The Role of Poultry Litter Handlers in Tennessee s Off-Farm Litter Market

Transcription

1 2005 Poultry Science Association, Inc. The Role of Poultry Litter Handlers in Tennessee s Off-Farm Litter Market W. M. Park,*,1 L. M. Warren,* R. K. Roberts,* and H. C. Goan *Department of Agricultural Economics, and Department of Animal Science, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee Primary Audience: Growers, Integrators, Policy Makers, Regulatory Agency Personnel SUMMARY Twelve poultry litter handlers were personally interviewed in 2001 regarding their role in the Tennessee off-farm litter market. The litter removed from growers farms by these handlers accounted for nearly one-quarter of the litter generated in the state. On average, these handlers cleaned 40 poultry houses, stored litter for 3 mo, and transported litter 25 mi to 18 different customers. These handlers charged $15.00/ton on average for land application of litter. Land application rates were highly consistent with nitrogen requirements of crops to which litter was applied but 3 to 6 times higher than phosphorus needs. These handlers were generally aware of how proposed confined animal feeding operations (CAFO) regulations might affect the industry and their businesses and were open to training programs leading to voluntary certification of litter handlers. Key words: poultry litter, land application, off-farm movement 2005 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14: DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM Poultry litter management has become an important water quality issue, largely due to increases over the past 2 decades in the average size of growers operations and the degree of geographical concentration. Concern has grown regarding the capacity of on-farm or nearby land to assimilate the nutrients contained in litter, particularly if land application rates are limited to avoid overapplication of phosphorus [1]. A substantial amount of research has been conducted on poultry litter management in recent years. A great deal of attention has been focused on the value of poultry litter for cropland application [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and as cattle feed [9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. Another set of studies has investigated the economic feasibility of transporting litter from surplus to deficit areas [14, 15, 16, 17, 18] and the use of litter for composting, pelletizing, or other value-added products [11, 19, 20, 21, 22]. Very little attention has been given to the role of poultry litter handlers; individuals who clean out poultry houses and transport litter for sale to other farmers or other users. Yet, these handlers are in a position to play an increasingly important role in poultry litter management. Goodwin et al. [23] have made a strong case for the role nonprofit, third-party enterprises could play in operating litter banks to facilitate off-farm litter movement. 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed: wpark@utk.edu.

2 PARK ET AL.: ROLE OF POULTRY LITTER HANDLERS 247 A recent survey of Tennessee growers found that nearly half of the litter generated in their operations was removed from the farm, with nearly half of that amount being removed by handlers [24]. Recent federal and state regulatory initiatives specifically address the role of handlers. The Environmental Protection Agency s revised regulations for confined animal feeding operations (CAFO) under the Clean Water Act became effective in December 2002 and require all poultry operations designated as CAFO to implement a nutrient management plan that meets specific requirements related to manure and soil testing, manure storage, land application, and record keeping. Operations considered large CAFO face additional requirements related to land application and transferring manure to other persons [25]. In Tennessee, the draft revision of CAFO regulations set to become effective May 1, 2004, requires growers with operations classified as Class II CAFO to keep records of how much litter is transferred to each third party. Moreover, these growers would be required to have any person receiving more than 100 tons of litter sign a form agreeing to meet certain conditions regarding handling and land application [26]. These federal and state regulations not only bring handlers under the regulatory umbrella but also may increase their role by placing stringent limitations on land application rates and thereby increasing the supply of poultry litter in the off-farm market. The research in this article is a first step in filling the literature gap relating to the role of handlers in the off-farm litter market. The specific objective was to document current activities, practices, and opinions of handlers in Tennessee for the benefit of all those interested in the poultry litter market. Broadly speaking, the research is intended to contribute toward cost-effective and environmentally sound poultry litter management. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data on the activities of poultry litter handlers in Tennessee were obtained through a personal interview survey conducted in the summer of 2001 [27]. A preliminary survey of growers provided 54 names of individuals considered by growers to be litter handlers [24]. Growers provided telephone numbers for some handlers. County extension agents, phone company information services, and the Internet were used in an attempt to obtain phone numbers for all 54 individuals. The names of individuals for whom phone numbers could not be obtained were eliminated from the list. Telephone calls were made to those individuals remaining on the list to determine if they met the basic criterion to be considered litter handlers, which was they must have sold litter to 1 or more third parties. Most individuals on the list were eliminated because they used the litter solely on their own farms, leaving 16 bona fide litter handlers. One refused to be interviewed, and 3 individuals could never be contacted. The other 12 litter handlers were interviewed in person or by telephone. Two of the 12 litter handlers were interviewed to pretest the questionnaire, and their responses were included in the study. Subsequent to the pretest, questions were added to obtain information about the number of years of experience cleaning out poultry houses, off-farm employment, types of machinery used for clean out, and the number of customers to whom litter was sold. Although repeated attempts were made, the 2 handlers in the pretest could not be recontacted to obtain responses to the additional questions. Several handlers gave ranges as responses to questions rather than point estimates. Midpoints of these ranges were used to calculate overall mean responses. Verifying responses by handlers was not possible. Thus, one must interpret with some caution results from questions with a right answer; for example, those about covering litter during transport or storage. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION General Characteristics of Handlers The surveyed litter handlers operated in 18 Tennessee counties: Bedford, Bradley, Clay, Coffee, Franklin, Giles, Grundy, Lawrence, Lincoln, Macon, Marion, McMinn, Moore, Obion, Overton, Pickett, Polk, and Weakley Counties. These litter handlers had been cleaning out poultry houses for an average of 6.0 yr, ranging from 1 to 28 yr. Seventy percent of the handlers had farming operations themselves, producing mostly poultry (60%) and

3 248 JAPR: Research Report TABLE 1. Poultry litter handler characteristics Range Number of Information requested Mean Minimum Maximum responses 1 Number of growers per litter handler Number of total houses per litter handler Number of broiler houses per litter handler Percentage of handlers using written contracts 8 12 Percentage of handlers doing full clean outs Percentage of handlers supplying new bedding material Distance bedding material hauled (mi) Percentage of handlers employing outside help beef cattle (50%). Twenty percent of the handlers worked off-farm, while 40% had family members who worked off-farm. Litter Clean Out and Bedding Material Information about clean out and bedding material provided by litter handlers is presented in Table 1. Litter handlers worked with an average of 16.8 growers, ranging from 1 to 75 growers. The average number of poultry houses per handler was 40.5, with a range of 3 to 150. Eighty-three percent of surveyed litter handlers cleaned out broiler houses exclusively, with an average of 29.5 broiler houses per handler, ranging from 3 to 125 houses per handler. The remaining handlers worked with breeders and layers. The information in Table 1 about the number of houses cleaned by litter handlers was combined with standard litter generation coefficients [28] and information on the average house capacity for broilers, breeders, and replacements from the preliminary grower survey [24] to derive an estimate of the total tons of litter handled. The estimated total tons of litter handled by the surveyed litter handlers was 54,182 tons or 23% of the estimated total litter generated by poultry growers in Tennessee. This estimate was slightly higher than the 49,281 tons of litter that growers said were removed from their farms by litter handlers. This difference is not surprising given that many of these handlers worked with more farms than those for which their names were listed on the grower survey. Furthermore, the actual percentage of litter handled was likely somewhat higher than the 23% reported above, since the actual population of litter handlers in Tennessee was probably higher than the 12 handlers identified by the growers. In addition, several of the original 54 individuals listed as litter handlers by growers could not be reached and may have met the criterion to be considered litter handlers. Nevertheless, the 10% difference in the 2 estimates was surprisingly small, given the aforementioned caveats. All litter handlers had agreements with growers to clean out their houses, but only 8% established written contracts (Table 1). The other 92% had simple verbal agreements. Handlers indicated that written contracts would become more important because of the new CAFO regulations. Forty-two percent of handlers did only full clean outs of poultry houses, normally once a year. The other 58% of handlers did some partial clean outs for the growers they served. After clean out, 42% of handlers provided new bedding material for the houses they cleaned. Of these 5 handlers, 2 handlers did so only sometimes, and 1 handler did so only if the grower specifically asks for it. The bedding material supplied was mostly sawdust, although 17% of handlers used wood shavings, rice hulls, or old litter. The handlers who used sawdust received it from local sawmills. Information from the survey was insufficient to calculate an average price for acquiring bedding material or selling it to growers. Reported prices for acquiring sawdust were $ for a 42-ft tractor-trailer load if the sawmill loaded it but no cost if the litter handler loaded it, $20.00 per 4-ton load, and $25.00 per 2-ton

4 PARK ET AL.: ROLE OF POULTRY LITTER HANDLERS 249 load. Reported prices for other bedding materials were $ per tractor-trailer load of rice hulls and $0.00 to $ per tractor-trailer load for wood shavings. Thirty-three percent of litter handlers charged growers for bedding material (4 of the 5 who provided it). Reported prices were $75.00 per 2-ton load, the cost of the material to the handler plus gas money, $ per load plus $45.00 extra to spread the bedding material in the poultry house, and $ to completely clean out a house and replace the bedding material. All litter handlers who supplied bedding material to growers indicated that they sometimes had difficulty obtaining bedding material. The main reason given for difficulty in obtaining bedding material was competition from nursery operations and other growers who obtain sawdust directly from sawmills, decreasing the availability of sawdust at the mills. One handler expressed the opinion that this competition has led some growers to start using old litter for bedding material. After cleaning off the wet litter, some growers are beginning to recycle old litter into other houses on their own farms. Bedding material was hauled by litter handlers an average of 34.4 mi, with a range from 2 to 90 mi. Handlers used several types of machinery to clean out poultry houses, including skidsteer loaders, front-end loaders, decaking machines, and litter-spreader trucks. Fifty-eight percent of handlers used skid-steer loaders, and 42% used front-end loaders. Forty-two percent of litter handlers used extra labor, with 25% hiring 1 or 2 full-time employees. The other employers hired part-time workers and paid them a dollar amount for each house they cleaned. Transportation, Storage, and Processing of Litter Survey information about litter transportation, storage, and processing is reported in Table 2. Only 7 of the handlers gave information about the number of customers to whom they sold litter. For those responding, the average number of customers per handler was 17.8, with a range of 1 to 60. Forty-two percent of handlers reported always having a customer for the litter before agreeing to clean a poultry house. Handlers used a variety of truck types to haul litter. The average distance litter was transported was 24.8 mi, with a range of less than 1 mi to 150 mi. Forty-two percent of handlers reported charging extra for transporting litter beyond certain distances, most commonly 15 to 20 mi. The basis for these extra charges varied widely among these 5 handlers. Some charged more per ton, some more per mile, some more per load, so no generalizations about the extra cost could be made. Tennessee regulations require that vehicles be covered when transporting litter. Ninety-two percent of handlers reported covering their trucks when hauling litter long distances. Tennessee regulations also require that litter must be stored and protected from rainfall if not used within 5 d. Sixty-seven percent of handlers reported storing litter for more than a few days. The average length of time in storage was 86.9 d, with a range of 2 to 180 d. Most handlers who stored litter said storage time depended on the weather. Of the 8 handlers who stored litter for more than a few days, only 1 handler indicated that the litter was stockpiled outside under cover. The other 7 handlers reported storing litter under some kind of permanent shelter. Thirty-three percent of handlers did further processing of litter, with half of those dry-stack composting litter for cattle feed and the other half composting litter for unreported purposes. Litter Use The results presented in Table 3 summarize key findings about the end uses of poultry litter sold by litter handlers. The major use was for land application as a fertilizer and soil amendment. All surveyed handlers had litter-spreader trucks or tractor-pulled litter spreaders for land application, and 92% of them applied litter to the land of other farmers. The price charged per ton for litter applied to land varied somewhat among handlers. For the 7 litter handlers who reported a price per ton, the average price, including spreading, was $14.90 per ton, with a range of $8.00 to $20.00 per ton. The remaining 4 handlers charged by the load, without reference to the actual weight of the litter in a load. Thirty-three percent of the handlers said they conducted soil tests before litter application, while 50% of handlers indicated that landown-

5 250 JAPR: Research Report TABLE 2. Transportation, storage, and processing of poultry litter Range Number of Information requested Mean Minimum Maximum responses 1 Number of customers Percentage of handlers who always have a buyer before cleaning out house Distance litter transported (mi) 24.8 < Percentage of handlers who charge extra for litter beyond certain distance Distance beyond which handler charged extra for litter (mi) Percentage of handlers who covered litter during transport Percentage of handlers who stored litter Amount of time litter stored (d) Percentage of handlers who did further processing of litter ers conducted soil tests before application. Seventy-five percent of handlers reported conducting litter testing before land application. Twenty-five percent of handlers sold litter as livestock feed. The average price for litter sold as livestock feed was $19.30 per ton, with a range between $8.00 and $30.00 per ton. These litter handlers indicated that only a small percentage of the litter they acquired went to livestock feed. Twenty-five percent of handlers sold litter for other uses, including as a growing medium for mushrooms, for landscaping, and for gardens of neighbors. Litter was applied to a variety of crops as indicated in Table 4. Fifty-eight percent of handlers applied litter to pasture at an average rate of 2.2 tons per acre, with a range of 1 to 4 tons per acre. Fifty percent of handlers applied litter to hay at an average rate of 2.4 tons per acre. Fifty-eight percent of handlers applied litter to corn for silage at an average rate of 3.2 tons per acre, with a range of 1 to 5 tons per acre. Thirty-three percent of handlers applied litter to wheat at an average rate of 2.4 tons per acre, with a range of 2 to 3 tons per acre. Seventeen percent of handlers applied litter to soybeans at an average rate of 2.3 tons per acre, with a range of 1 to 3 tons per acre. Twenty-five percent of handlers applied litter to tobacco at an average rate of 6.7 tons per acre, with a range of 4 to 10 tons per acre. This application rate for tobacco seems unreasonably high compared with rates for the other crops. Only 3 handlers reported applying litter to tobacco, so the calculated average should be interpreted with caution. Seventeen percent of handlers applied litter to Bermuda grass or sold litter to farmers who applied litter to vegetables. The litter application rates for hay, corn, and tobacco were in line with nitrogen-based requirements suggested by Walker et al. [29]. However, litter application rates reported by handlers were ranged from 3 to 6 times higher than the phosphorus-based requirements for these crops, as- TABLE 3. End use of litter sold by litter handlers Range Number of Information requested Mean Minimum Maximum responses 1 Percentage of handlers spreading litter on land Price charged to spread litter on land ($/ton) Percentage of handlers conducting soil tests Percentage of landowners conducting soil tests Percentage of handlers conducting litter tests Percentage of handlers selling litter as livestock feed Price of litter sold as livestock feed ($/ton) Percentage of handlers selling litter for other uses 25 12

6 PARK ET AL.: ROLE OF POULTRY LITTER HANDLERS 251 TABLE 4. Litter application rates by crop Mean Application rate range Percentage of application Number of Crop handlers rate Min Max responses 1 (tons/acre) Pasture Hay Corn Wheat Soybeans Tobacco Other crops suming soils testing medium for phosphorus [29]. Views on Policy Issues Views of handlers on policy issues are summarized in Table 5. All surveyed handlers had heard about the new CAFO regulations, and 6 handlers provided comments about how the regulations might affect their litter handling business. Their reactions to the new CAFO regulations were varied. One handler had begun requiring written contracts solely because of the new regulations. Another was going out of business because he found the regulations too strict to follow and believed all of the required paperwork was not worth the effort. However, another thought the regulations would have no effect on business. One handler said that while he had heard about the regulations, he had not read them and did not really know how they would affect his business. Another handler expressed strong opinion that the regulations would force many growers and handlers out of the poultry industry and that no farmer could afford to meet the new regulations, especially the zero-discharge rule. The handlers who commented said that the regula- tions will be stricter and will require them to do more soil testing and follow stricter application guidelines. All but 1 surveyed litter handler said they would be interested in attending a training session on the new CAFO regulations. However, 2 handlers said they would attend such sessions only if they were local. One handler, who had already attended several meetings held by a poultry integrator about the regulations, said he would attend a training session only if he stayed in business. Another handler was already certified as a waste handler in Alabama and had already attended several meetings on the new regulations. Two handlers said they would be willing to attend a training session even though they had already attended informational meetings about the regulations. Policy makers in Tennessee have been considering whether building a centralized storage facility for growers would facilitate operation of the off-farm litter market. Three handlers said a large storage facility is needed, given the storage requirements in the new regulations. The other 9 handlers were unconvinced that centralized storage was a good idea. Three handlers emphasized that growers should have TABLE 5. Views of handlers on policy issues Number of Information requested handlers 1 Handlers who had heard about the new confined animal feeding operations (CAFO) regulations 12 Handlers interested in a CAFO regulation training session providing certification 11 Handlers seeing a need for a large, centralized litter storage facility for growers 3

7 252 their own facilities. Two others emphasized the logistical difficulties of centralized storage. Two handlers felt land application could nor- JAPR: Research Report mally be accomplished without extended storage, while 2 handlers gave no explanation for their opposition to the idea. CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 1. Poultry litter handlers in Tennessee play a key role in the management of roughly a quarter of the poultry litter generated in growers operations. 2. Practices on the part of handlers generally appear to be in line with recently adopted federal and state CAFO regulations. 3. Handlers will, however, have to keep much better records. 4. Handlers will also have to reduce land application rates substantially in areas where phosphorous loading to waterways is of concern. 5. Reductions in allowable litter application rates will indirectly affect handlers by increasing the number of customers needed, increasing the average hauling distance, and increasing their storage requirements. 6. The needed adjustments noted above point to the importance of developing and implementing training and certification programs for litter handlers. 7. Reductions in litter application rates will also likely encourage renewed consideration of large-scale composting or pelletizing operations. 8. This study was limited in scope, drawing information only from handlers who operate in Tennessee, so broad generalizations to the industry are unwarranted. 9. A multistate survey covering the southern poultry belt is needed and would allow for comparisons across states on key aspects of litter handling practices. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Kellogg, R. L., C. H. Lander, D. C. Moffitt, and N. Gollehon Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture Publication No. ups , Washington, DC. 2. Bosch, D. J., and K. B. Napit Economics of transporting poultry litter to achieve more effective use as a fertilizer. J. Soil Water Conserv. 47: Buchberger, E An economic and environmental analysis of land application or poultry litter in northwest Arkansas. M.S. Thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. 4. Govindasamy, R., M. J. Cochran, and E. Buchberger Economic implications of phosphorus loading policies for pasture land applications of poultry litter. Water Resour. Bull. 30: Govindasamy, R., M. J. Cochran, D. M. Miller, and R. J. Norman Economics trade-off between urea nitrogen and poultry litter for rice production. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 26: Prato, T., X. Feng, and C. Fulcher Broiler litter application to land in an agricultural watershed: A GIS approach. Water Sci. Technol. 28: Prato, T., and X. Feng Optimal farm-level use and value of broiler litter. Pages in Animal Waste and the Land-Water Interface. K. F. Steele, ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 8. Rainey, A. S., M. J. Cochran, and D. M. Miller Derived demand for poultry litter as a soil amendment in rice. Ark. Farm Res. 41: Cullison, A. E., H. C. McCampbell, A. C. Cunningham, R. S. Lowrey, E. P. Warren, B. D. McLendon, and D. H. Sherwood Use of poultry litter manures in steer finishing rations. J. Anim. Sci. 42: McCaskey, T. A., B. G. Ruffin, J. T. Eason, and R. C. Strickland Value of poultry litter as feed for beef cattle. Pages in Proc Natl. Poult. Waste Manage. Symp., Athens, GA. 11. McCaskey, T. A Feeding broiler poultry litter as an alternative waste management strategy. Animal Waste and the Land-Water Interface. K. F. Steele, ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 12. Smith, L. W., and W. E. Wheeler Nutritional and economic value of animal excreta. J. Anim. Sci. 48: Stephenson, A. H., T. A. McCaskey, and B. G. Ruffin A survey of broiler poultry litter composition and potential value as a nutrient source. Biol. Wastes 34: Bosch, D. J., and K. B. Napit Economics of transporting poultry litter to achieve more effective use as a fertilizer. J. Soil Water Conserv. 47: Govindasamy, R., and M. J. Cochran The feasibility of poultry litter transportation from environmentally sensitive areas to delta row crop production. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 24: Paudel, K. P., A. S. Limaye, M. Adhikari, and N. R. Martin, Jr An application of the phosphorus consistent rule for environmentally acceptable cost-efficient management of broiler litter in crop production. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. 17. Pelletier, B. A., and D. E. Kenyon Poultry litter for com exchange program for Virginia. Virginia s rural economic

8 PARK ET AL.: ROLE OF POULTRY LITTER HANDLERS 253 analysis program. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Virginia Tech. Univ., Blacksburg, VA. 18. Weaver, W. D., and G. H. Souder Feasibility and economics of transporting poultry waste. Pages in Proc Natl. Poult. Waste Manage. Symp. Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL. 19. Fritsch, D. A., and A. R. Collins The economic feasibility of poultry litter composting facilities in eastern West Virginia. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 22: Safley, C. D., and L. M. Safley, Jr Economic analysis of alternative poultry litter compost systems. Department of Agricultural Resources Economics. North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC. 21. Wimberly, J Regionally coordinated composting opportunities. Biocycle 38: Wimberly, J Poultry litter management options. Pages in 1998 Proc. Natl. Poult. Waste Manage. Symp., Springdale, AR. 23. Goodwin, H. L., J. Hipp, and J. Wimberly Offfarm litter management and third-party enterprises. Foundation for Organic Resources Management, Fayetteville, AR. 24. Goan, H. C., W. M. Park, R. K. Roberts, and L. Warren Poultry litter production and utilization in Tennessee and the potential impact of EPA s proposed CAFO regulations. Page 315 in Proc Natl. Poult. Waste Manage. Symp., Birmingham, AL. 25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency What are the Federal requirements for turkey and chicken CAFOs? EPA 833- F Washington, DC. 26. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Class II concentrated animal feeding operation general permit. TDEC, Nashville, TN. 27. Warren, L. M The impact of current and proposed CAFO regulations on the off-farm market for poultry litter in Tennessee. M.S. Thesis., University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 28. Goan, H. C., H. J. Savoy, and F. R. Walker Guidelines for developing and implementing a poultry nutrient management plan. Agricultural Extension Service, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 29. Walker, F., R. Anderson, and P. Denton Using the Tennessee phosphorus risk index. Draft extension publication. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.