• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Chicken Still King in Arkansas

Mike

Well-known member
Chicken Still Major Arkansas Business
This article was published on Saturday, November 25, 2006 3:42 PM CST in Business
By Kim Souza
The Morning News
Email this story Print this story Comment on this story Long before Wal-Mart Stores Inc. became a household name, poultry ruled the region and state.

When John Tyson, the founder of Tyson Foods, first introduced the concept of vertical integration in the middle 1940's, it eventually led to more chicken- and related food-processing jobs in Arkansas.

Records from the University of Arkansas Poultry Science Center show that by 1950 there were 19 food processing plants in Springdale, including Campbell's Soup, Swift and Armour.

Now, more than 60 years later, the region is still known for its poultry. According to the National Chicken Council, Benton and Washington counties rank second and third in the nation in terms of overall chicken production. Arkansas ranks second behind Georgia in broiler production.

In the last 12 months, Arkansas produced 1.21 billion broilers compared to Georgia's 1.32 billion, said Richard Lobb, spokesman for the National Chicken Council.

"Poultry remains Arkansas' most valuable commodity. Last year Arkansas broilers had a value of $2.65 billion, which was 42 percent of the state's overall farm receipts," said Larry Traub, agriculture economist for Economic Research Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In contrast, Arkansas rice production ranked second with a value of $713 million.

Arkansas' poultry industry is directly responsible for 45,000 jobs. Another 30,000 Arkansas jobs are indirectly related to the poultry industry in support businesses.

Together, those jobs comprise more than 5 percent of the total jobs in Arkansas. Jenny Popp, associate professor of agricultural economics at the University of Arkansas, said it's pretty significant for one industry to contribute that many jobs.

At the state level, those jobs represent $2.42 billion per year in labor income. (Popp defined labor income as wages, payments and fringe benefits paid by employers and income received from self-employed individuals such as doctors or lawyers.)

In Benton and Washington counties, 9,900 jobs are directly related to poultry producing or processing while another 5,400 jobs are indirectly related to the industry. Labor income for these area jobs totals $515 million per year or 6.7 percent of the regional income earned.

"Much of that money stays in the community and supports other local non-related businesses such as retail shops, bowling alleys and restaurants," Popp said.

Despite the challenges the chicken industry has faced in recent years from global trade instability, immigration, volatile pricing and environmental concerns, the poultry industry is rebounding at a steady pace, Popp said.

Feeding that rebound are people like Randy and Cheryl Robinson, who say poultry farming is a good life.

According to the National Chicken Council's profile, the small family farm continues to be the backbone of America's poultry production. The council estimates that more than 90 percent of all chicken raised for human consumption is produced by independent farmers working under contract with integrated chicken companies like Tyson Foods, George's or Simmons Foods.

The Robinsons own 106 acres in Wedington and operate six poultry houses along with 160 head of cattle. After years of Randy working as an independent truck driver with a cattle business on the side, the couple opted to raise poultry to supplement their income so he could be closer to home.

The investment into the poultry growing business didn't come cheap for the Robinsons 16 years ago, and the cost has continued to escalate annually. The Robinsons estimate a capital investment of more than $660,000 in their six houses, not including maintenance and upkeep.

"Now the estimated cost for a standard chicken house to company specifications will cost you roughly $195,000 just for the tunnel-ventilated house, well house and back-up generator," said Greg Copeland, a long-time poultry grower in Prairie Grove.

Copeland owns and operates four houses and grows broilers for George's of Springdale.

Like the Robinsons, Copeland owns his land and operates a cattle and hay business in addition to growing poultry. Copeland sold a business in Fayetteville and came into poultry business with outside capital, which he said has kept him profitable despite the rising utility costs that are squeezing contract poultry growers.

The average net price paid to growers for large broilers ranges from 5 to 5.2 cents per pound, local growers said.

"The average range in the price paid per pound between the top producer and bottom producer in the group is as narrow as a half of one cent in many cases. The companies have leveled the playing field, and the price paid is pretty much the same for the top half of their producers. But those growers who fall below the average -- and that is half of them -- will get less," Copeland said.

The pricing structure that penalizes half of its growers could use some adjustment, Copeland said. Pricing issues are just one of the concerns growers have expressed with the present system.

"We are continually seeing our propane, natural gas and electric costs go up, and sponsoring companies have offered very little support relief to help the growers with our expensive utility bills," Robinson said.

Meanwhile, poultry companies are making money and the American consumer is enjoying a quality product at a low price, while the grower is the one being squeezed, Copeland said.

Local poultry companies report no openings for new growers at this time. But Cheryl Robinson remembers not many months ago as many as 10 real estate agents knocking on their door in one week wanting to list their property.

"Many of the local poultry growers sold out because the land price was too good to pass up, and now those new farmers are having a tough time because they are still paying for the property and their payout profits hardly cover the expenses," she said.

Both Copeland and Robinson agree that making a profit hinges on if a farmer is still paying for the farm.

"It took us several years to realize any profit, and we don't have nearly as much money invested as the new farmers would," Randy Robinson said.

The Washington County Extension Agency estimates that 75 percent to 85 percent of local poultry growers have other jobs to help support the family in addition to their poultry operations. The National Chicken Council estimates that nationwide growers earn a gross average of $25,000 to $32,000 per year for each chicken house. They said poultry growing is not usually considered a full-time job.

"Today, farms are larger and most growers have four or more houses to operate which makes growing more like a full-time job," Randy Robinson said.

"Growing poultry may not be considered a full-time job but it does confine you. We haven't taken a vacation in many years," said Cheryl Robinson.

Copeland said it's been at least six years since he had vacation.

"Even though the houses are equipped with automatic temperature controls, you still have to pick up the dead animals each day and dispose of them. You have to be there to run interference if the climate control alarm sounds. There is no such thing as a day off," Cheryl Robinson said.

Local farmers agree continual price hikes in utility costs are cutting into profits. They are also troubled by the environmental concerns with poultry litter, avian influenza and the soon-to-come animal identification requirements, Copeland said.

"Even though there are challenges in the industry and some growers are having a really tough time, if local companies advertised for growers tomorrow there would probably be a waiting list for the positions," Cheryl Robinson said.

In their 50's, the Robinsons said their three children work in agri-related industries; but with land prices rising and increasing poultry set up costs, it's not feasible for young families to get into the growing business, they said.

Ken Knies, the regional vice president for Farm Credit Services of Arkansas, said there is some interest towards poultry farming among young people but there are challenges. He said the value of real estate, the cost of building facilities and the environmental issues can make the business tough.

Fast Facts

Tyson Foods Inc. employs more than 22,000 in Arkansas -- 8,000 in Benton and Washington counties. George's of Springdale employs 4,000 with facilities in four states. Simmons Foods based in Siloam Springs has 4,000 employees in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Missouri.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Good story and accurate from just glancing. Most of the chicken operations I'm familiar with have the chicken houses as the wifes job. I would too I guess. :lol: The biggest benefit to a farm/ranch operation is the chicken litter. It offsets thousands of dollars per year in fertilize.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Good story and accurate from just glancing. Most of the chicken operations I'm familiar with have the chicken houses as the wifes job. I would too I guess. :lol: The biggest benefit to a farm/ranch operation is the chicken litter. It offsets thousands of dollars per year in fertilize.

And it also overfertilizes the ground with phosphorus. Isn't the attorney general for Oklahoma suing for that right now?

Most feed has enough phosphorus in it for poultry growth. The problem is that plants tie it up so tight that it is easier/cheaper to put extra phosphorus in the feed for the rapid growth chickens require. Thus too much phosphorus for the ground which goes into run off and causes algae blooms and pollutes.

Other non point pollution in cities like over fertilization of lawns can cause just as many problems.

One of the other things that is an externalization (that is what you call costs that the maker of the cost shifts to someone other than themselves) of the antibiotic use and its problems. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are the result and manifests itself in the population from time to time.

Volunteer | About | Home | recommend site | email this page

Studies find more virulent bacteria in U.S. poultry

Tuesday December 10, 2002

By Randy Fabi

WASHINGTON, Dec 10 (Reuters) - Americans sickened by chicken contaminated
with salmonella and campylobacter may stay ill longer and pay more for treatment
due to virulent strains of the bacteria that resist common antibiotics, Consumers
Union said on Tuesday.

U.S. farmers have long used antibiotics to prevent contagious diseases in
livestock grown for food and to increase growth. Consumers Union and other
critics believe routinely feeding powerful antibiotics to livestock -- along with
overuse of the drugs in humans -- is producing bacteria that are more difficult to
treat.

In a nationwide analysis of brand-name poultry, the nonprofit publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine found 90 percent of the campylobacter found in the
poultry was resistant to one or more commonly used antibiotics, including
tetracycline and erythromycin. Of the chickens with salmonella, 34 percent were
resistant to antibiotics.

"Doctors may have to prescribe several antibiotics before finding one that
works," said Doug Podolsky, senior editor of the magazine. "And patients may
have to pay more to be treated."

The findings, published in the Consumer Report's January issue, were part of a
larger study on the prevalence of salmonella and campylobacter in chicken. The
bugs, which infect more than 1.1 million Americans annually, can cause fever,
diarrhea and abdominal cramps.

McDonald's Corp. (MCD), Wendy's International Inc. (WEN), Tyson Foods Inc.
(TSN) and closely held Perdue Inc. promised earlier this year that their poultry
products would be free of certain antibiotics.

NATIONWIDE STUDY

Consumer Union said it analyzed 484 raw chickens purchased at supermarkets in
two dozen U.S. cities. Of the chickens, 42 percent were contaminated with
campylobacter and 12 percent with salmonella.

Those rates of contamination were down significantly from the consumer group's
last study in 1997 that found 63 percent of chickens tested had campylobacter
and 16 percent had salmonella.

Raw chicken included in the study were sold by Tyson, Perdue, Pilgrim's Pride
Corp. (CHX) and privately held Foster Farms.

The National Chicken Council, which represents poultry farmers, said the decline in
salmonella and campylobacter contamination showed the industry was taking the
necessary steps against harmful bacteria.

The trade group also said it was misleading to focus on antibiotics resistance.

"Resistance to bacteria is by no means limited to raw poultry," said Richard Lobb,
spokesman for the trade group. "You have to look at its long-term use in human
health and its effect."

Poultry farmers say a key source of antibiotic resistance comes from U.S.
physicians being too quick to prescribe common antibiotics at the request of
patients.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION NEEDED?

U.S. health officials have cautioned that some infections were becoming more
difficult to treat.

"Unfortunately, some salmonella bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics,
largely as a result of the use of antibiotics to promote the growth of feed
animals," according to documents previously issued by the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. (emphasis added by OCA)

Consumers Union urged Congress to ban certain antibiotics in animals that are
also regularly used for people.

The Food and Drug Administration in September proposed stricter regulations
mandating drug companies to submit information about resistance risk when
applying for approval for new animal drugs.

The European Union has had a long-standing ban on sales of four antibiotics for
use in livestock feed. Other antibiotics are allowed, although some nations like
Denmark and Sweden have called for a halt to prolonged use.

Consumers Union also recommended that USDA begin testing at poultry plants for
campylobacter.

A USDA spokesman said the department was "laying the ground work" on testing
for the bacteria but declined to elaborate.
Two Studies Find Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria in U.S. Poultry

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, December 10, 2002 (ENS) - Three times more antibiotics by weight are fed to poultry in the United States than humans consume, and the poultry industry's use of antibiotics is a health risk to American turkey and chicken eaters, according to two independent studies released today.

The studies, one from Consumer Reports and another jointly produced by the Sierra Club and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), raise concerns that Americans are increasingly likely to purchase chicken contaminated with strains of salmonella or campylobacter bacteria that are resistant to one or more antibiotics often used to treat people.

"It is no small problem that bacteria on meat are getting more and more resistant to antibiotics," said Dr. David Wallinga, an IATP scientist and co-author of the Sierra Club/ITAP study.

"Common, brand name poultry products routinely carry at least one disease causing germ if not more, and these bacteria are often resistant to one or more antibiotics. The resistance we found is for many of the same medicines that doctors rely on for treating people sick with infections," Dr. Wallinga said.

Salmonella and campylobacter bacteria can cause fever, diarrhea and abdominal cramps. People who are infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria are likely to be subjected to lengthier, more serious illnesses.

Poultry industry representatives called the studies "unduly alarming to consumers" and countered that antibiotic resistance is more likely the result of over prescription by doctors.

In addition, U.S poultry has less bacteria now than ever before, according to industry sources.

"The potential risk of antibiotic resistant pathogens transferring from animals to humans via the food supply is growing smaller all the time," according to a joint statement from several poultry industry groups.

No one argues that salmonella and campylobacter bacteria pose a health risk to consumers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that together they account for some 3.3 million food borne infections and more than 650 deaths each year.

Some 1.1 million Americans, according to the CDC, are sickened each year by undercooked chicken that harbor bacteria or by food that raw chicken juices have touched.

Poultry producers are doing everything they can to produce healthy animals, and concern over antibiotic resistant bacteria are overblown, according to Richard Lobb, spokesman for the National Chicken Council.

"There is always going to be some risk of unwanted bacteria, whether it is chicken, beef or cantaloupes," Lobb said. "There is one thing you can do to eliminate that risk and that is to prepare and cook food properly."

The groups who reported the studies both called for increased consumer vigilance in the handling and preparation of chicken. Still, they believe the industry could do more to reduce the use of antibiotics in raising poultry, especially antibiotics that are also used to treat humans.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) estimates some 10.5 million pounds of antibiotics are fed to American poultry each year, with some 21 percent virtually identical to the ones doctors use to treat sick people. These include tetracyclines, erythromycin, penicillin, bacitracin and virginiamycin.

By contrast, UCS estimates all human antibiotic use is some three million pounds per year.

These two studies are some of the first to examine the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in chicken. Consumer Reports investigators found nearly half the 484 chickens they tested had either salmonella or campylobacter bacteria.

Some 90 percent of the campylobacter bacteria and 34 percent of the salmonella bacteria showed some resistance to one or more antibiotics often used to treat people.

"The bacteria counts from our 1998 report to this have gone down," said David Pittle, senior vice president of technology for Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports. "But this is the first data point measuring the resistance to antibiotics, and it is a very uncomfortable starting point."

"You need swallow just 15 to 20 salmonella bacteria or about 500 campylobacter bacteria to become ill," said Doug Podolsky, senior editor of Consumer Reports.

The 484 whole broiler chickens used in the Consumer Reports study were purchased in 25 cities across the United States.

Tests conducted by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and Sierra Club found 95 percent of the 200 chickens tested had campylobacter bacteria, with 62 percent of the campylobacter resistant to one or more antibiotics.

The IATP/Sierra Club study was conducted on 200 fresh whole chickens and 200 packages of ground turkey purchased from grocery stores in Des Moines, Iowa and Minneapolis/St.Paul, Minnesota. Salmonella bacteria were found in 18 percent of the whole chickens and 45 percent of the ground turkey samples. Of the salmonella bacteria found in ground turkey, 62 percent were resistant to one or more antibiotics.

Campylobacter bacteria were found in only two percent of the ground turkey. Both campylobacter and salmonella bacteria were found in 23 percent of the chickens sampled.

The subtherapeutic use of antibiotics, which is the use for purposes other than treating disease, is a primary concern found by both studies. Antibiotics are given to poultry to quicken growth and are also administered as preventive measures to fight possible infection.

This use is most prevalent on factory farms that have come to dominate the U.S. poultry industry. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines factory broiler poultry farms as those that contain at least 100,000 broiler chickens or 55,000 turkeys. These factory farms account for some 97 percent of U.S. sales of boiler chickens.

"This sets the stage for the evolution of drug resistant microbes that multiply around chicken coops," Podolsky said. "Bacteria that survive drug treatment may eventually contaminate carcasses during slaughtering and processing. If chicken isn't cooked thoroughly enough, they could end up on your dinner plate and colonize your intestines."

Consumers Union has called on the USDA to extend its food safety program to test for campylobacter and has also suggested the ban of subtherapeutic uses of medically important drugs in poultry and other livestock, but the industry is not convinced this is such a good idea.

"Banning the use of antibiotics for prevention and control, and to improve intestinal health, is counterproductive to the objective of maintaining flock health," Lobb said. "In Denmark, where low level antibiotics have been banned, disease has increased and the use of therapeutic medications has increased more than 90 percent," he said.

The industry's subtherapeutic use of all antibiotics is down some 30 percent since 1996, Lobb added, and further regulations would jeopardize the economics of the industry.

Still, Pittle and others expect Congress to look at both subtherapeutic use and at a possible phaseout of the industry's use of antibiotics that are also used to treat people.

The American Medical Association supports the phaseout. Some poultry manufacturers have already begun to change their ways, according to Margaret Mellon, director of UCS' Food and Environment Program.

"It doesn't take rocket science to create the healthy, non stressful conditions that make it possible to avoid the use of antibiotics," said Mellon. "The European Union has now banned use of all antibiotics used as growth promoters, and some mainstream U.S. poultry producers are pulling back from the use of medically important antibiotics for subtherapeutic uses."

Four of the five largest producers have stopped use of any Cipro-like antibiotics, and a host of fast food retailers, including McDonald's, Popeye's and Wendy's, have publicly committed to purchase poultry only produced without these Cipro-like antibiotics.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration estimates some 150,000 Americans in 1999 developed a Cipro-resistant campylobacter infection from contaminated chicken.

"We don't need to use these enormous quantities of drugs to produce affordable, safe meat," Mellon said. "All we need to do is persuade our poultry producers to throw away their drug crutches and move on to new, better managed systems that don't depend on the use of excessive antibiotics."

There is a lot more literature on that subject.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Red Robin said:
Good story and accurate from just glancing. Most of the chicken operations I'm familiar with have the chicken houses as the wifes job. I would too I guess. :lol: The biggest benefit to a farm/ranch operation is the chicken litter. It offsets thousands of dollars per year in fertilize.

And it also overfertilizes the ground with phosphorus. Isn't the attorney general for Oklahoma suing for that right now?

Most feed has enough phosphorus in it for poultry growth. The problem is that plants tie it up so tight that it is easier/cheaper to put extra phosphorus in the feed for the rapid growth chickens require. Thus too much phosphorus for the ground which goes into run off and causes algae blooms and pollutes.
You are goofy econ. Over use of any phosphorus fertilizer is what creates excess phos. Litter applies properly is a good fertilizer. You a tree hugger? How about all that manuer in my barn, should I call the epa and see how to dispose of it properly? It is true, some chicken ranchers over fertilized. I'm yet to be convinced this contributes to the problem that OK is suing for.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
Red Robin said:
Good story and accurate from just glancing. Most of the chicken operations I'm familiar with have the chicken houses as the wifes job. I would too I guess. :lol: The biggest benefit to a farm/ranch operation is the chicken litter. It offsets thousands of dollars per year in fertilize.

And it also overfertilizes the ground with phosphorus. Isn't the attorney general for Oklahoma suing for that right now?

Most feed has enough phosphorus in it for poultry growth. The problem is that plants tie it up so tight that it is easier/cheaper to put extra phosphorus in the feed for the rapid growth chickens require. Thus too much phosphorus for the ground which goes into run off and causes algae blooms and pollutes.
You are goofy econ. Over use of any phosphorus fertilizer is what creates excess phos. Litter applies properly is a good fertilizer. You a tree hugger? How about all that manuer in my barn, should I call the epa and see how to dispose of it properly? It is true, some chicken ranchers over fertilized. I'm yet to be convinced this contributes to the problem that OK is suing for.

rr, it is only recently that fertilizer values had to be obtained on poultry litter. Before that, it was assumed to be just good old manure with no problems. Nitrogen used to be the limiting nutrient. Then the phosphorus problem in the Del Marva Peninsula and the Chesapeak Bay brought the issue to the forefront. There was just too much phosphorus for the land base. Then studies were done on it, etc.

On a 5 barn farm, which I think is common in Arkansas after seeing many of them when flying over, you would need about 500 acres to spread the litter on. Farms were spreading that much manure on much smaller plots. These are the 15,000 per barn buildings growing a 6.5 lb bird. The new barns would need twice that amount.

As I mentioned, non point pollution from cities still isn't being addressed.

No one has to convince you of the problem. It has already been established. You just don't know about it.

I am no tree hugger, but people have to think a little deeper than to allow pollution to destroy the environment. The costs of such destruction will be costs for all of us. There are ways to limit the problems, but it will cost a little money. So what if the price of chicken goes up by one penny a lb. for pollution management. It will make beef a better buy.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I forgot to add that there are treatments for the litter like alum that bind the phosphorus and so it is not water soluble. It works to a varying degree of success.

The enzyme phytase can be added to the diet to reduce the amount of phosphorus in the diet and hence in the manure.

http://www.ag.auburn.edu/aaes/communications/highlights/spring99/phytase.html
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
rr, it is only recently that fertilizer values had to be obtained on poultry litter. Before that, it was assumed to be just good old manure with no problems. Nitrogen used to be the limiting nutrient. Then the phosphorus problem in the Del Marva Peninsula and the Chesapeak Bay brought the issue to the forefront. There was just too much phosphorus for the land base. Then studies were done on it, etc.

On a 5 barn farm, which I think is common in Arkansas after seeing many of them when flying over, you would need about 500 acres to spread the litter on. Farms were spreading that much manure on much smaller plots. These are the 15,000 per barn buildings growing a 6.5 lb bird. The new barns would need twice that amount.

As I mentioned, non point pollution from cities still isn't being addressed.

No one has to convince you of the problem. It has already been established. You just don't know about it.

I am no tree hugger, but people have to think a little deeper than to allow pollution to destroy the environment. The costs of such destruction will be costs for all of us. There are ways to limit the problems, but it will cost a little money. So what if the price of chicken goes up by one penny a lb. for pollution management. It will make beef a better buy.
I don't know where you got your faulty info Dcon but in the great state of Arkansas, you have been able to run a nutrient anyalisis on any kind of fertilizer, including litter, for years. You don't need 500 acres if you have Phos deficient soil. I don't know that I've ever seen a 5 barn farm but I'm sure there are some. They usually set them up in pairs. Most barns hold way more than 15,000 birds if it's a grower house. I think that a better number would be 80,000. The real point is you are just googling and rambling trying to make Tyson look bad and you look good. Well, Tyson looks bad enough without your help as do most corporations and I can't tell it's helping your image any. Give it up. I've seen several hard working families without a pot to pee in make a living and due to the increased land value be able to retire off their decision to hook up with Tyson. Is Tyson faultless, absolutely not. Are they the ruin of ranching. I doubt it. Not knowing what makes money, not having a business plan, not having a clue about cow phenotype and how to match that to your available input , etc, will be the ruin of most ranches without any help from an outside source. It's a tough business and always has been.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
rr, it is only recently that fertilizer values had to be obtained on poultry litter. Before that, it was assumed to be just good old manure with no problems. Nitrogen used to be the limiting nutrient. Then the phosphorus problem in the Del Marva Peninsula and the Chesapeak Bay brought the issue to the forefront. There was just too much phosphorus for the land base. Then studies were done on it, etc.

On a 5 barn farm, which I think is common in Arkansas after seeing many of them when flying over, you would need about 500 acres to spread the litter on. Farms were spreading that much manure on much smaller plots. These are the 15,000 per barn buildings growing a 6.5 lb bird. The new barns would need twice that amount.

As I mentioned, non point pollution from cities still isn't being addressed.

No one has to convince you of the problem. It has already been established. You just don't know about it.

I am no tree hugger, but people have to think a little deeper than to allow pollution to destroy the environment. The costs of such destruction will be costs for all of us. There are ways to limit the problems, but it will cost a little money. So what if the price of chicken goes up by one penny a lb. for pollution management. It will make beef a better buy.
I don't know where you got your faulty info Dcon but in the great state of Arkansas, you have been able to run a nutrient anyalisis on any kind of fertilizer, including litter, for years. You don't need 500 acres if you have Phos deficient soil. I don't know that I've ever seen a 5 barn farm but I'm sure there are some. They usually set them up in pairs. Most barns hold way more than 15,000 birds if it's a grower house. I think that a better number would be 80,000. The real point is you are just googling and rambling trying to make Tyson look bad and you look good. Well, Tyson looks bad enough without your help as do most corporations and I can't tell it's helping your image any. Give it up. I've seen several hard working families without a pot to pee in make a living and due to the increased land value be able to retire off their decision to hook up with Tyson. Is Tyson faultless, absolutely not. Are they the ruin of ranching. I doubt it. Not knowing what makes money, not having a business plan, not having a clue about cow phenotype and how to match that to your available input , etc, will be the ruin of most ranches without any help from an outside source. It's a tough business and always has been.

No, rr, I don't have to google any of it. The barns you are talking about are 500 foot barns, and I was talking the old 330 and 300 foot barns holding 15,000 birds each in the summer and 16,000 each in the winter. The square footage was around 10,000.

When talking about barns, you must put in the number of birds, the final weight of the birds, and hopefully call it a normal growing year with the length of time birds are in the houses. That helps you figure the manure yield. I quoted all those numbers, you did not. I could have given you feed conversion and total lbs. of feed per year per barn.

There are a lot of different type of barns and different type of chickens. The fried chicken industry wants a smaller chicken. A lot of the industry just sells meat, which comes from a bigger bird. This makes a difference on the manure load.

I know you could get a manure analysis anytime. It was only recently with the CAFO rules that it was required along with a nutrient management plan, some of which I have written for growers on my spare time.

I am glad you know farmers who did fine in the poultry business. The fact is that Tyson is currently cheating farmers out of the value of their capital with their market power over them and the politicians in DC over the committees with oversight have been paid off to let it happen. They are mining the equity out from old growers and rewarding new supply with their rigged tournament system. Most farmers don't even know it is happening, but you would be surprised the number that do.

If you want to talk yourself into a system like that, no one will stop you. I have often found farmers to be their worst enemy. The cattle business will have its own nuances, but free markets will not determine price anymore and hence producer surplus (the amount of money made over costs) will slowly go to the packers so they can win in the concentration game.


Take off your rose colored glasses and see the reality.
 
Top