| |
Cow/Calf Sector Expansion
Alberta's beef cow herd has grown substantially in the last beef cycle. Continued expansion is dependent on the provincial supply of pasture and winter feed.
The 1991 Census data on acres of unimproved pasture, improved pasture, tame hay and alfalfa by soil landscape units were used to estimate grazing capacity (by animal unit month). Assuming conventional pasture management (minimal rotational grazing, minimal fertilization, and typical grass species), long-term sustainable stocking rates from Wroe et al. (1988) were used to calculate pasture capacity with some modifications to account for soil types, growing season moisture and native pasture types. Pasture capacity was estimated by animal unit months (AUM), the feed required from pasture to feed an animal unit (defined as a 1,000-pound beef cow/calf or equivalent) for a month. (See Appendix C for more details on the pasture capacity and demand calculations.)
Figure 10 shows overall pasture production by soil landscape unit. Hay aftermath was assumed to be a pasture resource after a harvest of first cut hay. However, some of the estimated pasture resource in the Peace River region is actually used for forage seed production or by alfalfa dehydration plants, rather than for pasture. Some pasture resources may be underestimated because the 1991 Census did not inventory pasture resources where rental of pasture was by animal unit (e.g. community pastures). In addition, grazing alfalfa and rotational grazing opportunities were not accounted for. Expansion opportunities are limited to improved pasture. According to Barry Adams, native range pastures are judged to be stocked at capacity.
Figure 11 shows the beef cow/calf pasture demand in 1993, assuming that herds were pastured near their home farmstead. However, actual pasture demand could be in a different soil landscape unit. For example, cows may be grazed on leased public pasture land or community pastures significant distances away from the home farmstead.
Figure 12 shows the difference between the estimated pasture capacity in 1991 and the estimated demand in 1993. While the data are from two different years, the 1991 Census data are the most detailed recent data available on pasture acres. The 1993 data are the most recent data available for the Alberta beef cow herd. Areas with negative AUMs are interpreted as having more cattle than pasture resources, assuming conventional pasture management. Areas with positive AUMs are interpreted as having some pasture resources above the 1993 demand.
Some areas have a considerable pasture deficit and may be at risk if drought or high hay prices put pressure on forage resources in those areas. The Counties of Beaver, Camrose, Flagstaff, east Stettler and Paintearth, and Special Area #4 have the most severe deficits. Significant deficits are also found in the County of Vermilion River, the County of Minburn, the M.D. of Wainwright and an area on the border of the County of Red Deer and the County of Mountain View.
Table 1 summarizes pasture availability versus demand. These estimates lead to the conclusion that provincial pasture capacity is slightly exceeded by the current livestock pasture demand at the provincial level. The maps show that regionally there may be significant imbalances, although these maps do not account for cattle in areas of pasture deficits that are moved to areas of pasture surplus for summer grazing.
Table 1. Provincial Summary of Pasture Availability versus Demand
| Pasture Type | Pasture Supply and Demand |
Subtotal (AUM) | Provincial Total (AUM) |
| Unimproved pasture |  | 5,237,500 |
| Grasslands | 4,395,800 | |
| Bush | 841,700 | |
| Improved pasture | | 5,982,000 |
| Hay aftermath | | 1,556,000 |
| Alfalfa aftermath | 597,600 | |
| Tame hay aftermath | 958,400 | |
| Provincial capacity (1991) | | 12,775,300 |
| 1993 Cow herd demand | | 11,860,600 |
| Capacity - demand | | 914,700 |
| Other livestock demand | | 1,317,800 |
The overall picture that emerges is that expansion of the beef cow/calf industry faces significant constraints from current pasture resources. Since the native pasture resources are already fully utilized, opportunities for herd expansion will be focused on increasing production from tame pasture. Tame pasture production could be increased by widespread adoption of practices currently used by top producers, such as rotational grazing, grazing alfalfa and fertilizing pastures.
The regions of pasture deficits are signals that current beef cow numbers are not sustainable in those regions if conventional pasture management is widespread. Drought or high hay prices could significantly pressure the cattle operations in these regions. Since these regions are also the heart of Alberta's cow/calf industry, improving tame pasture management needs to be a priority in these areas, not for herd expansion but to provide security to the growth that has already happened.
Figure 13 and Figure 14 offer some alternatives in winter feed resources for the Alberta beef cow herd. Feeding straw and chaff with the proper feed supplements may reduce hay requirements. Tame hay acres could be converted to high quality tame pasture, improving the province's pasture resource. The largest volumes of straw and chaff fortunately somewhat coincide with the highest densities of the beef herd and with many of the areas of pasture shortage.
The estimates of the tonnage of straw available for feeding have been reduced for conservation requirements to protect soils from erosion. However, other uses for straw, such as bedding and straw board, have not been subtracted from the tons of straw. Consequently, these tonnages represent the upper limit of straw available for feeding.
Feeding straw and chaff is common in north east Alberta but represents an under-used resource in north western and south central Alberta.
Feedlot Sector Expansion
Two sequences of maps show regional trends for opportunities and limits in developing 5,000- head backgrounding and 20,000-head finishing feedlots, respectively. The criteria for mapping these areas are detailed in Appendix C. While the criteria were developed for the provincial scale, they can also be used by feedlot operators in selecting potential sites at the local level.
Figures 15 to 19 show locations that satisfy the key criteria for locating a 5,000-head backgrounding lot. Figure 15 shows areas whose rural residence density meets the manure odour spacing guideline from the Code of Practice: for the Safe and Economic Handling of Manure (Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development 1995b). The guideline is not a regulation but represents how far away a rural neighbour would prefer to have a feedlot to minimize the odour nuisance. The code's odour spacing distance was modified to represent a typical density of rural residences that on average would meet the distance guideline. For a 5,000-head feedlot, this translates into a maximum of 36 occupied quarter sections per township. Figure 15 shows the density of rural residences in townships that are less than this maximum. Areas that are urban, have rural acreages or have intensive feeding operations typically exceed this criterion.
Figure 16 shows the townships that meet both odour and forage supply criteria. Feedlots require silage from local sources. The maximum haul distance for silage was assumed to be 6 miles. A 5000-head backgrounding feedlot would likely source its roughage from the township it is in. The average dryland silage yield was assumed to be 8 tons per acre (wet basis) or as 35% dry matter, 3 tons of dry matter per acre. Since roughage for backgrounding lots also includes grass hay and alfalfa, as well as silage from barley, oats and mixed grains, the data base query selected townships that had at least 14% of their land area in these crops.
Feedlots located outside irrigation districts or beyond economical pumping distances from permanently flowing rivers typically rely on ground water as their water source. Ground water sources and ground water information are limited for Alberta. The most reliable information comes from wells that have water rights licences under Alberta's Water Resources Act. Figure 17 adds well water supply to the selection criteria. This figure shows townships that meet the odour spacing and forage supply criteria and also have licensed wells with pumping rates equal to or greater than the rates required to supply a 5,000-head feedlot.
In irrigated areas, most feedlots are supplied with surface water delivered by irrigation districts, Water allocations are restricted in some districts and could cause some limitations. However, if water rights licences attached to a land parcel can have their specified use changed from irrigation to feedlot water supply, then the volumes originally allocated for irrigation are more than ample for the feedlot. For example, the water allocation for an irrigated quarter section is substantially more than the 76 acre-feet required by a 5,000-head feedlot.
Figure 18 shows the townships that meet the previous criteria and have well drained landscapes. Ideally the terrain should be naturally well drained to minimize landscaping costs because new feedlot construction requires pens, roads, ditches and catch basins to be constructed to grade so that pens stay dry. Pothole or hummocky terrain should be avoided.
Since Figure 18 shows the townships that satisfy all four criteria, it presents the 551 townships that could best support the development of 5,000-head backgrounding feedlots.
Figure 19 presents a summary of the townships that meet two or more of the selection criteria. Each township on this map could have potential feedlot sites. Townships that meet more of the key criteria (odour spacing, silage and water) are likely to have better development potential. However, local water supplies, silage production and landscape characteristics can all vary within a township. Consequently, Figure 19 does not identify feedlot opportunities for a specific township. However, it does represent regional opportunities and limits for 5,000-head feedlots and shows trends in siting opportunities.
Figures 20 to 24 show the same process for 20,000-head finishing feedlots. A 20,000-head feedlot requires greater distances for manure odour spacing than a 5,000-head feedlot. For a 20,000-head feedlot, the Code of Practice guidelines translates to a rural residence density of 19 or less occupied quarter sections in a township. Figure 20 shows that there are many townships in Alberta with rural residence densities greater than this maximum. It also illustrates why odour from conventional manure management is a major issue in livestock expansion and why the livestock feeding industry needs to adopt new technologies that reduce odour even in sparsely populated Alberta.
Based on conventional manure management, most areas where large finishing feedlots are located at present are not candidates for expansion. Lack of land for manure spreading is not the reason. Rural population densities and odour spacing limit the size of intensive feeding operations in these areas.
Silage supplies for a finishing feedlot typically focus on barley silage in Alberta. Oats and mixed grains also are silage options. Based on a 6-mile maximum haul, silage sources for a 20,000-head feedlot were assumed to be in the township where the feedlot is located and the two adjoining townships. Assuming typical dryland silage yields, just under seven sections of barley silage are needed for a 20,000-head feedlot, or approximately 6% of the land base in each of the three townships should be capable of producing annual silage crops. Figure 21 presents the areas that meet this criterion based on the 1991 Census data and also meet the manure odour spacing criterion.
Figures 22 and 23 add the local ground water supply and landscape criteria. Ground water sources are a significant constraint in selecting sites for 20,000-head feedlots. Assuming a minimum of four wells to supply water and surface storage to meet peak demand, a 20,000-head feedlot requires wells with pumping rates of 21 imperial gallons per minute. Restricting site selection to townships that have wells licensed under Alberta's Water Resources Act with these yields is conservative but justified based on the variability of ground water resources even within townships. Irrigation district water supply for 20,000-head feedlots follows the same scenario as described for the 5,000-head backgrounding feedlot. New licences may be restricted by current allocations. However, a half section of irrigated land has an allocated water volume substantially more than the 270 acre-feet required by a 20,000-head feedlot.
Figure 23 identifies the 63 townships that meet all four criteria: rural residence density, local silage supplies, ground water supply and terrain that minimizes landscaping costs. With one feedlot developed in each of these 63 townships, the finishing industry could expand by over 1 million head of capacity.
Figure 24 summarizes the selection process and maps areas where two or more of the selection criteria are met for the 20,000-head finishing feedlots. Since water supply is highly variable at the local level and not well represented in data bases, Figure 24 indicates where permanently flowing creeks, rivers or irrigation district canals may provide suitable water sources in place of ground water. Consequently, it shows overall regional opportunities for finishing feedlots in Alberta.
When compared to Figure 2, which shows current feedlot locations, Figure 24 suggests that areas where large feedlots are concentrated at present may not be the areas for additional growth, primarily because of the density of rural residences. However, the trend of new, expanding feedlots in east central and north east Alberta does match with the opportunities mapped in Figure 24. The opportunities of feed grain imports from Saskatchewan, local calves and low population densities are reasons for growth in these areas.
Site selection for feedlots includes more than the four factors mapped in these two series of maps. Location of packing plants, major highways and surface water sources need to be factored into regional opportunities and limits. No queries to the data bases account for these factors directly. However, the overlay maps in Appendix B provide this information and can be combined with the other maps in this report to assess regional trends.
Manure Issues for Cow/Calf and Feedlot Operations
Wintering sites for cow/calf operations
Manure runoff at snowmelt from cattle winter feeding sites on the banks of creeks, rivers and lakes can affect surface water quality. For example, Sosiak and Trew (1996) found that manure runoff from wintering sites at snowmelt was the principal source of over 30% of the annual phosphorus load to Pine Lake (near Red Deer). The lake's high phosphorus load was affecting water quality in the lake which raised concerns among lake users. Manure runoff also contributes to water quality problems related to taste, odour and water-borne parasites, increasing water treatment costs.
Manure runoff problems are not easily inventoried and mapped. Minor changes in feeding locations on land next to watercourses can stop manure runoff. Winter feeding management is much more significant than cattle numbers or landscape in controlling manure runoff impacts. The working group did not attempt to map wintering sites and water quality impacts. However, the Alberta Cattle Commission (1995) has conducted education on manure runoff management.
Manure spreading for feedlots
The land requirements for manure spreading, recommended by the Code of Practice, are very similar to the land requirements for annual silage production. (For example, the Code of Practice recommends that a 20,000-head feedlot have approximately 5.5 sections for manure spreading. Silage supply for a 20,000-head finishing lot requires 6.6 sections of land.) Therefore, spreading manure onto barley silage land at the recommended rates will satisfy the need for responsible nutrient cycling.
Manure management is not a land resource issue. Nor is it an issue of having land ready to receive manure. Silage land is usually available to receive feedlot manure when feedlot cleaning is done. Manure problems are management problems. Alberta has enough cropped land in the vicinity of feedlots to properly use manure as a natural fertilizer. Consequently, the manure load on land adjacent to feedlots was not mapped.
The contents of this page are no longer available.
|
|