For Peer Review - Agrisus · For Peer Review 66 To develop and adopt more sustainable practices,...

For Peer Review

Brazilian beef cattle feedlot manure management: a country

survey

Journal: Journal of Animal Science

Manuscript ID: E-2012-5603.R1

Manuscript Type: Special Topics

Date Submitted by the Author: 11-Oct-2012

Complete List of Authors: Costa Junior, Ciniro; University of São Paulo - Center of Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, Laboratory of Biogeochemistry Goulart, Rodrigo; Merck Animal Health, Albertini, Tiago; Embrapa Agriculture Informatics, Laboratory of Computational Mathmatics Feigl, Brigitte; University of São Paulo - Center of Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, Laboratory of Biogeochemistry Cerri, Carlos; São Paulo University -"Luiz de Queiroz" College of Agriculture, Soil Science Vasconcelos, Judson; Merck Animal Health, Bernoux, Martial; Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, UMR Eco&Sols Lanna, Dante; Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Zootecnia; Cerri, Carlos; University of São Paulo - Center of Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, Laboratory of Biogeochemistry

Key Words: Beef production, Brazil, livestock, manure handling, survey

ScholarOne, 375 Greenbrier Drive, Charlottesville, VA, 22901

Journal of Animal Science

For Peer Review

Running head: Beef cattle feedlot manure management 1

2

Brazilian beef cattle feedlot manure management: a country survey1 3

4

C. Costa Junior,*2 R. S. Goulart†, T. Z. Albertini‡, B. J. Feigl*, C. E. C. Cerri§, J. T. 5

Vasconcelos#, M. Bernoux¶, D. P. D. Lanna,|| and C. C. Cerri* 6

7

*Laboratory of Environmental Biogeochemistry, Center of Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, 8

University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, CEP 13416-000, Brazil; †Merck Animal Health, São Paulo, 9

CEP 04794-000, Brazil; ‡Laboratory of Computational Mathematics, Embrapa Agriculture 10

Informatics, Campinas, CEP 13083-886, Brazil;§ Department of Soil Science, “Luiz de Queiroz” 11

College of Agriculture, São Paulo University, Piracicaba, CEP 13418-900, Brazil; #Merck 12

Animal Health, Summit, New Jersey 07901, United States; ¶UMR Eco&Sols, Institut de 13

Recherche pour le Développement, Montpellier, 34060, France; ||Department of Animal Science, 14

Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, São Paulo University, Piracicaba, CEP 13418-15

900, Brazil 16

17

1The authors acknowledge the financial support from the FAPESP (2010/05111-7 and

2010/17837-2) and Agrisus Foundation (PA/1023-12) grants. In addition, we thank the National

Association of Brazilian Feeders (ASSOCON), Goiás State Agricultural Foundation (FAEG), all

Brazilian feedlots for their participation, and the valuable comments of Dr. Donna Giltrap and Dr.

Surinder Saggar (LandCare Research, Palmerston North, New Zealand).

2Corresponding author: [email protected]

Page 1 of 28



For Peer Review

ABSTRACT: No information regarding the management of manure from beef cattle feedlots is 18

available for Brazil. To fill this knowledge gap, a survey of 73 feedlots was conducted in 7 19

Brazilian States. In this survey, questions were asked regarding the animal characteristics, their 20

diets and the manure handling management from generation to disposal. These feedlots finished 21

831,450 animals in 2010. The predominant breed fed was Nellore, with average feeding periods 22

of 60 to 135 days. Corn was the primary source of grain used in the feedlot diets (76% of the 23

animals in the survey) with concentrate inclusion levels ranging from 81-90% (38% of the 24

animals in the survey). The most representative manure management practice was the removal of 25

the manure from the pens only at the end of the feeding period. Subsequently, the manure was 26

stored in mounds before being applied to crop and pasture lands. Runoff, mainly from rainwater, 27

was collected in retention ponds and used for agriculture. However, the quantity of runoff was 28

not known. Manure was composted for only 20% of the animals in the survey, and manure was 29

treated in anaerobic digesters before land application for only 1% of the animals. Manure from 30

59% of the cattle in the survey was used as fertilizer, providing a cost savings over the use of 31

synthetic fertilizers. Overall, chemical analysis of the manure before application to fields was 32

conducted for the manure of 56% of the animals, but the exact quantity of manure applied to the 33

field (per hectare) was unknown for the manure of 48% of the surveyed cattle. Feedlots 34

representing 48% of the animals in the survey noted similar or higher crop and pasture yields 35

when using manure rather than synthetic fertilizers. In addition, 32% mentioned an increase in 36

soil organic matter. Feedlots representing 88% of the surveyed cattle indicated that information 37

concerning management practices that improve manure use efficiency is lacking. Most of the 38

feedlots (representing 93% of the animals in the survey) reported having basic information 39

regarding the generation of energy and fertilizer with anaerobic digesters. However, only one 40

feedlot implemented this technology. In conclusion, the manure management evaluated in this 41

Page 2 of 28



For Peer Review

study represents an important indirect economic benefit that was represented by decreased use of 42

synthetic fertilizers in crops. However, little attention was given to the specific treatments and 43

environmental impacts of handling manure. This survey provides information regarding the 44

management of feedlot cattle manure in Brazil. This information should assist in the development 45

of better research practices and facilitate the broader application of future models. 46

Key words: beef production, Brazil, livestock, manure handling, survey 47

48

INTRODUCTION 49

50

Since 2003, Brazil has been the largest beef exporter with the largest commercial cattle herd 51

in the world (USDA, 2011). In 2010, 10% of the 40 million cattle slaughtered in Brazil came 52

from feedlots (ANUALPEC, 2011). In Brazil, feedlots are typically used as a strategy for 53

maintaining a constant beef supply, especially during the dry season. However, this practice has 54

been used more in the last decade for finishing cattle because of the increasing external beef 55

demand (Millen et al., 2011). In 1991, approximately 785,000 cattle were finished in Brazilian 56

feedlots. Toward the end of the 1990s, this number increased to approximately 1.5 million cattle 57

and in 2010, 3 million cattle were finished in feedlots (ANUALPEC, 2011), which is more than a 58

4-fold increase from the past 2 decades. 59

High concentrations of livestock result in greater local pollutant emissions from manure 60

during housing, storage and land application (Petersen et al., 2007; Li et al., 2012). These 61

pollutants are mainly linked to methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and 62

ammonia (NH3) emissions and to the eutrophication of water bodies (Chadwick et al., 2011; 63

Mathot et al., 2012). If livestock intensification continues, technology and strategies need to be 64

developed to control the associated environmental challenges. 65

Page 3 of 28



For Peer Review

To develop and adopt more sustainable practices, the entire manure management cycle (from 66

excretion to land application) should be analyzed (Petersen et al., 2007). The results from these 67

farm scale studies provide insights for policy makers regarding possible incentives to further 68

reduce farm emissions (Lesschen et al., 2011). 69

No information concerning manure management practices in Brazilian feedlots is available. 70

This information is critical to determine the scientific impacts of feedlot manure on the 71

environment and to identify management practices that could lower agricultural emissions. 72

Given this need for information, our objectives were as follows: 1) to outline typical manure 73

handling in Brazilian beef feedlots and 2) to collect and summarize survey data that will facilitate 74

the design of necessary changes and research and aid in the development of models that describe 75

the impacts of the entire manure management cycle (from facility components and/or operations 76

in feedlots). 77

78

MATERIALS AND METHODS 79

80

Animal Care and Use Committee approval was not obtained for this study because no animals 81

were used. 82

83

Data Collection 84

85

One hundred and twenty commercial feedlots in Brazil were asked to participate in the 86

survey. With the help of the National Association of Brazilian Cattle Feeders (ASSOCON), these 87

commercial feedlots were contacted by e-mail or telephone regarding their interest in 88

participating. Seventy-three feedlots agreed to participate. These commercial feedlots were from 89

Page 4 of 28



For Peer Review

7 Brazilian States, including São Paulo (SP), Goiás (GO), Mato Grosso (MT), Mato Grosso do 90

Sul (MS), Minas Gerais (MG), Paraná (PR), and Rondônia (RO). The interviews occurred in 91

2011 to obtain information from 2010. 92

This survey was conducted using methods similar to those of Vasconcelos and Galyean 93

(2007), which included a web-based survey tool (http://www.surveymonkey.com). The 73 94

feedlots received preliminary instructions regarding how to participate in the survey. The 95

participants were guaranteed anonymity and asked to complete the survey as quickly as possible. 96

97

Survey Questions 98

99

The 44 questions in the survey were divided into several categories, including i) animal, diet 100

and feedlot information (n = 18 questions); ii) manure management from excretion to final 101

disposal (n = 14); iii) manure application (n = 7); and iv) benefits and challenges of manure 102

management and use (n = 5). 103

104

Statistical Analyses 105

106

The answers were separated by question and transferred to SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, 107

North Carolina, United States) using the IMPORT procedure. Statistical analyses were performed 108

using the MEANS and FREQ procedures in SAS. Parametric variables (e.g., animal age and 109

adaptation period to the final diet) were summarized with the MEANS procedure to calculate the 110

number of observations, sum, mode, mean, SD, minimum and maximum values of the atypical 111

data. Sequentially, the non-parametric answers (e.g., main grain used in the diets and soil texture) 112

were summarized with the FREQ procedure to calculate frequency statistics. 113

Page 5 of 28



For Peer Review

114

RESULTS 115

116

Animal and Diet Characterization 117

118

The summarized feedlots represented 831,450 cattle that were finished in 2010 (Figure 1), 119

which represented approximately 30% of the cattle fed in feedlots in Brazil in 2010 120

(ANUALPEC, 2011). 121

Our research focused on 4 States (São Paulo, Goiás, Mato Grosso, and Mato Grosso do Sul), 122

which fed 70% of the 3.05 million animals fed in feedlots in Brazil in 2010 (ANUALPEC, 2011). 123

Thus, we believe that our data well represented feedlot manure management in Brazil. 124

Forty percent of feedlots in the survey reported feeding less than 5,000 animals, 20% reported 125

feeding from 5,000 to 10,000, and the remaining 40% reported feeding more than 10,000 animals 126

in 2010. 127

The most frequent cattle breed mentioned in the feedlots was Nellore, which accounted for 128

73% of the animals in survey. Nellore crosses and other genotypes accounted for 22 and 5% of 129

the animals in the survey, respectively. Approximately 95% of the animals assessed were males. 130

Regarding the feedlots finishing diets, corn was the primary source of grain (84% of the 131

feedlots; 76% of the animals in the survey), corn-silage was the primary source of roughage (38% 132

of the feedlots; 40% of the animals in the survey), and soybean meal was the primary co-product 133

(45% of the feedlots; 19% of the animals in the survey). Most feedlots (23% of the feedlots; 38% 134

of the animals in the survey) fed diets containing concentrated inclusions (grain plus other 135

concentrate ingredients) of 80 to 90% (Figure 2). Animals were allowed to adapt to the finishing 136

diets during an 8 to 20 day (d) step-up period in 74% of the feedlots (82% of the animals in the 137

Page 6 of 28



For Peer Review

survey). Other adaptation methods were used in 3% of the feedlots (less than 1% of the animals 138

in the survey). However, 3% (3% of the animals in the survey) of the feedlots did not use an 139

adaptation method, and 21% of the feedlots (14% of the animals in the survey) did not answer 140

this question. 141

The typical initial and final body weight, the average daily dry matter intake, the total 142

digestible nutrients and the crude protein concentrations observed in this study are presented in 143

Table 1. These results demonstrate that the performance and nutrient recommendations that were 144

used by the feedlots in this study are similar to the practices reported by Millen et al. (2009) in an 145

extensive survey of feedlot nutrition in Brazil. 146

Our survey indicated that 33% of the feedlots (38% of the animals in the survey) did not feed 147

an ionophore. Of the feedlots that fed an ionophore, monensin and virginiamycin were the most 148

cited and were used in 44% of the feedlots (50% of the animals). However, the question related to 149

the recommended level did not address which that question. 150

Most Brazilian feedlots do not feed cattle during the wet season (April to October). Thus, 151

most of the assessed feedlots in this survey fed animals in either one (38%; 24% of the animals in 152

the survey) or two (38%; 50% of the animals in the survey) finishing periods in 2010, with 71 to 153

100 d for each finishing period (68%; 79% of the animals in the survey; Table 2). 154

Feedlots with clay soil texture were the most cited (51%; 50% of the animals in the survey). 155

Thirty percent of the feedlots fed 29% of the animals in the survey in native soil pens that had 156

concrete at the feed bunk line. In addition, 21% (25% of the animals in the survey) of the feedlots 157

used pens with only native soil, and 21% (24% of the animals in survey) used pens with only 158

stones. Approximately 90% of the feedlots (85% of the animals in the survey) fed animals in 159

pens with no over head covering (except for a cover over the feed bunk line in some pens, Table 160

3). 161

Page 7 of 28



For Peer Review

162

Manure Management, Storage and Use 163

164

Seventy-four percent of the surveyed feedlots (61% of the animals in the survey) did not 165

estimate the amount of manure produced by their feedlots. The other 26% (39% of the animals in 166

the survey) estimated that 2 to 4 kg of manure per head-1 d-1 on a dry matter basis (DM) was 167

provided. However, no precise measurements were made. Livestock age, weight, diet, and 168

climatic conditions all influenced the quantity and quality of the manure produced. However, this 169

number was similar to the values that were based on the American Society of Agricultural 170

Engineers standards in which individual fed cattle produce approximately 2.5 kg of manure DM 171

daily (ASAE, 2003). 172

The survey indicates that 3 main areas were used for manure handling and storage: pens, 173

heaps and the field (Table 4). The vast majority of manure was applied to cropland and pastures 174

as fertilizer (78% of the feedlots; 78% of the cattle in the survey). 175

In 58% of the feedlots (66% of the animals in the survey) the manure was removed from the 176

pens immediately after the end of the feeding period. Furthermore, in 33% of the feedlots (26% 177

of the cattle in the survey), the manure was harvested from the pens more often during the 178

feeding period. In only 10% of the feedlots (8% of the cattle in the survey) manure was not 179

removed from pens at all (Table 4). 180

After being removed from the pens, manure in 71% of the feedlots (64% of the animals in the 181

survey) was stored in heaps; in 8% of the feedlots (20% of the animals in the survey), the manure 182

was composted; in 1% of the feedlots (1% of the animals in the survey), it was diluted with water 183

every 14 d and placed in anaerobic digesters; and in less than 1% of the feedlots (1% of the 184

Page 8 of 28



For Peer Review

animals in the survey), it was applied directly to fields. Approximately 8% of the feedlots (6% of 185

the animals in the survey) sold or donated the manure for agricultural purposes (Table 4). 186

Manure in 12% of the feedlots (14% of the animals in the survey) was indefinitely stored in 187

heaps. The other portion of the manure that was stockpiled in heaps was applied to croplands or 188

pastures. Before being applied to fields, the solid manure in 29% of the feedlots (17% of animals 189

in survey) was stockpiled for varying lengths of time. The most common stockpiling time frame 190

was 2 to 4 months (mo) (Table 4). 191

Runoff occurred in 51% of the feedlots (78% of animals in survey) and was formed by the 192

dissolution of solid manure (from pens and heaps), mainly through rainwater activity. This runoff 193

was collected in runoff retention ponds in 45% of the feedlots (76% of the animals in the survey), 194

was drained directly to crops and pastures in 4% of the feedlots (1% of the animals in the survey), 195

and was allowed to flow into a stream in 1% of the feedlots (less than 1% of the animals in the 196

survey). 197

Runoff from 21% of the feedlots (16% of the animals in the survey) was left in retention 198

ponds indefinitely. Most of the runoff was stored for between 30 d and 12 mo before being 199

applied to fields. However, because rainfall was variable and no feeder had a system to measure 200

the quantity of runoff, the amount of runoff generated in these feedlots remains unknown. 201

Nevertheless, because all the interviewees completed at least one finishing cycle in the dry season 202

of the year (April to October), the respondents reported that solid manure was more prevalent 203

than runoff. 204

205

Crops Fertilized with Manure 206

207

Page 9 of 28



For Peer Review

Corn (Zea mays L.) and sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum L.) were the primary crops that 208

were fertilized with manure. These crops received manure from 36% of the feedlots (28% of the 209

animals in the survey) and were followed by Panicum and Brachiaria genus pastures (42%; 24% 210

of the animals in the survey), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) (12%; 9% of the animals in 211

the survey), soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) and Cynodon genus pasture (25%; 12% of the 212

animals in the survey). Other crops, such as rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis L.), bean (Phaseolus 213

vulgaris L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), millet 214

(Pennisetum glaucum L.), coffee (Coffeaarabica L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and orange 215

(Citrus sinensis L.), were also cited. 216

Forty-two percent of the feedlots (48% of the animals in the survey) applied manure as 217

fertilizer in the field with no awareness of quantities. In contrast, 38% (33% of the animals in the 218

survey) applied manure at rates from 5 Mg/ha to more than 20 Mg/ha (Table 5). 219

Only 14% of the feedlots (44% of the animals in the survey) reported that manure samples 220

were analyzed for chemical composition. Chemical analysis of the manure indicated that nitrogen 221

(N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) concentrations ranged from 1 to 1.5% (DM basis). These 222

values were within the ranges that were determined by other authors that had analyzed the 223

chemical characteristics of feedlot manure (Lott, 1995; Kissinger et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2012). 224

Davis et al. (2012) reported that the N content of undisturbed pad manure ranged from 1.2 to 225

1.9% and that the N content of stockpiled manure ranged from 2.0 to 1.7%, which decreased with 226

manure storage to approximately 1%. 227

The yields of the crops and the pastures that were fertilized with manure were reported as 228

superior for most feedlots (44%; 47% of the animals in the survey) when compared with fields 229

that were fertilized with conventional fertilizers (Table 5). Ferguson et al. (2005) reported that 230

Page 10 of 28



For Peer Review

corn silage yields increased following the application of beef feedlot manure (relative to fields 231

that were synthetically fertilized with N). 232

233

Benefits, incentives and challenges faced by using manure 234

235

Fifty-one percent of the feedlots (53% of the animals in the survey) reported that crops and 236

pastures that were fertilized with feedlot manure provided between 25 and 100% of the silage to 237

feed their cattle. Furthermore, 22% of the feedlots (26% of the animals in the survey) reported 238

that feedlot manure did not contribute to silage feed production, 1% of the feedlots (4% of the 239

animals in the survey) reported no awareness regarding the extent of the contribution, and 3% of 240

the feedlots (4% of the animals in the survey) did not answer this question (Table 5). 241

The most commonly mentioned reasons for using manure for fertilizer were that it reduced 242

the use of synthetic fertilizers (74% of the feedlots; 59% of the animals in the survey) and 243

increased soil organic matter concentrations (41% of the feedlots; 32% of the animals in the 244

survey; Table 6). 245

The use of manure was the main concern in 68% of the feedlots (88% of the animals in the 246

survey) when questioned about overall government technical support (Table 6). 247

Notably, only 1% of the feedlots (1% of the animals in the survey) possessed anaerobic 248

digesters for manure treatment. However, most of the feedlots (86%; 93% of the animals in the 249

survey) had heard of producing energy and fertilizer with anaerobic digesters. Interest in 250

programs that adds value to the beef production by improving manure management was 251

mentioned by all feedlots (Table 6). 252

253

DISCUSSION 254

Page 11 of 28



For Peer Review

255

The model of manure handling presented in this study was also observed in feedlots in other 256

countries, such as Canada and the USA (Kissinger et al., 2007; Beauchemin et al., 2010), which 257

have a higher percentage of cattle in feedlots than Brazil. According to Araji et al. (2001), the 258

main outlet for animal manure is its application to cropland. Furthermore, the application of 259

manure is a function of the associated hauling and application costs. This cost is directly related 260

to the quantity of manure that is needed to satisfy the nutrient requirements of crops in a given 261

agricultural system (Araji et al., 2001). 262

In despite of manure hauling and application costs were not evaluated in this work, the local 263

agricultural manure application was used to reduce the need and expense of synthetic fertilizers. 264

In fact, the manure was mainly used for silage production, which was used by the farm itself. 265

In addition, the local use of manure results in extraction and recycling of many nutrients; 266

avoids nutrient imbalances; and reduces pollution emission from the production, transportation 267

and application of synthetic fertilizers to livestock feed crops (Naylor et al., 2005). 268

Although widely used, feedlots representing 88% of the animals indicated that information 269

regarding practices that improve the efficiency of manure handling and use were lacking. In fact, 270

the manure handled in the feedlots assessed in this survey often remained in the pen, in heaps, or 271

in retention ponds for various amounts of time before being applied to fields. Often, this manure 272

was applied without any previous treatment or knowledge regarding its chemical characteristics 273

and quantity. 274

The manure that is excreted on the feedlot floor undergoes decomposition, hydrolysis, 275

nitrification, denitrification, ammonia volatilization, fermentation and other biogeochemical 276

reactions. Through these biogeochemical processes, manure releases gases into the atmosphere 277

(e.g., CH4, CO2, N2O, and NH3) and nutrients into the ground (e.g., K, P and nitrate) 278

Page 12 of 28



For Peer Review

(Beauchemin et al., 2010; Gilley et al., 2010; Chadwick et al., 2011; Stackhouse et al., 2011; Li 279

et al., 2012). In addition, dust and odors are also environmental challenges for feedlots (McGinn 280

et al., 2003; Miller & Berry, 2005). 281

The emission of these substances may cause local and global environmental damage. For 282

example, the release of these substances can be directly related to the eutrophication of water 283

bodies, the contamination of waterways, acid rain and global warming (White et al., 2010; 284

Chadwick et al., 2011; Cornejo and Wilkie, 2011). 285

Although, these biogeochemical reactions are affected by manure management (housing, 286

storage/treatment and field application) as well as by the animal type, diet fed, and feedlot 287

environmental conditions. Consequently, the nutrient availability for field application and 288

released to the environment are dependent on these factors (Hao et al., 2001; Kissinger et al., 289

2007; Chadwick et al., 2011; Li et al., 2012). 290

Farran et al. (2005) reported that manure N losses can be reduced from 45.1 to 25.2% by 291

cleaning steer calf pens monthly rather than only at the end of a 166-d feeding period. Wilson et 292

al. (2004) reported that approximately 64% of the excreted N was lost by volatilization from pens 293

that were cleaned monthly and 78% was lost from pens that were only cleaned at the end of the 294

feeding period. However, care should be taken to ensure that these nutrients are not immediately 295

lost subsequently in manure stockpiles or during the composting process (Hao et al., 2001; Pattey 296

et al., 2005). Pattey et al. (2005) reported that the largest combined N2O–CH4 emissions (in CO2 297

equivalents) were observed from runoff during storage. The stockpiling and the passively aerated 298

composting methods had lower combined N2O–CH4 emissions. Hao et al. (2001) showed that N 299

losses of 0.11 and 0.19 kg N/Mg (in the form of N2O) occurred from feedlot cattle manure that 300

was passively and actively composted, respectively. 301

Page 13 of 28



For Peer Review

In addition, nutrient emissions result from the application of manure to fields. These 302

emissions depend on several factors (i.e., soil and manure type and form of application), which 303

were extensively discussed by Gilley et al. (2010) and recently in a review by Chadwick et al. 304

(2011). 305

However, little data regarding nutrient emissions from beef cattle feedlot manure 306

management are available worldwide (Mathot et al., 2012; Stackhouse et al., 2011; IPCC, 2006). 307

Consequently, these investigations are of increased interest because of the increased demand for 308

environmentally sustainable processes. 309

Brazil, the world’s largest beef exporter with the world’s largest commercial cattle herd 310

(USDA, 2011), plays an important role in this matter. In 1970, Brazil had approximately 78.6 311

million head of cattle. In 2010, the herd had increased to approximately 200 million animals with 312

40 million animals being slaughtered annually (ANUALPEC, 2011). The beef feedlot industry in 313

Brazil has grown in the last decade as an option for finishing cattle because of the increasing 314

external demand (Millen et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the proportion of nutrients released through 315

handling manure in Brazilian feedlots and the evaluation of more environmentally friendly 316

practices requires additional information. 317

318

Implications 319

320

Our data were used to investigate the manure handling of 831,450 beef cattle from 73 feedlots 321

in Brazil. Most of the manure in this study was generated by Nellore cattle that were fed corn-322

based high-energy diets. The manure was removed from the pens and was generally held in 323

stockpiles prior to spreading as fertilizer on agricultural lands. This is an important input for rural 324

communities and provides economic benefits. 325

Page 14 of 28



For Peer Review

However, Brazilian producers have received insufficient training regarding the handling of 326

manure. In addition, little attention has been given to obtain more detailed information regarding 327

management periods in pens, heaps and tanks; field applications; and the chemical characteristics 328

of the manure. 329

This survey provides information regarding feedlot manure management in Brazil that should 330

assist in the development of research priorities for manure management practices and facilitate 331

broader applications of future environmental models. 332

333

LITERATURE CITED 334

335

ANUALPEC. 2011. Anuário da Pecuária Brasileira. 1st ed. Instituto FNP and Agra FNP 336

Pesquisas Ltda, São Paulo, Brazil. 337

ASAE. 2003. D384.1: Manure Production and Characteristics. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, 338

MI. 339

Araji, A. A., Z.O. Abdo, and P. Joice. 2001. Efficient use of animal manure on cropland - 340

economic analysis. Bioresour. Technol. 79:179- 191. 341

Beauchemin, H., H. Janzen, S. M. Little, T. A. McAllister , and S. M. McGinn. 2010. Life cycle 342

assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from beef production in western Canada: a 343

case study. Agric. Syst. 103:371-379. 344

Chadwick, D., S. Sommer, R. Thorman, D. Fangueiro, L. Cardenas, B. Amon, and T. 345

Misselbrook. 2011. Manure management: implications for greenhouse gas emissions. 346

Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 166-167:514-531. 347

Cornejo, M. and A. C. Wilkie. 2010. Greenhouse gas emissions and biogas potential from 348

livestock in Ecuador. Energy Sustain. Dev. 14:256–266. 349

Page 15 of 28



For Peer Review

Davis, R. J., P. J. Watts, and E. J. McGahan. 2012. Quantification of feedlot manure output for 350

BEEFBAL model upgrade. https://rirdc.infoservices.com.au/downloads/12-010. 351

(Accessed 9 September 2012.) 352

Farran, T. B., G. E. Erickson, and T. J. Klopfenstein. 2005. Reducing Diet Digestibility and 353

Increasing Pen Cleaning Frequency: Effects on Nitrogen Losses and Compost Nitrogen 354

Recovery. Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports No. 187. http:// 355

digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/187. (Acessed 22 January 2012.) 356

Ferguson, R.B, J. A. Nienaber, R. A. Eigenberg, and B. L. Woodbury. 2005. Long-term effects of 357

sustained beef feedlot manure application on soil nutrients, Corn Silage Yield, and 358

Nutrient Uptake. J. Environ. Qual. 34:1672-1681. 359

Gilley, J.E., L. M. Durso, R. A. Eigenberg, D. B. Marx, and B. L. Woodbury. 2010. Nutrient 360

transporting runoff as affected by diet, tillage, and manure application rate. Trans. 361

ASABE. 53:1895-1902. 362

Hao, X., C. Chang, F. J. Larney, and G. R. Travis. 2001. Greenhouse gas emissions during cattle 363

feedlot 321 manure composting. J. Environ. Qual. 30:376-386. 364

IPCC. 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.http://www.ipcc-365

nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf. (Accessed 366

10 September 2012.) 367

Kissinger, W.F., R. K. Koelsch, G. E. Erickson, and T. J. Klopfenstein. 2007. Characteristics of 368

manure harvested from beef cattle feedlots. Appl. Eng. Agric. 23:357-365. 369

Larney, F.J., and X. Hao. 2007. A review of composting as a management alternative for beef 370

cattle feedlot manure in southern Alberta, Canada. Bioresour. Technol. 98:3221-3227. 371

Page 16 of 28



For Peer Review

Lesschen, J.P., M. van den Berg, H. J. Westhoek, H. P. Witzke, and O. Oenema. 2011. 372

Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors. Anim. Feed Sci. 373

Technol. 166– 167:16– 28. 374

Li, C, W. Salas, R. Zhang, C. Krauter, A. Rotz, and F. Mitloehner. 2012. Manure-DNDC: a 375

biogeochemical process model for quantifying greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions 376

from livestock manure systems. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 93:163–200. 377

Mathot, M., V. Decruyenaereb, D. Stilmantc, and R. Lamberta. 2012. Effect of cattle diet and 378

manure storage conditions on carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions 379

from tie-stall barns and stored solid manure. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 148:134–144. 380

McGinn, S. M., H. H. Janzen, and T. Coates. 2003. Atmospheric ammonia, volatile fatty acids, 381

and other odorants near beef feedlots. J. Environ.Qual. 32:1173-1182. 382

Millen, D.D., R. D. L. Pacheco, M. D. B. Arrigoni, M. L. Galyean, and J. T. Vasconcelos. 2009. 383

A snapshot of management practices and nutritional recommendations used by feedlot 384

nutritionists in Brazil. J. Anim. Sci. 87:3427-3439. 385

Millen, D.D., R. D. L. Pacheco, P. M. Meyer, P. H. M. Rodrigues, and M. D. B. Arrigoni. 2011. 386

Current outlook and future perspectives of beef production in Brazil. Anim. Front. 1:46-387

52. 388

Miller, D.N. and E. D. Berry. 2005. Cattle feedlot soil moisture and manure content: I. Impacts 389

on greenhouse gases, odor compounds, nitrogen losses, and dust. J. Environ. 390

Qual.34:644-655. 391

Naylor, R., H. Steinfeld, W. Falcon, J. Galloway, V. Smil, E. Bradford, J. Alder, and H. Mooney. 392

2005. Losing the links between livestock and land. Science 310:1621–1622. 393

Page 17 of 28



For Peer Review

Pattey, E., M. K. Trzcinski, and Desjardins, R.L. 2005. Quantifying the reduction of greenhouse 394

gas emissions as a result of composting dairy and beef cattle manure. Nutr. Cycl. 395

Agroecosys. 72:173-187. 396

Petersen, S.O., S. G. Sommer, F. Beline, C. Burton, J. Dach, J. Y. Dourmad, A. Leip, T. 397

Misselbrook, F. Nicholson, H. D. Poulsen, G.Provolo, P. Sorensen, B. Vinneras, A. 398

Weiske, M. P. Bernal, R. Bohm, C. Juhasz, and R. Mihelic. 2007. Recycling of 399

livestock manure in a whole-farm perspective. Livest. Sci. 112:180–191. 400

Stackhouse, K. R., Y. Pan, Y. Zhao, and F. Mitloehner. 2011. Greenhouse gas and alcohol 401

emissions from feedlot steers and calves. J. Environ. Qual. 40:899–906 402

USDA. 2011. Livestock and poultry: world markets and trade. 403

http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/circular/2011/livestock_1111.pdf. (Accessed 30 May 404

2012.) 405

Vasconcelos, J. T., and M. L. Galyean. 2007. Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting 406

nutritionists: The 2007 Texas Tech University survey. J. Anim. Sci. 85:2772–2781. 407

White, T.A.,V. O.Snow, and W.McG. King. 2010. Intensification of New Zealand beef farming 408

systems. Agr. Syst.103:21-35. 409

Wilson, C. B., G. E. Erickson, C. N. Macken, and T. J. Klopfenstein. 2004. Impact of Cleaning 410

Frequency on Nitrogen Balance in Open Feedlot Pens. Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports 411

No. 214.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/214. (Accessed 16 January 2012.) 412

413

414

415

416

417

Page 18 of 28



For Peer Review

Table 1. Average body weights and dry matter intakes of beef cattle along with the total digestible nutrients and 418

crude protein concentrations of the diets fed to the cattle in the Brazilian feedlot survey 419

Item Male Female

Initial body weight, kg 351.5 ± 73.3 275.7 ± 67.5

Final body weight, kg 497.2 ± 92.2 390.0 ± 74.6

Dry matter intake, kg/d 10.1 ± 2.5 8.2 ± 5.4

Total digestive nutrients, % 74.2± 10.1

Crude protein, % 13.9 ± 3.2

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

Page 19 of 28



For Peer Review

Table 2. Number of feeding periods and days on feed in the Brazilian beef cattle feedlot survey 436

Item No. of

responses

No. of

animals

represented in

response

% of the total

animals in the

survey

Number of feeding periods (n=73)

1 28 201,250 24.2

2 28 415,600 50.0

3 13 137,600 16.5

Continuously 4 77,000 9.3

Days on feed (n=73)

55 to 70 8 32,900 3.9

71 to 86 18 328,100 39.5

87 to 100 32 324,400 39.0

101 to 135 15 146,050 17.6

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

Page 20 of 28



For Peer Review

Table 3. Soil texture, pen surface characteristics, and the extent of roofing in the surveyed Brazilian beef cattle 447

feedlots 448

Item No. of

responses

No. of animals

represented in

response

% of the total

animals in the

survey

Soil texture (n = 73)

Clay 37 412,900 49.7

Medium 22 281,400 33.8

Sandy 14 137,150 16.5

Characteristics of pen surface (n=73)

Completely bare soil 14 208,200 25.0

Ground soil with concrete in the feed bunk line 22 242,900 29.1

Ground soil with stones in the feed bunk line 16 82,800 10.0

Completely stoned 15 202,500 24.4

Stoned with concrete in the feed bunk line 4 85,000 10.2

Completely concreted 2 10,000 1.2

Extent of roof (n = 73)

No roof 66 703,150 84.6

Roof over the feed bunks only 6 103,300 12.4

Completely covered 1 25,000 3.0

449

450

451

452

453

454

Page 21 of 28



For Peer Review

Table 4. Number of animals and the solid manure management in the surveyed Brazilian beef cattle feedlots 455

No. of feedlots

(n=73)

No. of animals

(n=831,450) Feeding period – FP, d

Frequency of manure

removal from pens, d

Length of manure storage in

heaps before field

application, d

8 71,100 90-100 At the end of FP 90

5 94,000 90 At the end of FP Final disposal

4 111,500 75-97 At the end of FP 601

4 65,000 75-85 No cleaning -

2 90,000 85-86 At the end of FP 7

2 53,500 117-135 At the end of FP 30

2 24,000 97-107 At the end of FP Sold after removal

2 16,200 100-110 At the end of FP 120

2 13,900 100 50 180

2 11,600 90-95 At the end of FP Donated after removal

2 6,100 80-86 At the end of FP 30

2 5,000 100 At the end of FP 180

2 2,200 63 At the end of FP 90

2 1000 100-120 At the end of FP Final disposal

1 60,000 90 At the end of FP 240

1 25,000 120 30 601

1 24,500 70 At the end of FP Final disposal

1 24,000 100 50 120

1 22,000 90 At the end of FP 180

1 20,000 100 50 601

1 17,500 80 At the end of FP Sold after removal

1 15,000 130 At the end of FP 90



1 7,000 100 14 352


1 3,500 105 30 14

1 3,200 70 At the end of FP 180

1 3,000 90 At the end of FP 120

1 3,000 90 45 Sold after removal

1 2,200 70 35 7

1 2,000 90 30 90

1 1,700 90 45 60


1 1,500 90 No cleaning -

1 1,200 120 No cleaning -


1 1,000 80 7 10

1 800 90 45 7

1 500 120 20 120

1 350 105 7 0 (directly applied to field)

1 300 120 60 120

1 300 84 7 180

1 300 70 No cleaning -

1 300 60 30 30

1 200 60 At the end of FP Final disposal

1Manure composting (for 60 days before field application). 456

2Manure digestion (30 days of digestion followed by maintaining the digestate for 5 days in a pond before field application). 457

Page 22 of 28



For Peer Review

Table 5. Field application of manure from the surveyed Brazilian beef cattle feedlots 458

Item No. of

responses

No. of

animals

represented

in response

% of the total

animals in the

survey

Amount of manure applied in fields (n=63)

Not aware 31 395,900 47.6

Up to 5 Mg/ha 14 73,100 8.8

Up to 10 Mg/ha 3 16,000 1.9

11 to 20 Mg/ha 5 72,500 8.7

More than 20 Mg/ha 6 115,500 13.9

No answer 4 46,500 5.6

Acknowledgment of manure chemical composition (n=73)

Not aware 63 461,750 55.5

Aware 10 369,700 44.5

Agricultural productivity of using manure compared with synthetic

fertilizer (n=56)

Superior 32 395,900 47.6

Inferior 15 108,000 13.0

Similar 12 216,000 25.9

Silage produced by crops/pasture fertilized with manure (n=56)

100% of silage fed 18 174,800 21.0

Approximately 50% of silage fed 16 229,500 27.6

Approximately 25% of silage fed 3 33,500 4.0

0 of silage fed 16 217,400 26.1

Not aware 1 34,000 4.1

No answer 2 30,700 3.7

459

Page 23 of 28



For Peer Review

Table 6. Major economic and environmental benefits of using manure and the challenges faced in the surveyed 460

Brazilian beef cattle feedlots 461

Item No. of

responses

No. of

animals

represented in

response

% of the total

animals in the

survey

Economic benefits (n=60)1

Savings from synthetic fertilizer purchase 54 489,000 58.8

Better productivity than synthetic fertilizers 13 350,000 42.1

No economic benefit 2 111,550 13.4

No answer 7 140,000 16.8

Environmental benefits (n=60)1

Soil organic matter increase 30 262,700 31.6

No benefit 14 150,000 18.0

No use of synthetic fertilizer 11 110,800 13.3

Soil structural increase 4 67,300 8.0

Soil moisture increase 3 27,900 3.4

Potential to generate energy from manure (n=73)1

Aware 61 774,900 93.2

Not aware 12 56,550 6.8

Challenges faced by feeders for manure use (n=73)1

Weak governmental information and financial support 50 730,000 87.8

Faced no problems 17 220,000 26.5

No answer 6 132,000 15.9

Interests of feeders in programs that could add value to their

meat through manure management (n=73)1

Yes 73 831,450 100

No 0 0 0

1Feeders could respond to more than one item 462

Page 24 of 28



For Peer Review

463

Figure 1. The locations of the Brazilian beef cattle 464

feedlots surveyed concerning its manure 465

management and use. 466

Page 25 of 28



For Peer Review 467

Figure 2. Primary source of grain (A) and roughage 468

(B), and the level of concentrate inclusion (grain 469

plus other products) (C) in the finishing diets of 470

831,450 animals in the surveyed Brazilian beef 471

cattle feedlots. 472

Page 26 of 28



For Peer Review

Figure Captions 473

474

Figure 1. The locations of the Brazilian beef cattle feedlots surveyed concerning its manure 475

management and use. 476

477

Figure 2. Primary source of grain (A) and roughage (B), and the level of concentrate inclusion 478

(grain plus other products) (C) in the finishing diets of 831,450 animals in the surveyed Brazilian 479

beef cattle feedlots. 480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

Page 27 of 28



For Peer Review

Table Captions 500

501

Table 1. Average body weights and dry matter intakes of beef cattle along with the total digestible nutrients and 502

crude protein concentrations of the diets fed to the cattle in the Brazilian feedlot survey 503

504

Table 2. Number of feeding periods and days on feed in the Brazilian beef cattle feedlot survey 505

506

Table 3. Soil texture, pen surface characteristics, and the extent of roofing in the surveyed Brazilian beef cattle 507

feedlots 508

509

Table 4. Number of animals and the solid manure management in the surveyed Brazilian beef cattle feedlots 510

511

Table 5. Field application of manure from the surveyed Brazilian beef cattle feedlots 512

513

Table 6. Major economic and environmental benefits of using manure and the challenges faced in the surveyed 514

Brazilian beef cattle feedlots 515

516

Page 28 of 28



For Peer Review - Agrisus · For Peer Review 66 To develop and adopt more sustainable practices,...

Documents

Transcript of For Peer Review - Agrisus · For Peer Review 66 To develop and adopt more sustainable practices,...