example, operating at 90 percent of capacity, are $88, $34,
and $32 for the three sizes in 1979. In addition, it is much more ad-
vantageous, on a per head fed basis, to operate a 5,000-head lot at 60
percent of capacity ($44 for a flume lot) than a 500-head lot at 90
percent of capacity ($84 for a flume lot).






REFERENCES
[ 1] Aldrich, Steve. "Wide Slots Offer Thirty-Six Inches of Comfort."
Feedlot Management, July 1978, pp. 5, 6.
[ 2] Baldwin, L. B., and R. A. Nordstedt. "Design Procedure for Animal
Waste Treatment Lagoons in Florida." Southeast Regional Meeting,
ASAE, January-February 1971.
[ 3] Boehlji, Michael D., and Larry Trede. "Evaluation of Feedlot
Systems." In Beef Cattle Feeding in Iowa 1974. Iowa State Universi-
ty, PM-602, January 1975.
[ 4] Carter, H. O., G. W. Dean, and P. H. Maxwell. Economics of Cattle
Feeding on Imperial Valley Field Crop Farms. Bulletin 813, Califor-
nia Agricultural Experiment Station, May 1965.
[ 5] Dietrich, Raymond A. Costs and Economies of Size in Texas-Oklahoma
Cattle Feedlot Operations. B-1083, Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, May 1969.
[ 6] Environmental Protection Agency. Feedlots Point Source Category
Effluent Guidelines and Standards. Federal Register, February 14,
1974.
[ 7] Erickson, Donald B., and Philip A. Phar. Guidelines for Developing
Feedlots in Kansas. Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State
University, April 1970.
[ 8] Florida Crop amd Livestock Reporting Service. Florida Agricultural
Statistics, Livestock Summary, 1978.
[ 9] Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Beef Cattle
in Florida. Bulletin 28, revised September 1976.
[10] Florida Department of Environmental Regulations. Feedlot Rule.
Chapter 17-3.04, FAC, June 1976.
[11] Florida Department of Environmental Regulations. Water Quality
Standards Chapter 17-3, FAC, March 1979.
[12] Frankl, Gerald. Personal communication. Sioux City, Iowa, December
1978.
[13] Gee, C. Kerry, Roy N. Van Arsdall, and Ronald A. Gustafson. U.S. Fed-
Beef Production Costs, 1976-77 and Industry Structure. AER 424,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1979.
[141 Hasbargen, Paul R., and Larry Hummer. Slotted Floor Beef Housing
vs. Other Housing Systems: An Economic Analysis. ESRS-71-1,
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Minnesota,
March 1970.
[15] Hashimoto, A. G., R. L. Prior, and Y. R. Chen. "Methane and Biomass
Production Systems for Beef Cattle Manure." Paper presented at the
Great Plains Extension Seminar on Methane Productiorr from Live-
stock Manure, Liberal, Kansas, February 15, 1978.
[16] Hunter, Elmer C. and Patrick Madden. Economies of Size for Special-
ized Beef Feedlots in Colorado. AER 91, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, May 1966.







[17] Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Agricultural Growth in an
Urban Age. University of Florida, February 1975, pp. 125-28.
[18] Jones, David, and Fred Wiegman. Investment Requirements and
Costs for Producing Beef in Feedlots in North Louisiana. DAE
Research Report No. 400, Louisiana State University, July 1969.
[19] King, Gordon A. Economies of Scale in Large Commercial Feedlots.
Gianini Foundation Researoh Report No. 251, California Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, March 1962.
[20] Logan, S. H., and G. A. King. Beef Cattle Feeding and Slaughtering in
California. Bulletin 826, California Agricultural Experiment Station,
August 1966.
[21] Malone, John W., Jr., and Leroy F. Rogers. Economies of Size of
Warm-up Cattle Feedlot Operations in Nevada. University of
Nevada, November 1965.
[22] Mathis, Kary. "Alternative Marketing Strategies for Florida Cattle, or
What If We Fed All Our Feeder Calves in Florida?" Proceedings of
1972 Beef Cattle Short Course. Animal Science Department,
University of Florida, 1972, pp. 93-106.
[23] Meisner, Joseph C., and V. James Rhodes. Feedlot Economies of Size
Revisited. Agricultural Economics Paper 1974-33, Department of
Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, 1974.
[24] Midwest Plan Service. Structures and Environment Handbook.
NWPS-1, 9th Edition, Iowa State University, September 1977.
[25] Nordstedt, R. A., and L. B. Baldwin. "Lagoon Disposal of Dairy Waste
in Florida." Proceedings of National Dairy Housing Conference.
Michigan State University, February 1973.
[26] Petit, James A., Jr., and Gerald W. Dean. Economies of Farm Feedlots
in the Rice Area of the Sacramento Valley. Bulletin 800, California
Agricultural Experiment Station, May 1964.
[27] Richards, Jack A., and Gerald E. Karzan. Beef Cattle Feedlots in
Oregon: A Feasibility Study. Special Report 170, Agricultural
Experiment Station, Oregon State University, reprinted November
1974.
[28] Sinise, Jerry. "Efficient Manure Handling Can Hold Down Feedlot
Costs." Calf News, May 1979, pp. 14, 46.
[29] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Livestock and Meat Statistics,
Supplement for 1978. Statistics Bulletin 522.
[30] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Livestock and Meat Situation.
LMS-227, June 1979.
[31] Valentine, James H., Rames R. Supak, and Frank C. Petr. Fertilization
of Crops with Feedlot Wastes on the Texas High Plains. Fact sheet
L-1220, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, no date.
















APPENDICES







APPENDIX 1
Investment Costs


Unit investment costs, flume and dirt open-lot system by size of lot, 1979.


Concrete and concrete placement
Concrete (cu. yd., 2500-lb test)
Labor, skilled (hr.)
Labor, unskilled (hr.)
Labor, concrete placement (cu. yd.)
Labor, forming (cu. yd.)
Materials, forming (cu. yd.)
Labor plus materials, concrete
placement (cu. yd.)
Total cost (cu. yd.)
Reinforcing wire (sq. ft.)
(6-10-10 wire)
Asphalt (sq. yd.)
Storage facilities
Galvanized steel grain bins
(5000-bu. capacity with auger)
(ea.)
Gas heating element for grain
bins (ea.)
25-ton supplement tank
2-ton horizontal batch mixer
500 bu./hr. grain rolling mill
10,000-gal. molasses tank
Galvanized steel grain bins
(25,000 bu. capacity with auger)
(ea.)
4-ton horizontal batch mixer
1,000-gal. molasses tank
Rolling stock
5,000-lb. tractor drawn batch mixer
4-wheel drive tractor (200 h.p.)
1 2-ton stock truck
Mixing trucks
Pickup truck
Well (complete with all related
equip., tanks, motors, etc.)
4-inch
6-inch


Same
Costs Different Costs
All Three 500 5,000 10,000
Sizes head head head
---------------- dollars--------------

33.00 -
8.00 -
4.00 -
2.40 -
1.27 -
2.65 -

6.32 -
39.32 -

0.056 -
2.50 2.50



5,000 -


1,800


2,000







1,000


10,500
50,000
12,000


2,000
10,000
5,000
2,500


25,000






25,000
6,000


5,000
2,500


25,000
15,000





25,000
6,000


- 3,500 -
- 7,000 7,000


(continued)







Same
Costs Different Costs
Item All Three 500 5,000 10,000
Sizes head head head
-.-..-.-....---.--I nll ---------------..


Perimeter fence
Line posts (treated)
Corner posts (treated)
Barb wire (1,320-ft. roll)
Woven wire (330-ft. roll)
Cost per mile
Water pipe PVC (ft.)
3/4 inch
1 inch
11/2 inch
2 inch
Cattle working facilities
Load-out (ea.)
Chute with 3 phase motor (ea.)
Tin roof (sq. ft.)
Half circle ahd wedge alley
Dipping vat with 3 phase motor
Office building (sq. ft.)
Security lights
Silage facility
Posts and braces
20-ft. long posts x 8 in. (ea.)
18-ft. braces x 8 in. (ea.)
14-ft. short posts x 8 in. (ea.)
6-ft. butt posts x 8 in. (ea.)
Boards for walls (1,000 bd. ft.)
Saran shade, installed (sq. ft.)
Metal shade, installed (sq. ft.)
Dirt moving (cu. yd.)
Land (acre)
Contingency (hd.)
Construction mgt. (hd.)
Bunks (lineal ft.)
Cable over bunks (lineal ft.)
Fence & gates, 5-rail sucker rod
(ft. of fence)
Water troughs, stainless steel (ea.)
Stabilizing material for work alley
(sq. yd.)
Stabilizing material for all weather
access roads (sq. yd.)


3.00
10.00
18.00
60.00
2,330


2,800

2.50




35.00


35.00
30.00
14.50
4.00
485
1.75


1,000
12.00


0.15


3,700


1.20


20.00
9.00


0.14
0.19
0.28
0.38


3,900

5,900
4,900
25.00









2.50
1.00


18.00
7.00


0.14
0.19
0.28
0.38


3,900

5,900
4,900
25.00









2.50
1.00


15.00
7.00


8.75 7.50 7.50
225.00 -

1.00 -

2.00 -








APPENDIX 2
Footnotes to Table 7, Investment, Flume Type
System, 1979

1. Concrete, pens
500 Head
Concrete. 420 ft. long times 36 ft. = 15,120 sq. ft., divided by 80 (4-inch con-
crete) = 189 cu. yd. of concrete (1 yd. of concrete 4 inches deep covers 80
sq, ft.), times $33 per yd, of concrete = $6,237 for materials.
Labor for concrete. Assuming that one skilled person ($8.00 per hr.) and four
laborers ($4.00 per hr. each) pour and finish 100 cu. yd. of concrete per day
(10 hr.), then the cost is $2.40 per yd.
Labor for forming. Assuming that the same skilled person and four laborers
take 10 hr., the total forming cost is $240. There are 189 cu. yd. of concrete,
so the labor cost is $1.27 per yd. Materials for forming and other
miscellaneous costs are assumed to be $500, which is $2.65 per cu. yd.
Total cost for labor and materials other than concrete is $6.32 per cu. yd.
This cost, times 189 cu. yd., = $1,194. Total cost (labor plus concrete) is
$7,431.
5,000 Head
Concrete. 960 ft. long times 36 ft. = 3,450 sq. ft. per row, times 4
rows = 138,240 sq. ft., divided by 80 = 1,728 cu. yd. of concrete mix, times
$33 = $57,024.
Labor and Materials. 1,728 cu. yd. times $6.32 = $10,921. Total cost is
$67,945.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

2. Concrete, work alleys
500 Head
Stabilizing material rather than paving. 420 ft. long by 10 ft. wide = 4200 sq,
ft., divided by 9 = 467 yd. at $1.00 = $467.
5,000 Head
960 ft. long alleys times 10 ft. wide = 9,600 sq. ft., times 2 alleys = 19,000,
divided by 80 sq. ft./cu. yd. = 240 cu. yd. of concrete, times
$39.32 = $9,437.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

3. Reinforcing wire, pens
500 Head
420 ft. long times 36 ft. wide = 15,120 sq. ft., times $0.056 = $847.
5,000 Head
960 ft. long times 36 ft. wide = 34,560 sq. ft., times 4 rows of
pens = 138,240 sq. ft., times $0.056 per sq. ft. = $7,742.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.








4. Reinforcing wire, work alleys
500 Head
Dirt alley.
5,000 Head
960 ft. times 10 ft. = 9,600 sq. ft. times 2 alleys = 19,200 sq. ft. times
$0.056/sq. ft. = $1,075.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

5. Asphalt
500 Head
Stabilizing material rather than paving. 420 ft. x 12 ft. = 5,040 sq. ft., divided
by 9 = 560 yds. at $1.00 = $560.
5,000 Head
Each 960 ft. alley times 12 ft. wide = 11,520 sq. ft., times 3 alleys = 34,560
ft., divided by 9 = 3,840 sq. yd., times $2.50 = $9,600. In addition, 20 times
208 = 4,160 sq. ft. turn around at ends, plus 10,000 sq. ft. work and office
area = 4,160 sq. ft. = 1,573 sq. yd. at $2.50 = $3,933 for a total cost of
$13,533.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

6. Shades
500 Head
460 ft. times 30 ft. = 13,800 sq. ft., times 1.75 = $24,150.
5,000 Head
960 ft. times 30 ft. wide = 28,800 sq. ft., times 4 rows of pens = 115,200 sq.
ft., times 1.75/sq. ft. = $201,600.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

7. Bunks
500 Head
420 ft. at $9.00 per ft. of bunk formed and poured at the lot = $3,780.
5,000 Head
960 ft. times 4 rows of pens = 3,840 lineal ft., times $7.00 per ft. = $26,880.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

8. Cable over bunks
500 Head
420 ft. times 2 cables = 840 lineal ft. of cables, times $0.15 = $126.
5,000 Head
960 ft. times 4 rows of bunks = 3,840 lineal ft. of cables, times 2
(cables) = 7,680 ft. over bunks, times $0.15 per ft. = $1,152.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.







9. Pen fences and gates
500 Head
420 plus 288 ft. of partition = 708 ft., times $8.75 (which includes a cost for
gates) = $6,195.
5,000 Head
960 ft. times 4 rows = 3,840 ft., plus 1,188 ft. of partition = 5,028 ft., times
$7.50 (weighted to include gates) = $37,710.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

10. Water troughs
500 Head
2 troughs per pen, times 7 feed pens, times $255 each = $3,150.
5,000 Head
2 troughs per feed pen, times 32 pens = 64, plus 5 in holding pens = 69,
times $225 = $15,525.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

11. Water pipe
500 Head
720 ft. of 1 /2-inch PVC (includes 300 ft. to lot from well) at $0.29 = $209, plus
252 ft. (36 times 7) of 3/4-inch PVC for laterals at $0.15 = $38 for a total of
$247.
5,000 Head
300 ft. of 2-inch PVC from well across feedlot times $0.38 ft. = $114, plus
4,500 ft. of 1 /2-inch PVC length of the 4 feed pens (includes 300 ft. to office
area), times $0.28 per ft. = $1,260, plus 48 laterals of 34-inch PVC times 36
ft. = 1,728 ft., times $0.14/ft. = $242 for a total of $1,616.
10,000 head
Double 5,000 head.

12. Other water connections
Miscellaneous connections plus wash-down equipment and system at $0.20 per
head of capacity, plus $1.20 per head of capacity for flushing water distribution
and collection system for a total of $1.40 per head.

13. Survey and site engineering
Also includes laying out waste management system.

14. Building permits
Varies greatly between counties.

15. Site preparation
500 Head
Varies directly with the physical location of the lot. This item only includes dirt
work. Calculated at $1.20 cu. yd. with 4 cu. yd. per head.
5,000 Head
$1.00 per cu. yd. with 4 cu yd. per head.







10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.
16. Cattle working area
500 Head
Load-out ramp $ 2,800
Chute with single phase motor $ 3,700
Subtotal $ 6,500

Lane fence 200 ft. at $8.75 $ 1,750
Roof, tin, 25 ft. by 40 ft. = 1,000 sq. ft. times $2.50 $ 2,500
Subtotal $10,750
5,000 Head
Load-out ramp. $ 2,800
1/2 circle and wedge alley $ 5,900
Chute with 3 phase motor $ 3,900
Dipping vat with 3 phase motor $ 4,900
Roof, tin, 50 ft. times 50 ft. = 2,500 sq, ft. times $2.50 $ 6,250
Sorting area, 5 pens 50 ft. by 50 ft. = 800 lineal ft. times $7.50 $ 6,000
100 ft. cattle lane requires 200 lineal ft. fence times $7.50 $ 1,500
Total $31,250
10,000 Head
Same as 5,000 head, but $6,000 more in sorting pens, i.e., a total of
$37,250.

17. Construction insurance
On all phases of construction.

18. Lighting and electrical
500 Head
5 security lights to cover whole feedlot times $35 = $175, plus $500 for
other expenses = $675 total.
5,000 Head
20 security lights = $700, plus $3,000 foi other expenses = $3,700.
10,000 Head
36 security lights = $1,260, plus $4,000 for other expenses = $5,260.

19. Office building
500 Head
No office.
5,000 Head
1,000 at $25/sq. ft. = $25,000,
10,000 Head
1,200 at $25/sq. ft. = $30,000.

20. All weather access roads
500 Head
Front area of 1,000 lineal ft. plus 200 ft. on sides = 1,200 lineal ft., times
20 ft. wide = 24,000 sq. ft., divided by 9 = 2,667 sq. yd., times 2 = $5,333.







5,000 Head
Front area of 2,000 lineal ft. plus 450 lineal ft. on sides = 2,450 total, times
20 ft. wide = 49,000 sq. ft., divided by 9 = 5,444 sq. yd., times
$2.00 = $10,889.
10,000 Head
Front area of 2,000 lineal ft. plus 900 ft. on sides = 2,900 total, times 20 ft.
wide = 58,000 sq. ft., divided by 9 = 6,444 sq. yd., times $2.00 = $12,889.

21. Silage facility
The following construction details apply to both types and all three sizes of
lots.
Floor. The floor is concrete (3,000 lb. mix), 4 inches thick except for a 20 ft.
apron on each end which is 6 inches thick. The floor is sloped (6 inches/100 ft.)
from the middle to each end for drainage. Reinforcing wire (6-10-10) is used for
the entire floor. The floor is poured in 10 ft. by 16 ft. sections using 1-inch by
4-inch forms which are left in the floor to allow for expansion.
Walls. The walls are constructed with 2-inch by 6-inch dressed tongue-in-
groove lumber held in place by braces (45 degree posts). All wood is pressure
treated with creosote or penta. Posts should be set 4 ft. deep in concrete with 6
ft. spacing between the posts, i.e. the walls sit on the concrete floor. The braces
butt up against short posts in concrete filled holes. Lumber for the walls should
be 12 ft. lengths with joints at posts and staggered.
The following costs will vary according to the dimensions finally selected.
Calculations of size requirements are given in Table 5 for ration "B", which is
corn silage, citrus pulp, and molasses. Capacity is calculated on 2/3 of annual re-
quirements.
500 Head
1,136 tons of silage required per year. If sufficient capacity to store 2/3 of
this amount is desired, then a bunker for 757 tons is needed. Rounding off
to 760 tons at 57.1428 cu. ft. per ton = 43,429 cu. ft. With the facility 40
ft. wide and silage 10 ft. high, then 43,429 divided by 400 = 108 ft. long.
Concrete.
Floor: 108 ft. times 40 ft., times 4 inches = 1,440 cu. ft., divided by
27 = 53.5 cu. yd.
Apron: 20 ft. times 40 ft. times 6 inches, times 2 = 800 cu. ft., divided by
27 = 3.0 cu. yd.
Subtotal: 83.5 cu. yd. The cost then is 83.5 cu. yd. times $39.32 = $3,283.
Lumber.
Forming: included in the $39.32 shown above.
Posts: 108 ft. times 2 = 216 ft., divided by 6 = 36 posts for sides. An
additional 12 are needed for the ends. Half of the 48 are 20 feet
while half are 14 feet. Thus, 24 times $35 = $840 plus 24 times
$14.50 = $348 for a total of: $1,188
Braces: 18 (18 ft.) at $30 each = $ 540
Braces: 24 (14 ft.) at $14.50 each = $ 348
Butt
posts: 42 (6 ft.) at $4.00 each = $ 168
Subtotal: $2,244








Walls: Total length is 108 ft., of which 48 ft. times 14 ft.
high, times 2 walls = 1,344 sq. ft. and
60 ft. times 8 ft. high times 2 = 960 sq. ft.
Total: 2,304 sq. ft.
times x 2
4,608 board ft.
plus 5 pct. +230
4,838 board ft.

Then, 4,838 times $485 per 1,000 board ft. = $2,346
plus labor on walls + 200
Subtotal: $2,546
Reinforcing wire. 108 ft. plus 40 ft. for 2 aprons = 148 ft. long by 40 ft.
wide = 5,920 sq, ft., times $0.056 = $332.
Total cost for the bunker = $8,405.
Cost per ton of silage (760 ton capacity) = $11.06.
5,000 Head
11,351 tons per year times 0.666 = 7,560 tons of capacity at 57.1428 cu. ft.
per ton = 432,000 cu. ft. With the silo 70 ft. wide and the silage 14 ft. deep,
the length is 432,000 divided by 980 = 440 ft. long.
Concrete.
Floor: 440 ft. times 70 ft., times 4 inches = 10,267 cu. ft. divided by
27 = 380.2 cu. yd.
Apron: 20 ft. times 70 ft., times 6 inches, times 2 1,400 cu. ft., divided
by 27 = 51.9 cu. yd.
Post
area: 440 ft. times 3 ft., times 4 inches, times 2 = 880 cu. ft., divided by
27 = 32.6 cu. yd.
Total: 464.7 cu. yd.
464.7 cu. yds. times $39.32 = $18,272.
Lumber.
Forming: Labor included in the $39.32 shown above.
Posts: 440 times 2 walls = 880 ft., divided by 6 ft. between posts = 147
posts, plus 6 for each end = 153. 42 are short and 111 are long.
111 (20 ft.) times 8 inches at $35 each = $3,885
42 (14 ft.) times 8 inches at $14.50 each = $ 609
Braces: 111 (18 ft.) at $30 each = $3,330
Braces: 42 (14 ft.) at $14.50 each = $ 609
Butt
posts: 153(6 ft.) at $4.00 each = $ 612
Subtotal: $9,045
Walls: 60 times 8, times 2 = 960 sq. ft.
380 times 14, times 2 = 10,640 sq. ft.
Total: 11,600 sq. ft.
times x 2
23,200 board ft.
plus 5 pct. 1,160
24,360 board ft.







Then 24,360 times $485 per 1000 board ft. = $11,815
plus labor 1,000
Subtotal: $12,815
Reinforcing wire. 440 ft. plus 20 ft., plus 20 ft. (aprons) = 480 ft. long by 70
ft. wide = 33,600 sq. ft., times $0.056 = $1,882.
Total cost for bunker = $42,014.
Cost per ton of silage (7,560 tons) = $5.55.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head cost.

22. Storage and mixing equipment
500 Head
Operating at 90 percent of capacity under ration "B" requires 4,158 pounds
of corn per day (9.24 times 450 head) (see Table 5), divided by 56 = 74.25 bu.
daily. A small operator must have considerable storage to allow the flexibility
of buying in bulk, or feeding home grown or locally grown corn. Assume 2
months of storage capacity. Thus, 74.25 bu. times 60 days = 4,455 bu. This
requires one 5,000 bu. galvanized steel bin. This unit, plus the auger, costs
$5,000. A gas heating element at $1,800 installed to reduce moisture down to
a safe storage level (about 14-15 percent) is also needed. Also required is a
1,000 gal. molasses tank (with pump) at $1,000, a small grain rolling mill at
$2,000, and a 25 ton supplement tank (which is slightly over one truck load) at
$2,000. Total cost is $11,800.
It is assumed that this small operator buys dried grain or pays to have his own
dried. The mixing is done in a feed wagon (see footnote on rolling stock).
5,000 Head
Operating at 90 percent of capacity requires 41,580 pounds of corn (9.24 x
4,500) or 743 bu. per day. Assuming 45 days of storage, then enough capacity
for 33,435 bushels is needed, or one 25,000-bu. bin and two 5,000-bu. bins for
a total of $35,000. In addition, a dump pit with winch to hoist end of truck, a
shed, and elevator equipment to the two bins costs $15,000. Two 25-ton sup-
plement bins ($2,000 each installed) add another $4,000. Special rations are
mixed in a 2-ton horizontal batch mixer at $10,000 (installed). In addition, a
500 bu./hr. grain roller mill at $5,000 installed is required for the special ra-
tions. Also needed are a 10,000 gal. molasses tank (with pump) at $2,500 (in-
stalled), plus a gas heating element in the grain tanks at $1,800. Total cost is
$73,300.
10,000 Head
Grain storage at $70,000 plus a dump pit at $15,000; three supplement bins
($2,000 each) for $6,000, one 4-ton horizontal batch mixer at $15,000, a 500
bu./hr. roller mill at $5,000, one 10,000-ton molasses tank at $2,500 and one
gas heating element to reduce feed moisture at $1,800. Total cost is
$115,300,

23. Scale
500 Head
Incoming feed is weighed commercially elsewhere. A cattle scale (9 ft. by 14
ft., 10-head capacity) at $6,000 installed is required.








5,000 Head
Convertible scale with steel cattle racks capable of weighing a whole semi-
trailer and tractor.
Cost
$15,000 Weight-beam scale (for 70-foot trucks)
8,500 6 ft. deep concrete pit with drain
2,000 Scale installation
2,000 Stock rack
$27,500 Total
10,000 Head
Same as 5,000 head.

24. Land
See Table 7. Calculated at $1,000 per acre.

25. Well
Assuming 15 gal. of water per day per head, then the requirements are:
7,500 gal. per day for 500 head
75,000 gal. per day for 5,000 head
150,000 gal. per day for 10,000 head
Assuming further that 25 percent is added for waste removal and additional
capacity, this means:
9,375 gal. per day for 500 head
93,750 gal. per day for 5,000 head
187,500 gal. per day for 10,000 head
Given the following conditions:
4-inch well pumps 30 GPM = 43,200 GPD
6-inch well pumps 100 GPM = 144,000 GPD
Then the well requirements are:
500 head lot = 1-4 inch well (assuming a backup from elsewhere)
5,000 head lot = 2-6 inch well
10,000 head lot = 2-6 inch well
The cost complete, including well, pump, holding tank, etc. is:
4-inch well = $3,500
6-inch well = $7,000
Thus, the total cost for the different lot sizes is:
500 head = 1 times $3,500 = $3,500
5,000 head = 2 times $7,000 = $14,000
10,000 head = 2 times $7,000 = $14,000

26. Rolling stock
500 Head
5,000 pound per batch, tractor drawn mixer-feeder with scale at $10,500. One
4-wheel drive tractor (200 HP) with front end loader, blade and silage loader
with PTO operated blower at $50,000. In addition, a 1 /2-ton stock truck at
$12,000 is included for a total of $72,500.
5,000 Head
Two mixing trucks at $25,000 each = $50,000, plus 1 tractor at $50,000, a
1 /2-ton stock truck at $12,000 and a pickup truck at $6,000 for a total of
$118,000.







10,000 Head
Three mixing trucks cost $75,000, plus 2 tractors for $100,000, a 1 /2-ton
stock truck at $12,000 and 2 pickup trucks at $12,000 for a total of $199,000.

27. Perimeter fence
Woven wire with 3 strands of barb wire and treated pine posts every 12 feet.
Minimum
needed
Capacity for perfect Plus
head Acres square 25 percent Miles Cost
....-----. lineal feet ---------- ----- dollars --...
500 8 2,361 2,950 0.56 1,305
5,000 30 4,600 5,750 1.09 2,540
10,000 55 6,200 7,750 1.47 3,425

28. Contingency and misc. equipment
$12.00 per head of capacity.

29. Waste management
See Table 3.

30. Construction management
$20 per head for a 500 head lot, $18 and $15 per head for the other sizes, respec-
tively. Negotiable, depending upon amount of construction supervised.




APPENDIX 3
Footnotes to Table 8, Investment,
Dirt Open-Lot Type System, 1979

1. Concrete, pens
500 Head
560 ft. times 12 ft. apron (includes space for bunks to sit on) = 6,720 sq. ft.,
divided by 80 (4 inch concrete) = 84 yd., times $39.32 = $3,303.
5,000 Head
1,280 ft. long times 12 ft. wide, times 4 rows = 61,440 sq. ft., divided by
80 = 768 yd., times $39.32 = $30,198.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

2. Stabilizing work alleys
500 Head
1,120 ft. by 10 ft. wide = 11,200 sq. ft., divided by 9 = 1,244 sq. yds. at
$1.00 = $1,244.
5,000 Head
1.280 ft. times 3 work alleys = 38,400 sq. ft., divided by 9 = 4,267 sq. yds. at
$1.00 = $4,267.








10,000 Head
1,280 ft. times 5 work alleys = 64,000 sq. ft., divided by 9 = 7,111 sq. yds. at
$1.00 = $7,111.

3. Reinforcing wire, pens
500 Head
6,720 sq. ft. times $0.056 = $376 materials.
5,000 Head
61,440 sq. ft. times $0.056 = $3,441.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

4. Reinforcing wire, work alleys
None.

5. Asphalt, feed alley
500 Head
Stabilizing material rather than paving, 1,120 ft. x 12 ft. = 13,440, divided by
9= 1,493 yds. at $1.00 = $1,493.
5,000 Head
1,280 ft. times 12 ft. = 15,360 sq. ft. per alley times 2 feed alleys = 30,720
sq. ft., divided by 9 = 3,413 sq. yds. times $2.50 $8,533.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

6. Shades
500 Head
1,120 ft. times 24 ft. wide = 26,880 sq. ft., times $1.75 = $47,040.
5,000 Head
1,280 ft. times 24 ft. wide = 30,720 sq. ft., times 4 rows = 122,880 sq. ft.,
times $1.75 = $215.040.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

7. Bunks
500 Head
1,120 ft. at $9.00 per ft. of bunk formed and poured at the lot = $10,080.
5,000 Head
1,280 ft. times 4 rows = 5,120 ft., times $7 = $35,840.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

8. Cables over bunks
500 Head
1,120 times 2 cables = 2,240 lineal ft., times $1.15 = $336.
5,000 Head
1,280 ft. times 4 rows = 5,120, times 2 cables = 10,240 lineal ft., times
$0.15 = $1,536.







10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

9. Pen fences and gates
500 Head
1,120 ft. plus 1,760 ft. of partition = 2,880 lineal ft., times $8.75 = $25,200.
5,000 Head
1,280 plus 1,980 (partitions) = 3,260 ft., times 4 rows = 13,040 lineal ft.,
times $7.50 = $97,800.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

10. Water troughs
500 Head
Two troughs per pen times 7 pens = 14 troughs, times $225 = $3,150.
5,000 Head
Two per pen times 32 pens = 64, times $225 = $14,400.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

11. Water pipe
500 Head
1,520 ft. of 1 /2-inch PVC (includes 300 ft. from well to lot) at $0.29 = $440,
plus seven 3/-inch laterals of 110 ft. each = 770 ft., times $0.15 = $116 for
a total of $556.
5,000 Head
2-inch PVC from well running width of feedlot is 876 ft. times $0.38 = $333.
The main lines run 3,840 ft. down the feed alleys plus 300 ft. to office and
working pens = 4,140 ft. of 11/2-inch PVC times $0.28 = $1,159, plus 70
laterals (including working pens) of 3/4-inch PVC times 110 ft. = 7,700 ft.,
times $0.14 = $1,078 for a total of $2,570.
10,000 Head
Double 5,000 head.

12. Other water connections
$0.15 per head of capacity for drinking water.

13. Survey and site engineering
Same as flume lot.

14. Building permits
Same as flume lots.

15. Site preparations
Same as flume lot.

16. Cattle working area
Same as flume lot.
17. Construction insurance
Same as flume lot.







18. Lighting and electrical
500 Head
7 lights times $35 = $245, plus $500 other = $745.
5,000 Head
30 security lights times $35 = $1,050, plus $3,500 other = $4,550.
10,000 Head
48 lights times $35 = $1,680, plus $4,500 for other = $6,180.

19. Office building
Same as flume lot.

20. All weather access roads
500 Head
Front area of 1,000 lineal ft. plus 1,600 ft. on sides = 2,600 ft. total, times 20
ft. wide = 52,000 sq. ft., divided by 9 = 5,778 sq, yd., times
$2.00 = $11,556.
5,000 Head
Front area of 2,000 lineal ft. plus 2,400 ft. on sides = 4,400 lineal ft. total,
times 20 ft. wide = 88,000 sq. ft., divided by 9 = 9,778 sq. yd., times
$2.00 = $19,556.
10,000 Head
Front are of 2,000 lineal ft. plus 4,800 ft. on sides = 6,800 lineal ft. total,
times 20 ft. wide = 136,000 sq. ft., divided by 9 = 15,111 sq. yd., times
$2.00 = $30,222.

21. Silage facility
Same as flume lot.

22. Other storage and mixing equipment
Same as flume lot.

23. Scale
Same as flume lot.

24. Land
See Table 7. $1,000 per acre.

25. Well
Same as flume lot.

26. Rolling stock
500 Head
Same as flume lot.
5,000 Head
Same as flume lot plus 1 additional tractor ($50,000) for cleaning and shaping
lots.

10,000 Head
Same as flume lot plus 1 additional tractor ($50,000) for cleaning and shaping
lots.







27. Perimeter fence

Minimum
needed
for perfect Plus
Head square 25 percent Miles Cost
--------. ----- lineal feet----------------- --------dollars------
500 2,600 3,250 0.62 1,445
5,000 5,900 7,375 1.40 3,262
10,000 7,900 9,900 1.88 4,380

28. Contingency and miscellaneous equipment
Same as flume lot. Horses and tack are included in here for use in the open
lot.

29. Waste management
See Table 4.

30. Construction management
Same as flume lot.


APPENDIX 4
Footnotes to Table 12, Operating Expenses

for 500-Head Feedlot, 1979

1. Salaries and wages
90 percent (of capacity)
Flume type

Monthly Annual Total
wages wages annual
Employee each each wages

------------ ..----.-----------dollars-------------
Owner-operator 1,000 12,000 12,000
Laborers (2) 600 7,200 14,400
Total 26,000

Open-lot
Same as flume type.
60 percent
Same as 90 percent of capacity for both types of lots.

2. FICA, insurance and other
15 percent of salaries and wages.

3. Property insurance
Only property insurance is used, calculated at $0.05/$100 valuation of the
feed inventory. Thus, $1.25 feed cost per head per day times 450 head (90








percent of capacity) = $563 per day, times 60 days of feed on hand at all
times = $33,750. This, at $0.05/$100 valuation is $17. Same cost for both
types of lots and percentages of capacity.

4. Telephone and market news
Includes newsletters. Same for both types and percentages.

5. Utilities
90 percent (of capacity)


Flume
type


Open
lot


---....-----. KWH/mo.---------


Well pumpage
Waste flow or pump in detention pond
Feed handling
Office & miscellaneous
Total KWH per month

Monthly cost of power at $0.05/KWH
Light rental (5 & 7 lights)
Total monthly cost
Total annual cost


870
5,710
3,080
1,000
10,660


100
20
3,080
1,000
4,200


---.-------------- dollars ----- ---------
533 210
32 46
565 256
6,780 3,072


60 percent
Flume lot cost reduced by 10 percent (waste flow pumpage would not be
reduced) and open-lot by 25 percent.

6. Maintenance and repair
90 percent (of capacity)
Flume type
A) Facilities
Approximately one percent of initial investment in feeding, support, and
waste management facilities, except for rolling stock, which is treated
separately; $141,000 times 0.01 = $1,410.
B) Rolling Stock


Repair Cost per
coeffic. hour


dollars
Stock truck 12,000
Tractor 50,000
Subtotal
Total (A & B)


per 1000
dollars
0.03
0.09


dollars
0.36
4.50


dollars
2 730 263
3 1,095 4,928
5,191
6,600


Purchase
price
(each)


Total
daily
hours


Total
annual
hours


Total
annual
cost








Open-lot
Same costs as for flume lot ($6,600) plus $1,306 for pen cleaning and shaping
based on 15 percent of 5,000-head tractor cost (see footnote 6, Appendix II)
for a total cost of $7,906.
60 percent
Cost reduced for both types by 25 percent from 90 percent of capacity.

7. Office and supplies
Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity.

8. Gas and oil
90 percent of capacity
Flume type
Fuel
Gal. cost Total
per Annual Total per fuel Lube Total
Item hour hours gal. gal. cost cost' cost
--.------------------ dollars ------------------
Stock truck 4 730 2,920 0.80 2,336 350 2,686
Tractor 4 1,095 4,380 0.80 3,504 526 4,030
Total 2,555 6,716

'15 percent of fuel cost
Open-lot
Same as flume lot ($6,716) plus an additional cleaning time based on
5,000-head lot (see footnote 6, Appendix II), which is 15 percent of
1,935 = 290 hours, times 4 gal. = 1.160 gal., times $0.80 = $928, plus 15
percent of fuel cost for lube ($139) for a total of $1,067, which, added to
6,716, gives a final total of $7,783.
60 percent
Cost reduced for both types by 25 percent from 90 percent of capacity.

9. Advertising, dues and subscriptions
Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity.

10. Travel and entertainment
Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity.

11. Legal, bookkeeping and audit
Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity. Also includes bookkeep-
ing from a commercial firm.

12. Nutrition and vet. consulting
Same for both types of lots and percentages.

13. County taxes
90 percent of capacity
Flume type
Approximately $15.00/1,000 on initial investment in feeding facilities assum-







ing evaluation at 80 percent or $768 (64,000 times 0.80, divided by 1000,
times 15).
Open-lot
Same evaluation method.
60 percent
Same as 90 percent for both types of lots.

14. Miscellaneous
$1.50 per head of capacity. Same for both types of lots and percentages of
capacity.



APPENDIX 5
Footnotes to Table 13, Operating Expenses
for 5,000-Head Feedlot, 1979

1. Salaries and wages
90 percent of capacity
Flume type
Monthly Annual Total
wage, wage, annual
Employee each each wages
Owner-operator 1,000 12,000 12,000
Foreman-cowboy 700 8,400 8,400
Cowboys (3) 600 7,200 21,600
Feed truck drivers (2) 600 7,200 14,400
Office clerk 700 8,400 8,400
Total 64,800

Open-lot
Same as flume lot plus two additional employees for pen maintenance at
$14,400 annually for a total of $79,200.
60 percent
Same costs as 90 percent of capacity for flume lot, and 90 percent of wages
for dirt lot as there is less pen maintenance.
2. FICA, insurance and other
15 percent of salaries and wages.

3. Property Insurance
Only property insured is feed, calculated at $0.05/$100 valuation of the feed inven-
tory. Thus, $1.25 feed cost per head per day times 4,500 head (90 percent of
capacity) = $5,625 per day, times 30 days of feed on hand at all
times = $168,750. This, at $0.05/$100 valuation, is $84. Same cost for both types
of lots and percentage of capacity.

4. Telephone and market news
Includes newsletters. Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity.








5. Utilities
90 percent of capacity

Cost
Flume Open
Item type lot
..-............ Kwh/mo. ----.. --.....
Well pumpage 4,560 960
Waste flow or pump in detention ond 31,400 190
Feed handling 6,550 6,550
Office and miscellaneous 2,000 2,000

44,510 9,700
..-.........---.... dollars --------------
Monthly cost of power at $0.05/Kwh 2,226 485
Light rental (20 & 30 lights) 130 195
Total monthly cost 2,356 680
Total annual cost 28,272 8,160

60 percent
Flume lot cost reduced by 10 percent (waste pumpage would not be reduced)
and open-lot by 25 percent.

6. Maintenance and repair
90 percent of capacity
Flume type
A) Facilities
Approximately 1 percent of initial investment in feeding, support, and
waste management facilities, except for rolling stock, which is treated
separately; $867,000 times 0.01 = $8,670.
B) Rolling stock


Purchase Cost Total Total Total
price Repair per daily annual annual
Item (each) coeffic. hour hours hours cost

per 1000
dollars dollars dollars dollars
Feed trucks (2) 25,000 0.08 2.00 8 2,920 5,840
1 1/ ton stock
truck 12,000 0.03 0.36 2 730 263
Pickup 6,000 0.02 0.12 4 1,460 175
Tractor 50,000 0.09 4.50 6 2,190 9,855

Subtotal 16,133
Total (A & B) 24,803









Open-Lot, Rolling Stock

Purchase Cost Total Total Total
price Repair per daily annual annual
Item (each) coeffic. hour hours hours cost

per 1000
dollars dollars dollars dollars
Tractor
Scraping' 387
Loading
manure
& shaping
lot2 1,290
Loading fill3 258
Subtotal 50,000 0.09 4,50 1,935 8,708
Dump truck4 20,000 0.08 1.60 1,548 2,477
Total 11,185


Total cost for open-lot is $11,185


+ $24,803 = $35,988.


'There are 62 lb. of wet manure produced per 1000 lb. liveweight. The
average liveweight of cattle in the lot is 750 Ib. Thus, there are 47 lb. pro-
duced per animal which, with high humidity and rainfall, is also a reasonable
weight at cleaning time. This also includes dirt in advertently picked up. Then,
47 Ib. times 4,500 head = 211,500 Ib. per day = 106 tons per day, or 126
cu. yards per day (at 62 lb. per cu. ft.). One tractor can scrape about 100 tons
per hour, but the scraping takes place as pens are emptied of cattle, so one
tractor is needed full time at certain periods of the year. When the tractor is
not scraping the pen, it is used for hauling dead animals, etc. Multiplying 106
tons times 365 days = 38,690 tons, divided by 100 tons per hour = 387
hours per year.


2Manure loading and shaping lot
Assume that 30 tons are loaded per hour. Then, 38,690 divided by
30 = 1,290 hours annually. This assumes that the 10-ton dump truck makes
3 round trips per hour; while tractor is waiting for the dump truck to return, it
can be used for shaping the lot.
3Loading fill
Assuming there is a loss of dirt from the cleaning operation and erosion
equivalent to 20 percent of the manure produced, then 1,290 times
0.20 = 258 hours.
4Dump truck
1,290 hours hauling manure and 258 hours hauling fill, or 1,548 hours total.
60 percent
Cost reduced for both types 25 percent from 90 percent of capacity.



7. Office and supplies
Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity.








8. Gas and oil
90 percent of capacity


Flume type
Gal. Cost Total Total
per Annual Total per fuel Lube annual
Item hour hours gal. gal.' cost cost' cost
--------------------. dollars ----... --....
Feed trucks (2) 6 2,920 17,520 80 14,016 2,102 16,118
11/-ton
stock truck 4 730 2,920 80 2,336 350 2,686
Pickup 2 1,460 2,920 80 2,336 350 2,686
Tractor 8 2,190 17,520 80 14,016 2,102 16,118
Total 7,300 37,608
115 percent of fuel cost


Open-lot
Same as flume lot plus additional cleaning and shaping of pen.
Gal. Cost Total
per Annual Total per fuel Lube Total
Item hour hours gal. gal. cost cost' cost
..--.-------------- dollars -----.--......
Tractor 8 1,935 15,480 0.80 12,384 1,858 14,242
Dump truck 6 1,548 9,288 0.80 7,430 1,114 8,544
Total 22,786
'15 percent of fuel cost

Total cost for open-lot is $22,786 plus $37,608 (flume) = $60,394.
60 percent
Cost reduced for both types by 25 percent from 90 percent of capacity.


9. Advertising, dues, and subscriptions
Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity.

10. Travel and entertainment
Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity.

11. Legal, bookkeeping and audit
Same for both types of lots and percentages. The cost is lower than the 500-head
operation, as that operation does not have a bookkeeper on the payroll.

12. Nutrition and consulting
Same for both types of lots and percentages.








13. County taxes
90 percent of capacity
Flume type
Approximately $15.00/$1000 on initial investment in feeding facilities, assum-
ing an evaluation at 80 percent or $5,412 ($451,000 times 0.80, divided by
1000, times 15).
Open-lot
$475,000 times 0.80, divided by 1000, times 15 = $5,700.
60 percent
Same as 90 percent for both types of lots.

14. Miscellaneous
$1.50 per head of capacity. Same for both types of lots and percentages of capac-
ity. The open-lot includes the additional expense of maintaining horses.




APPENDIX 6

Footnotes to Table 14, Operating Expenses
for 10,000-head Feedlot, 1979


1. Salaries and wages
90 percent of capacity
Flume type
Monthly Annual Total
wage, wage, annual
Employee each each wages
Owner-operator 1,000 12,000 12,000
Manager 1,700 20,400 20,400
Feed superintendent 1,000 12,000 12,000
Feedtruck drivers (3) 600 7,200 21,600
Foreman-cowboy 700 8,400 8,400
Cowboys (5) 600 7,200 36,000
Office clerk 700 8,400 8,400
Total 118,800

Open-lot
Same as flume lot plus four additional employees for pen maintenance at
$7,200 annually each = $28,800, plus $118,800 = $147,600 total.
60 percent
Same costs as 90 percent of capacity for both types of lots.

2. FICA, Insurance and other
15 percent of salaries and wages.







3. Property insurance
Double 5,000-head lot expense.

4. Telephone and market news
Same for both types and capacities.

5. Utilities
90 percent of capacity

Flume Open
Item type lot
.----------- Kwh/mo. ------...
Well pumpage 9,020 1,900
Waste flow or pump in detention pond 62,800 380
Feed handling 13,100 13,100
Office and miscellaneous 3,000 3,000

Total Kwh per month 87,920 18,380
Monthly cost of power at $0.05/Kwh 4,396 919
Light rental (36 & 48 lights) 234 312
Total monthly cost 4,630 1,231
Total annual cost 55,560 14,772

60 percent
Flume cost reduced by 10 percent (waste flow pumpage would not be reduced)
and open-lot by 25 percent.

6. Maintenance and repairs
90 percent of capacity
Flume type
A) Facilities
Approximately 1 percent of initial investment in feeding, support, and
waste management facilities, except for rolling stock, which is treated
separately; $1,582,000 times 0.01 = $15,820.
B) Rolling stock
Double 5,000-head unit rolling stock because materials handled are
doubled even though rolling stock number may not be identical ($16,133
times 2 = $32,266). The total is A + B or $15,820 plus $32,266
= $48,086.
Open-lot
Same costs as for flume lot plus double the open-lot cost from 5,000-head
facility for cleaning and shaping ($11,185 times 2 = $22,370) for a total of
$70,456.
60 percent
Cost reduced for both types by 25 percent from 90 percent of capacity.

7. Office and supplies
Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity.








8. Gas and oil
Both the flume and open-lot are double the costs estimated for the 5,000-head
units because materials handled are doubled even though rolling stock numbers
are not identical.

9. Advertising, dues and subscriptions
Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity.

10. Travel and entertainment
Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity.

11. Legal, bookkeeping and audit
Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity.

12. Nutrition
Same for both types of lots and percentages of capacity.

13. County taxes
90 percent of capacity
Flume type
$872,000 times 0.80, times $15/1000.
Open-lot
$918,000 times 0.80, times $15/1000.
60 percent
Same as 90 percent for both types of lots.

14. Miscellaneous
$1.25 per head of capacity. Same for both types of lots and percentages of capac-






































This public document was promulgated at an annual cost of
$7849 or a cost of $2.24 per copy to provide information on
investment and operating costs for different types and sizes
of feedlots that could be used in Florida.


I ........




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs