Citation
Investment and operating costs for two types and three sizes of Florida feedlots

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
Creator:
Simpson, James R.
Publisher:
Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services (UFDC@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
003233930 ( ELECTRONIC_ALEPH )
60361486 ( ELECTRONIC_OCLC )

Full Text
January 1981 Bulletin 817
Investment and Operating Costs for Two Types and Three Sizes of Florida Feedlots
'James R. Simpson, L. B. Baldwin, and F. S. Baker, Jr. Agricultural Experiment Stations Institute of Food and Agricultural nces University of Florida, Gainesvile F. A. Wood, Dean for Resea/
E/
A4 /
0'4




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 professor 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
L ist of T ables ................................................ iv
List of F igures ............................................... v
A b stract .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. v i
IN TROD U CTION ........................................... I
PART 1: INVESTMENT COSTS
LAYOUT AND TECHNICAL RELATIONSHIPS ................ 2
Flum e Floor System ....................................... 3
Dirt Open-Lot System ..................................... 3
WASTE SYSTEMS .................. ... _ ... ... ..... 11
Florida Constraints ....................................... 11
F lum e F loor ............................................. 11
D irt O pen-L ot ............................................ 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
Flum e 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
ii




APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Unit Investment Costs, Flume and Dirt Open-Lot System by Size of Lot, 1979 .................................. 58
Appendix 2 Footnotes to Table 7, Investment, Flume Type Sy stem 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 H ead 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 requirem ents ........................................ 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, flum e 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 u n it ............................................. 52
23. Energy comparison for flume and dirt open-lot systems, 1979 ..... 53
iv




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.-. ..I. ......................... 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
V




ABSTRACT
Investment and operating costs for the traditional, dirt, open-lot system were compared with those for a total confinement, all concrete, 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 cattle beef feedlot.
vi




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, 291. 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, 221. 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 provides 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 recommended 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 locations. 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, 311. The flume lot could be interfaced with a methane plant [151, but this alternative is not evaluated in this report.




There is very little research on feedlot wastes and little operational experience with large paved feedlots in Florida. Consequently, systems developed in other areas have been evaluated for probable success in performance and economy in Florida [12]. The concrete 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, 271.
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 illustrative purposes rather than for use as construction plans.) Technical specifications are given in Table 1.
2




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 [121.
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 in) wide. Each row is 960 feet (292.6 in) 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 alternating 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. in) of shade per animal. The workng facilities have a metal roof, and a 1,000 square foot (92.9 sq. in) 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. in) 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 in) long rather than 960 feet (292.6 m). The asphalt feed road is 12 feet (3.7 in) wide. The 10-foot (3.0 in)
3




10' CONCRETE WORK ALLEY
120 --* a6 I36 120
2' FEED BUNKSA 12' ASPHALT FEED ALLEY
960' LONG ROWS OF PENS
O CONCRETE WORK ALLEY PENSI UNDER SHADE CLOTH
2' FEED BUNKS 12 ASPHALT FEED ALLEY
120. 6 120'
10' CONCRETE WORK ALLEY \\/
100
25' -260
I I I FE 60' BUNKER SILO
S 1 --FEED
1 1 o STORE
RECEIVING 7 AND
ILOTS j L.. MIX B R
OPEN BUNKER SILO
. I I
PARKING
ROOFED
CHUTE /
Figure 1. Facilities for 000-head flume floor feedlot.
Figure 1. Faci lities for 5000.lhead flume floor feed~lot.




STABILIZED WORK ROAD DRAINAGE SWALE
160' I I 160' I
24' WIDE SHADE 0
"N.
12'ASPHLT FEED -ALLEY=-,., l60' 2' FEFD BUNK 160
24 WIDE SHADE
__ DRAINAGE SWALE TO DETENTION POND
a:_ STABILIZED WORK ALLEY
DRAINAGE SWALE TO DETENTION POND
1280' LONG ROWS OF PENS
SAME LAYOUT 12' ASPHALT FEED ALLEY
ABOVE j
DRANAGE SWALE 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) 8 30 55 13 55 100
Cattle turnaround (lots of cattle per yr.) 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73
Feed storage capacity (bu.) 10,000 50,000 100,000 10,000 50,000 100,000
Total pens 7 32 64 7 32 64
Pen capacity (head) 72 160 160 160 160 160
Area per animal (sq. ft.) 30 27 27 220 220 220
Total area per pen (sq. ft.) 2,160 4,320 4,320 35,200 35,200 35,200
Pen width (ft.) 60 120 120 160 160 160
Pen depth (ft.) 36 36 36 220 220 220
' Number of rows of pens 1 4 8 1 4 8
Pens per row 7 8 8 7 8 8
Row length (ft.) 420 960 960 1.120 1,280 1,280
Receiving and shipping (pen size) sq. ft. 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Receiving and shipping (no. of pens) 5 10 5 10
Concrete depth in pens (inches) 4 4 4
Bunk width (inches) 24 24 24 24 24 24
Bunk space per head (inches) 10 9 9 12 12 12
Type of bunk Poured concrete Poured concrete
Feeding apron width (ft.) 10
Type of fence (feeding facilities) 5 rail, sucker rod 5 rail, sucker rod
Feed road, type feed road asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt asphalt
Feed road width (exclusive of bunks, ft.) 12 12 12, 12 12 12




Table 1. (continued)
Flume Lot, by Capacity Open Lot, by Capacity
Item and Units 500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000
Work alley, type work alley dirt concrete concrete dirt stabilized stabilized
Work alley width 10 10 10 10 10 10
Type of shade Saran cloth, metal posts 60 ft. apart Saran cloth, metal posts 60 ft. apart
Shade width (ft.) 30 30 30 24 24 24
Shade sq. ft./animal 25 23 23 24 24 24
Office (sq. ft.) 1,000 1,200 1,000 1,200
Corn storage capacity (tons)1 280 1,400 2,800 280 1,400 2,800
Corn storage capacity (days at 90%
feedlot fill) 60 30 30 60 30 30
Total silage capacity (tons) 760 7,560 15,120 760 7.560 15,120
Capacity as a pct. of total annual silage 66 percent
needs
Silage facility
Floor (type) 4" concrete (3,000 lb. mix) with 6.10-10 reinforcing wire
Wall (type) 2" x 6" dressed tongue-in-groove lumber
Length (ft.) 108 440 624 108 440 624
Width (ft.) 40 70 100 40 70 100
Depth (average) (ft.) 10 14 14 10 14 14
Density (cu. ft./ton) 57.1428
Apron length (ft.) 20
Distance between posts (ft.) 6
1. 56 lbs. per bu.




TO LAGOON
/
/ ...<~~--- -FEED ALLEY --'
NFEED EED BF UNK LUSH
WATER
FROM
LAGOON
TYP PEN 24'
00 SLOPE FLOOR a FLUMES
10" FUMES4% TOWARD COLLECTOR TROUGH
__ ____ A BOX
COLLECTORS
TROUGH
I TYP TER TROUGH
WORK ALLEY
Figure 3. Plan view of flume floor.




FEED BUNK
WATER TROUGH TYPICAL
SLOPE 4%
-W1 ---- ---- *
4!-O" 8'-8" 8 -8" 8'-8" .4
10
2 4
I f II l i
I0
2 DETAIL OF SEMICIRCULAR FLUSH GUTTER
WITH OPTIONAL METAL COVER Figure 4. Cross section of flume floor.




STABILIZED WORK ROAD
- DRAINAGE SALE
k 160' PEN WIDTH
I 24 WIDE SARAN SHADE CLOTH / I
II \CONTINUOUS THRU PENS /
_I _____________________________I k/
\ /
/
FENCE LINE
,, / WATERING TANK
Z/
(L
,, /
V
,_ 10' CONCRETE APRO
--- -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 section 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 ditches 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.
10




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, 111. These physical and legal constraints narrow the alternatives available to a feedlot operatorlat any given location, and will influence 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 lowmoisture manure cannot be expected. Second, intense solar radiation, combined with high humidity, makes shading and good air circulation necessary for high animal productivity. Further, it is important to note that mild winter temperatures result in continuous biological activity in manure, and also allow for year-long landspreading 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 experience in Florida with reuse of waste water, three alternative schemes have been evaluated. Table 2 shows a capital cost comparison 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 standards [2].
Scheme 2: Flush flow to a concrete settling chamber, with settled 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).
11




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, reseeding, 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 included 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 [241. This alternative is being investigated for use in Florida, but present data are not sufficient to report in, this bulletin. Prospective 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 offset 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 expensive 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 proper12




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.
Capacity (Head)
Item 500 5,000 10,000
------------------------ dollars ........................
Excavation cost1 10,000 80,000 160,000
Field distribution system2 960 4,400 8,800
Pipe from lot to screen3 500 2,800 4,200
Screen pump4 1,000 3,500 5,000
Solids separation screen,
nonmoving5 7,500 15,000 30,000
Screen mounting6 2,000 3,000 5,000
Sump7 330 1,600 3,100
Lagoon pump" 1,400 4,500 7,100
Flush return pump & pipe9 2,800 10,700 16,000
Other 1,000 5,000 8,000
TOTAL 27,490 130,500 247,200
1. 10,000 cu. yds. a $1.00; 100,000 yds. @ $0.80 (highly site dependent)
2. Gravity flow system to seepage ditches. Eight, 37 and 73 acres are utilized by
the seepage system. The installation cost is $120 per acre.
3. PVC 6 or 8 inch. (Lengths highly site dependent)
4. Pump to lift solids above separating screen.
5. Number required is 1, 2, and 4 at $7,500 each.
6. Concrete or treated wood base.
7. Earthen receiving sump below screen calculated at $0.90 per yard.
8. Submerged pump in sump for transfer of waste water to lagoon. 9. Centrifugal pump and pipe for transfer of flush water back to lot.
13




FRESH WATER 10% OF FLOW
WELL
FLUME FLOOR"->
WASTE FLOW
RETURN FLOW 90% OF FLUSH
-' $'.NAEROBIC LAGOON, .
"' SIZED FOR TOTAL WASTE
PASTURE OVERFLOW
OR SILAGE .' OVERFLOW
Figure 6. Scheme 1: Total waste to lagoon, return lagoon water.
14




FRESH WATER
10% OF FLOW
/ "FLUME FLOOR i
90% OF FLUSH
- --'-'WASTE FLOW
/ ONAN EROBIC LAG
SIZED FOR TOTAL WASTE SETTLING CHAMBER
SOLIDS AND LIQUIDS >.
PUMPED FROM BOTTOM'. ..
TO ANAEROBIC LAGOON ::'.-.
PASTURE 1AY OVERFLOW
OR SLAG OVERFLOW
Figure 7. Scheme 2: Waste to settling pond, return flow from settling
pond, all solids to lagoon.
15




FRESH WATER
10% OF FLOW
W ELL ,,,,
FLUME FLOOR RETURN FLOW' 90%1/ OF FLUSF~
'WASTE FLOW
LIQUID WASTE
SCREENS
AEROBIC LAGOON .S E
SCREENED
SIZED FOR 50%
II SOLIDS
..OF WASTE 'frSI
SETTLING PO LIQUID PUMPED FROM
BOTTOM TO ANAEROBIC LAGOON
PASTURE HAY OVERFLOW
OR SILAGE- OVERFLOW,.,
Figure 8. Scheme 3: Waste flow over screens, retrurn flow from settling
pond, 50% of waste load to lagoon.
16




ty except as a result of rainfall events exceeding the 24-hourduration, 215-year-frequency storm [6, 111. 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 [241.
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 pond 2 $ 5,510 $24,300 $ 48,600
Pumps to empty detention
pond 3 $ 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 detention 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:
17




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, including 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-perminute 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.
18




Feed Rations, Storage, and Delivery
A ration must be projected as a guide for determining the investment 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 ingredients, 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.
19




Table 5. Feed consumption for two types of rations.
Ingredient Intake Intake 500 Head Capacity 5,000 Head Capacity 10,000 Head Capacity
as Fed Daily 134 days Daily' Annual2 Daily' Annua2 Daily' Annua2
-- percent----------- ------------------------------------- pounds ------------------------------------------------Ration "A" corn silage and cane molasses
Ground shelled corn 45 13.68 1,833 824,850 2,251,841 8,248,500 22,518,405 16,497,000 45,036,810 Corn silage 40 12.16 1,629 733,050 2,001,227 7,330,500 20,012,265 14,661,000 40,024,530
Cane molasses 10 3.04 408 183,600 501,228 1,836,000 5,012,280 3,672,090 10,024,560
650/ protein-mineral 5 1.52 204 91,800 250,614 918,000 2,506,140 1,836,000 5,012,280
vit. A. supp.
Total 100 30.40 4,074 1,833,330 5,004,909 18,333,000 50,049,090 36,666,000 100,098,180
Tons corn silage 367 1001 3,665 10,006 7,331 20,012
Tons corn silage x 1.123 411 1,121 4,105 11,207 8,210 22,414
Cu. ft. storage needed 23,486 64,057 234,571 640,399 469,142 ,1,280,799
(57.1428 cu. ft. ton)
Ration "B" corn silage, citrus pulp and cane molasses
Ground shelled corn 30 9.24 1,238 557,100 1,520,883 5,571,000 15,208,830 11,142,000 30,417,660 Citrus pulp 14 4.31 578 260,100 710,073 2,601,000 7,100,730 5,202,000 14,201,460
Corn silage 40 12.32 1,650 742,500 2,027,025 7,425,000 20,270,250 14,850,000 40,540,500
Cane molasses 10 3.08 413 185,850 507,371 1,858,500 5,073,705 3,717,000 10,417,410
65%/ protein-minderal 6 1.85 248 111,600 304,668 1,116,000 3,046,680 2,232,000 6,093,360
vit. A. supp.
Total 100 30.80 4,127 185,715 5,070,020 18,571,500 50,700,195 37,143,000 101,400,390
Tons corn silage 371 1,014 3,713 10,135 7,425 20,270
Tons corn silage x 1.12 3 416 1,136 4,159 11,351 8,316 22,702
Cu. ft. storage needed 23,771 64,914 ,657 648,628 475,200 1,297,256
(57.1428 cu. ft. ton)
1. Calculated at 90% of capacity.
2. Based on a 2.73 turnaround at 90% of capacity.




Table 6. Land requirements.
Lot Capacity (Head)
Item
500 5,000 10,000
----- ------------------------ acres -------------- --------------Flume type system
Supporting facilities 3 10 15
Pen facilities 1 5 10
Lagoon 3 12 24
Subtotal 7 27 49
Extra 1 3 6
TOTAL 8 30 55
Open dirt lot
Supporting facilities 3 10 15
Pen facilities 6 28 56
Sediment basins and
detention pond 2 10 16
Subtotal 11 48 87
Extra 2 7 13
TOTAL 13 55 100
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 (Appendix 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 inflation.
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,
21




Table 7. Investment, flume type system, 1979*.
Total Cost by Size of Lot Cost per Head by Size of Lot
Item 500 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 troughs 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 connections2 700 7,000 14,000 1.40 1.40 1.40
Survey & site engineering3 1,500 3,000 4,000 3.00 0.60 0.40
Building permits4 100 500 750 0.20 0.10 0.07
Site preparation5 2,400 20,000 40,000 4.80 4.00 4.00
Cattle working area6 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. service8 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)
Item Total 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 building" 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
Well2 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 $65, $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) provide 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.
24




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 cattle 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 investment cost of the larger operation is about half that of the
01
0 0
DIRT LOT
0- '
a
81
ZFLUME FLO-~
W
S8
500 5,000 10,000
CAPACITY (HEAD)
Figure 9. Turn-key investment cost per head of capacity.
25




Table 8. Investment, dirt open-lot type system, 1979.*
Total Cost by Size of Lot Cost per head by Size of Lot
item 500 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 troughs"0 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 connections2 75 750 1,500 0.15 0.15 0.15
Survey & site engineering3 1,500 3,000 4,000 3.00 0.60 0.40
Building permits'4 100 500 750 0.20 0.10 0.07
Site preparation5 2,400 20,000 40,000 4.80 4.00 4.00
Cattle working area6 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 & elect. service' 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 Cost per Head by Size of Lot
Item 500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000
..........-- ...............-------------------------------... dollars ------------------------------------------------ -----Supporting facilities & equip.
Office building19 25,000 30,000 5.00 3.00
All weather access roads20 11,556 19,556 30,222 23.11 3.91 3.02
Silage facility2' 8,405 42,014 24,028 16.81 8.40 2.40
Other storage & mixing equip.22 11,800 73,300 115,300 23.60 14.66 11.53
Scale23 6,000 27,500 27,500 12.00 5.50 2.75
Land24 13,000 55,000 100,000 26.00 11.00 10.00
Well25 3,500 14,000 14,000 7.00 2.80 1.40
Rolling stock26 72,500 188,000 339,000 145.00 37.60 33.90
Perimeter fence27 1,445 3,262 4,380 2.89 0.65 0.44
Contingency & misc. equip.28 6,000 60,000 120,000 12.00 12.00 12.00
Subtotal 134,206 507,632 804,430 268.41 101.52 80.44
Accumulated total 243,054 982,807 1,722,438 486.11 196.56 172.24
Waste management29 12,880 59,140 105,300 25.76 11.83 10.53
Accumulated total 255,934 1,041,947 1,827,738 511.87 208.39 182.77
Construction management3 10,000 90,000 150,000 20.00 18.00 15.00
GRAND TOTAL 265,934 1,131,947 1,977,738 531.87 226.39 197.77
*See Appendix 3 for footnotes.




Table. 9. Summary of total and per unit investment costs for flume and open-lot system, 1979.
Itm-Flume Lot -Dirt Open-Lot
Itm500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000
--------------------------------------------------- dollars ---------------------------------------------------Total investment
Feeding facilities 63,578 451,165 872,191 108,848 475,175 918,008
Supporting facilities 122,843 403,243 661,142 134,206 507,632 804,430
Waste management 27,490 130,500 247,200 12,880 59,140 105,300
Subtotal 213,911 984,908 1,780,533 255,934 1,041,947 1,827,736
Construction mgt. 10,000 90,000 150,000 10,000 90,000 150,000
00223,911 1,074,908 1,930,533 265,934 1,131,947 1,977,738
Investment per head of capacity
Feeding facilities 127 90 87 218 95 92
Supporting facilities 246 81 66 268 102 80
Waste management 55 26 25 26 12 11
Subtotal 428 197 178 512 209 183
Construction mgt. 20 18 15 20 18 15
TOTAL 448 215 193 532 227 198




smaller one. The important point is that the greatest savings are obtained by moving to a larger operation rather than to a different type of facility. There are only minor economies of size to be obtained by moving from the 5,000-head unit to the 10,000-head facility.
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 functions 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 considered 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 functions taken over by a hired manager. A hired manager is recommended 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 functions 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 percent of capacity. Therefore, two different levels of feedlot use are evaluated, 90 percent of capacity (on a one-time basis) and 60 percent 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 percent of capacity. Thus, these two percentages can be considered high and low boundaries of costs and returns.
29




500-Head Feedlot 5,000-Head Feedlot 10,000-Head Feedlot
Owner operator (1) [ Ownpe operator (1) Owner operator (1)
Manager (1) 1
Feed Superintendent (1)
fHired laborers for Feed truck drivers (2) Feed truck drivers (3)
feed delivery, maintenance, and cowboy (2)
. Foreman-cowboy (1) Foreman-cowboy (1)
i1 I
Cowboys (4) Cowboys (8)
Mechanics (3) Mechanics (3)
Note: Structure for flume lot in solid Pe maintenance (2) Pen maintenance (4) I
line boxes. Dirt lot includes all per- maintenance (2) P
sonnel in solid line boxes plus those LL ------
in broken line boxes. Number in parentheses indicates the number Office clerk (1) Office clerk (1)
of each type employee needed.




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 reluctant 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 different 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 described 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 16,38Q 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.
31




Table 10. Calculation of turnaround.
Percent of
Lot Population Weight Classes Total Lot Average
Weight Weight Percent Percent Population Daily Total Weighted Annual
in out Steers Heifers in Class Gain' Days Gain Time2 Turnaround3
lbs. lbs. lbs. lots per year
300 500 10 90 15 1.80 120 18.0
400 700 20 80 20 2.40 125 31.2
600 975 80 20 25 2.65 142 35.5
700 1,050 80 20 35 2.50 140 49.0
Total 100 133.7 2.73
1. Includes death loss
2. Percent in class times total days
3. 365 days 133.7 = 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 circulation, 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
t- 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 [281. 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 personnel 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 percent 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].
34




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, versus $222,000 for the dirt open-lot type system (Table 13 and Appendix 5). Utilities are more expensive in the flume lot operation because a large amount of waste water is recirculated from the settling 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 capacity 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 percent 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
35




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
c Utilities5 6,780 3,072 6,102 2,304
Maintenance and repair5 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'0 600 600 600 600
Legal, bookkeeping, and audit" 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600
Nutrition & vet. consulting12 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
C Utilities5 28,272 8,160 25,445 6,120
Maintenance and repair 24,803 35,988 18,602 26,991
Office and supplies7 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Gas and oils 37,608 60,394 28,206 45,296
Advertising, dues, subscriptions9 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Travel and entertainment0 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Legal, bookkeeping and audit11 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700
Nutrition and consulting2 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700
County taxes3 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
- .- .----- .----- .----- .- .--- .---- ..----- .------------------ d o lla rs ------------------------------------ ---- -- -----------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
, Utilities 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 entertainment0 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, 19791.
90 Percent of Capacity 60 Percent of Capacity
Flume Open-lot Flume Open-lot
Expense 500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000 500 5,000 10,000
. .. . . . .. . .--. . . . . . . . . . ..-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - d o l l a r s - - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -Salaries and wages 21.48 5.27 4.84 21.48 6.44 6.01 32.23 7.91 7.25 32.23 8.70 9.01
FICA, insurance and other 3.22 0.79 0.72 3.22 0.97 0.90 4.84 1.19 1.09 4.84 1.31 1.35
Property insurance 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01
Telephone and market news 1.22 0.24 0.20 1.22 0.24 0.20 1.83 0.37 0.31 1.83 0.37 0.31
co Utilities 5.52 2.30 2.26 2.50 0.66 0.60 7.45 3.10 3.05 2.81 0.75 0.68
C Maintenance and repair 5.37 2.02 1.96 6.43 2.93 2.87 6.04 2.27 2.20 7.24 3.29 3.23
Office and supplies 0.16 0.10 0.07 0.16 0.10 0.07 0.24 0.15 0.11 0.24 0.15 0.11
Gas and oil 5.46 3.06 3.06 6.33 4.92 4.91 6.15 3.44 3.45 7.13 5.53 5.53
Advertising, dues, subscriptions 0.33 0.12 0.08 0.33 0.12 0.08 0.49 0.18 0.12 0.49 0.18 0.12
Travel and entertainment 0.49 0.24 0.16 0.49 0.24 0.16 0.73 0.37 0.24 0.73 0.37 0.24
Legal, bookkeeping and audit 4.56 0.14 0.09 4.56 0.14 0.09 6.84 0.21 0.13 6.84 0.21 0.13
Nutrition and consulting 0.24 0.22 0.15 0.24 0.22 0.15 0.37 0.33 0.22 0.37 0.33 0.22
County taxes 0.63 0.44 0.43 1.07 0.46 0.45 0.94 0.66 0.64 1.60 0.69 0.67
Miscellaneous 0.61 0.61 0.46 0.61 0.61 0.46 0.92 0.92 0.69 0.92 0.91 0.69
TOTAL 49.30 15.56 14.49 48.65 18.06 16.96 69.09 21.11 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.




owners to be constantly attempting to operate at a higher level of capacity. Moving to a lower operating level with the flume lot increases 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 advan0
1,
01
01
,.\

0
4
T o \ 60 PERCENT OF CAPACITY
U1
IL
8 \ ,--- ----------o\
90 PERCENT OF CAPACITY
-I I5 00 5,00 10 I,000
CAPACITY (HEAD)
Figure 11. Operating cost per head on flume floor at 60% and 90% of
capacity, 1979.
40




tage of operating at least a 5,000-head unit is readily apparent. The graph also clearly demonstrates that economies of size are more important in cost reduction than is operation at a higher level of capacity.
Replacement Requirements
Periodic replacement of capital cost items will be necessary during the operating life of a feedlot. For this study, 15 years of operation, followed by a salvage estimate, are used to develop the investment 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 1 5-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 divided 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 10,0 00-head flume lot operating at 90 percent. Operating expenses account for about 60 to 65 percent of feedlot expenses. The cost relationship 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.
41




Table 16. Technical specifications for calculation of replacement cost by year, flume 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 Unit1 Depreciation Cost
hours hours dollars dollars
500 Head
Feed wagon 730 1 730 9,000 5 1,800
Stock truck 730 1 730 9,000 5 1,800
Tractor 1,095 1 1,095 40,000 7 5,714
Saran shade 13,800 sq. ft. 0.80 3 3,680
Pumps continuous2 12,700 3 4,233
Total 17,227
5,000 Head
Feed trucks 1,460 2 2,920 15,000 5 6,000
Stock truck 730 1 730 9,000 5 1,800
Tractor 2,190 1 2,190 40,000 3 13,333
Pickup truck 1,460 1 1,460 5,000 3 1,667
Saran shade 115,200 0.80 3 30,720
Pumps continuous2 29,700 3 9,900
Total 63,420
(continued)




Table 16 (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 2,190 2 4,380 40,000 3 26,667
~' Pickup trucks 1,460 2 2,920 5,000 3 3,333
Saran shade 230,400 0.80 3 61,440
Pumps contin uous2 50,700 3 16,900
Total 123,340
1. reed 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.




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 730 1 730 9,000 5 1,800
Stock truck 730 1 730 9,000 5 1,800
Tractor 1,385 1 1,385 40,000 5 8,000
t. Saran shade 26,880 sq. ft. 0.80 3 7,167
'4 Pumps 400 500 6 83
Total 18,850
5,000 Head
Feed trucks 1,460 2 2,920 15,000 5 6,000
Stock truck 730 1 730 9,000 5 1,800
Tractors 2,062 2 4,125 40,000 4 20,000
Pickup truck 1,460 1 1,460 5,000 3 1,667
Dump truck 1,548 1 1,548 15,000 3 5,000
Saran shade 122,880 0.80 3 32,767
Pumps 400 3,000 6 5,000
Total 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
1b 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 -$107000 = $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.
Size of Lot Replacement Cost by Year' Total Salvage
and temCost over Value
an tm1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 Yr. Year 15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------d llas---do lla rs----------------- ------------ --------------------------- ------500 Head
Feed Wagon 9,000 9,000 2,000
Stock truck 9,000 9,000 4,000
Tractor 40,000 40,000 30,000
Saran shade 11,040 11,040 11,040 11,040 0
Pumps 12,700 ____ 12,700 12,700 -- 12,700 ____ ____0
Total 0 0 0 23,740 0 18,000 23,740 40,000 0 23,740 18,000 0 23,740 0 40,000 210,960 36,000
5,000 Head
Feed trucks 30,000 30,000 20,000
S Stock truck 9,000 9,000 3,000
Tractors 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 10,000
Pickup truck 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 1,000
Saran shade 92,160 92,160 92,160 92,160 0
Pumps ---29,700 ___ 29,700 29,700 ___ 29,700 ____ ____0
Total 0 0 0 166,860 0 39,000 166,860 0 0 166,860 -39,000 0 166,860 0 0 745,440 34,000
10,000 Head
Feed trucks 60,000 60,000 40,000
Stock truck 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 3,000
Tractors 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 20,000
Pickup trucks 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 2,000
Saran shade 184,320 184,320 184,320 184,320 0
Pumps 50,700 ___ 50,700 50,700 ___ 50,700 ____ ____0
Total 0 0 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 hou re a e-dumD




Size of Lot Replacement Cost by Year' Total Salvage
ard Item Cost over Value
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1415 15 Yr. Year 15
................................................................................................-d o laa rs ......d o....la r...............................................................................- .
500 Head
2,000
Feed Wagon 9,000 9,000 4,000
Stock truck 9,000 9,000 15,000
Tractor 40,000 40,000 0
Saran shade 21,500 21,500 21,500 21,500 0
Pumps 500 500 0
Total 0 0 0 21,500 0 58,000 22,000 0 0 21,500 58,000 0 22,000 0 0 203,000 21,000
5,000 Head
Feed trucks 30,000 30,000 20,000
Stock truck 9,000 9,000 3,000
Tractors 80,000 80,000 80,000 30,000
Pickup truck 5,000 5,000 5,000 50,000 1,000
Dump truck 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 5,000
Saran shade 98,300 98,300 98,300 98,300 0
Pumps 3,000 3,000 0
Total 0 0 0 118,300 80,000 39,000 121,300 0 80,000 118,300 39,000 0 201,300 0 0 797,200 59,000
10,000 Head
Feed trucks 60,000 60,000 40,000
Stock truck 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 6,000
Tractors 160,000 160,000 160,000 60,000
Pickup truck 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 2,000
Dump truck 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 10,000
Saran shade 196,600 196,600 196,600 196,600 0
Pumps 4,500 4,500 0
Total 0 0 0 245,600 160,000 60,000 250,100 0 160,000 245,600 60,000 0 410,100 0 0 1,591,400 118,000
1. Replace feed truck and tractor at 7,500 hours, replace pickup stock truck and feed wagon (500 head lot) at 4,000 hours, replace dump
truck at 5,000 hours. Salvage for dump is $5,000. New is $15,000. See technical specifications in Table 17.




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 Cost Per Head Fed 4
Equipment Equipment
Feedlot Capacity Initial replacement Operating Initial replacement Operating
and Type of Lot investment' cost2 expenses3 Total investment cost expenses Total
- --------------------------------- ------------------------- dollars----------------------------------------------------------90 percent of capacity
500 Head
Flume 29,438 14,064 60,591 104,093 24 11 49 84
Dirt open-lot 34,962 13,533 59,796 108,291 28 11 49 88
5,000 Head
Flume 141,318 49,696 191,299 382,313 12 4 15 31
Dirt open-lot 148,817 53,147 222,006 423,970 12 4 18 34
k 10,000 Head
00 Flume 253,807 97,072 355,964 706,843 10 4 15 29
Dirt open-lot 260,013 106,093 416,790 782,896 11 4 17 32
60 percent of capacity
500 Head
Flume 29,438 14,064 56,584 100,086 36 17 69 122
Dirt open-lot 34,962 13,533 55,106 103,601 43 17 67 127
5,000 Head
Flume 141,318 49,696 172,869 363,883 17 6 21 44
Dirt open-lot 148,817 53,147 186,763 388,727 18 6 23 47
10,000 Head
Flume 253,807 97,072 319,583 670,462 16 6 19 41
Dirt open-lot 260,013 106,093 365,286 731,392 16 7 22 45
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.




Economic Comparison of the Two Systems
This section provides a final evaluation of the flume and dirt openlot 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\\
X
01
WO.
a: \\t DIRT LOT
a
o.. -0).... ..
U FLUME FLOOR
0

0.
-I I. 1500 5,000 10,000
CAPACITY (HEAD)
Figure 12. Total feedlot cost per head fed, flume floor and dirt open lots
at 90% of capacity, 1979.
49




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 combined 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 comparable 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 projects 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 maj or 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 percent 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
50




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 1,074,908 0 191,299 1,266,207 .909 1,150,982
2 0 191,299 191,299 .826 158,013
3 0 191,299 191,299 .751 143,666
4 166,860 191,299 358,159 .683 244,623
5 0 191,299 191,299 .621 118,797
6 39,000 191,299 230,299 .564 129,889
7 166,860 191,299 358,159 .513 1183,736
8 0 191,299 191,299 .467 89,337
9 0 191,299 191,299 .424 81,111
10 166,860 191,299 358,159 .386 138,249
11 39,000 191,200 230,299 .350 80,605
12 0 191,299 191,299 .319 61,024
13 166,860 191,299 358,159 .290 103,866
14 0 191,299 191,299 .263 50,312
15 0 191,299 191,299 .239
Minus salvage' 70,295 34,000 191,299 104,295 .239 -24,927
2,755,003
1. Calculation of salvage value:
Percent of
Item original cost Depreciated cost
dollars
Bunks 25 6,720
Office 50 12,500
Storage & Mix. 25 18,325
Scale 10 2,750
Land 100 30,000
TOTAL 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
CA 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
dollars
Bunks 25 8,960
Off ice 50 12,500
Storage & Mix. 25 18,325
Scale 10 2,750
Land 100 50,000




Table 23. Energy comparison for flume and dirt open-lot systems, 1979.
LotSize andType ____500 5,000 10,000
Item Flume Open-lot Flume Open-lot Flume Open-lot
- ---------------------------------- dollars-----------------------------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, replacement, 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 additional advantage in the 10,000-head unit. For example, when operating 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, 301. 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 advantageous, 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).
53




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 University, PM-602, January 1975.
[ 4] Carter, H. 0., G. W. Dean, and P. H. Maxwell. Economics of Cattle Feeding on Imperial Valley Field Crop Farms. Bulletin 813, California Agricultural Experiment Station, May 1965.
1 51 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.
1111 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. US. FedBeef Production Costs, 1976-77 and Industry Structure. AER 424,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 1979.
[14] 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 Productior from Live
stock Manure, Liberal, Kansas, February 15, 1978.
[16] Hunter, Elmer C. and Patrick Madden. Economies of Size for Specialized Beef Feedlots in Colorado. AER 91, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, May 1966.
54




1171 Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Agricultural Growth in an
Urban Age. University of Florida, February 1975, pp. 125-28.
[181 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.
[191 King, Gordon A. Economies of Scale in Large Commercial Feedlots.
Gianini Foundation Researoh Report No. 251, California Agricultural Experiment Station, March 1962.
[201 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.
122] 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.
[231 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.
55




56




APPENDICES
57




APPENDIX 1
Investment Costs
Unit investment costs, flume and dirt open-lot system by size of lot, 1979.
Same
Costs Different Costs
Item All Three 500 5,000 10,000
Sizes head head head
------------------- dollars ------------------Concrete and concrete placement
Concrete (cu. yd., 2500-lb test) 33.00
Labor, skilled (hr.) 8.00
Labor, unskilled (hr.) 4.00
Labor, concrete placement (cu. yd.) 2.40 Labor, forming (cu. yd.) 1.27
Materials, forming (cu. yd.) 2.65
Labor plus materials, concrete
placement (cu. yd.) 6.32
Total cost (cu. yd.) 39.32
Reinforcing wire (sq. ft.)
(6-10-10 wire) 0.056
Asphalt (sq. yd.) 2.50 2.50
Storage facilities
Galvanized steel grain bins
(5000-bu. capacity with auger)
(ea.) 5,000
Gas heating element for grain
bins (ea.) 1,800
25-ton supplement tank 2,000 2,000
2-ton horizontal batch mixer 10,000
500 bu./hr. grain rolling mill 5,000 5,000
10,000-gal. molasses tank 2,500 2,500
Galvanized steel grain bins
(25,000 bu. capacity with auger)
(ea.) 25,000 25,000
4-ton horizontal batch mixer 15,000
1,000-gal. molasses tank 1,000
Rolling stock
5,000-lb. tractor drawn batch mixer 10,500
4-wheel drive tractor (200 h.p.) 50,000
11/2-ton stock truck 12,000
Mixing trucks 25,000 25,000
Pickup truck 6,000 6,000
Well (complete with all related
equip., tanks, motors, etc.)
4-inch 3,500
6-inch 7,000 7,000
(continued)
58




Same
Costs Different Costs
Item All Three 500 5,000 10,000
Sizes head head head
--------------------- dollars ---------Perimeter fence
Line posts (treated) 3.00
Corner posts (treated) 10.00
Barb wire (1,320-ft. roll) 18.00
Woven wire (330-ft. roll) 60.00
Cost per mile 2,330
Water pipe PVC (ft.)
3/4 inch 0.15 0.14 0.14
1 inch 0.20 0.19 0.19
11/2 inch 0.29 0.28 0.28
2 inch 0.40 0.38 0.38
Cattle working facilities
Load-out (ea.) 2,800
Chute with 3 phase motor (ea.) 3,700 3,900 3,900
Tin roof (sq. ft.) 2.50
Half circle ahd wedge alley 5,900 5,900
Dipping vat with 3 phase motor 4,900 4,900
Office building (sq. ft.) 25.00 25.00
Security lights 35.00
Silage facility
Posts and braces
20-ft. long posts x 8 in. (ea.) 35.00 18-ft. braces x 8 in. (ea.) 30.00
14-ft. short posts x 8 in. (ea.) 14.50 6-ft. butt posts x 8 in. (ea.) 4.00
Boards for walls (1,000 bd. ft.) 485
Saran shade, installed (sq. ft.) 1.75
Metal shade, installed (sq. ft.) 2.50 2.50
Dirt moving (cu. yd.) 1.20 1.00 1.00
Land (acre) 1,000
Contingency (hd.) 12.00
Construction mgt. (hd.) 20.00 18.00 15.00
Bunks (lineal ft.) 9.00 7.00 7.00
Cable over bunks (lineal ft.) 0.15
Fence & gates, 5-rail sucker rod
(ft. of fence) 8.75 7.50 7.50
Water troughs, stainless steel (ea.) 225.00 Stabilizing material for work alley
(sq. yd.) 1.00
Stabilizing material for all weather
access roads (sq. yd.) 2.00
59




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 concrete) = 189 cu. yd. of concrete (I 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 raw, 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.
60




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
$0.0561sq. 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 ydls. 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 arounds 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.
61




9. Pen fences and gates 500 Head
420 plus 288 ft. of partition = 708 ft., times $8.75 (which includes a cost tor
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 teed 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 1/2-inch PVC (includes 300 ft. to lot f rom 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 /-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 /-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.
62




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
Root, 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 ff. 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 for other expenses =$3,700.
10,000 Head
36 security lights = $1,260, plus $4,000 for other expenses $5,260.
19. Offlice building
500 Head
No office.
5,000 Head
1,000 at $251sq. 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.
63




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/i 00 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-ingroove 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 requirements.
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 atotal of: $1,188 Braces: 18 (18ft.) at $30each = $ 540 Braces: 24 (14ft.) at $14.50 each = $ 348
Butt
posts: 42 (6 ft.) at$4.00 each $ 168 Subtotal: $2,244
64




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.
person = 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(6ft.)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.
65




Then 24,360 times $485 per 1000 board ft. $11,815 plus labor i,ooo
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 sate 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 supplement 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 rations. Also needed are a 10,000 gal. molasses tank (with pump) at $2,500 (installed), 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.
66




5,000 Head
Convertible scale with steel cattle racks capable of weighing a whole semitrailer 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 11/2-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 1/2-ton stock truck at $12,000 and a pickup truck at $6,000 for a total of
$118,000.
67




10,000 Head
Three mixing trucks cost $75,000, plus 2 tractors for $100,000, a 1 '/?-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 vvire and treated pine posts every 12 feet.
Minimum
needed
Capacity for perfect Plus
head Acres square 25 percent Miles Cost
............. I ineal 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, respectively. Negotiable, depending upon amount of construction supervised.
APPENDIX 3 Footnotes to Table 8, Investment, Dirt Open-Lot Type System, 1979
11. 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.
68




10,000 Head
1,280 ft. times 5 work alleys = 64,000 sq. ft., divided by 9 =7,111 sq. ydls. 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 ff. =13,440, divided by
9 =1,493 ydls. at $1. 00 = $1,493.
5,000 Head
1,280 ft. times 12 ft. =15,360 sq. ft. per alley times 2 teed 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.
69




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.
6,000 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 1/2-inch PVC (includes 300 ft. from well to lot) at $0.29 = $440, plus seven /-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.
70




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.
71




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
72




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)
Cost
Flume Open
Item type lot
----------------- -------- ---- KWH/mo.-----------Well pumpage 870 100
Waste flow or pump in detention pond 5,710 20
Feed handling 3,080 3,080
Office & miscellaneous 1,000 1,000
Total KWH per month 10,660 4,200
------------------------ --------- dollars ------------Monthly cost of power at $0.05/KWH 533 210
Light rental (5 & 7 lights) 32 46
Total monthly cost 565 256
Total annual cost 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
Purchase Total Total Total
price Repair Cost per daily annual annual Item (each) coeffic. hour hours hours cost
per 1000
dollars dollars dollars dollars
Stock truck 12,000 0.03 0.36 2 730 263
Tractor 50,000 0.09 4.50 3 1,095 4,928
Subtotal 5,191
Total (A & B) 6,600
73




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 11)
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
---------------------.... .... dollIa rs.........----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
115 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 11), 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 bookkeeping 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 assum74




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 inventory. 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.
75




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
11/2 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
76




Open-Lot, Rolling Stock
Purchase Cost Total Total Total
price Repair per daily annual annual Item (each) coef fic. hour hours hours cost
per 1000
dollars dollars dollars dollars
Tractor
Scraping' 387
Loading
manure
& shaping
lot2 1,290
Loading f ill3 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 lb. Thus, there are 47 lb. produced 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 lb. times 4,500 head = 211,500 lb. 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.
'Loading 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.
4Oump 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.
77




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
'15 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 ot 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. Legai, bookkeeping and audit
Same for both types ot 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.
78




13. County taxes
90 percent of capacity
Flume type
Approximately $15.001$1000 on initial investment in feeding facilities, assuming 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 capacity. 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.
79




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
......------------- K w h/m o. ....... ...........
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.
80




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 capacity,
81




IF
F
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
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.