—Lancaster Farming, Saturday, Mar. 16, 1974 42 Runoff Control - Costs and Consequences Thousands of U S. livestock producers face investments in runoff control facilities and added operating costs as a result of the Federal Water Pollution (ontrol Act Amendments Enacted bv Congress in 1972. this act charged the En vironmental Protection Agencv iEPAi with developing a broad national program to eliminate water pollution Guidelines for point source iimoff control have since been drawn up. and the\ applv to all livestock operators with runoff problems at production sites 1 eft uncontrolled, runoff from hv estock production sites can transport animal wastes from feeding and holding areas to creekbeds and streams r 3518 Two outstanding med g, season varieties Stalk strength second to none with 3517 excellent yield ability ooze Four full season varieties 0000 which have proven them -3334A se,ves m southeastern Pa Excellent for husking or 3306 silage When ordering seed a corn please cons| der the 3369 A Pioneer Team The best from start to finish (' i * ■ i / xX 4^ PIONEER. \ SEED CORN I mpM A fMONEE* Hi SUED INC Mt £ I LAURINBURG N C • TIFTON INDIANA Mam questions have been asked about the guidelines and about their economic in pact on livestock operators and consumers How much will controls tost livestock producers' 7 Will some be forced to call it quits' 7 Would the dair\. fed beef, and hog industries face serious disruption 7 And what about consumer prices' 7 The surface water control guidelines, which were drafted b\ the EPA last fall, are aimed at stopping point source discharges The> require producers with surface w ater problems— where runoff from feeding and holding areas can enter rivers, lakes, and streams— to install facilities that are sufficient to contain runoff from major rainfalls bv Julj V 1977. The specific guidelines for 1977 call for containment of runnoff from a 10-yqar. 24- hour storm event i in major livestock areas, generally amounts to inches of rain during a 24-hour period) The facilities must also contain process waste water, such as wash water from dairy operations Big operators onlj. As now proposed, point source control guidelines apply only to very large producers with more than 1.000 beef animals. 700 dairy cows, or 2.500 hogs But later this year. guidelines will be proposed for smaller units Eventual!} all procedures may be covered If all producers had to comply with current!} proposed guidelines, it w ould involve a total initial m- vestment of an estimated $750 million The investment in runoff control facilities would fall on some 280,000 dairjmen, cattle feeders, and hog farmers While the facilities required to meet guidelines would van* with size, type, and location of the livestock operation, most runoff control systems would feature four Basic com ponents diversion terraces to prevent fresh water from flowing across production sites and open lots, settling basins to collect settable solids in runoff, retention ponds to catch and temporarily store runoff and waste water, and pumps and irrigation equipment to periodical!} emptj the holding ponds and distribute the effluent onto farmland The costs of installing these systems would fall heaviest on small producers For example, of the estimated $133 million that the fed beef industry would have to invest to comply with EPA guidelines, more than two-thirds would be borne by feeders selling fewer than 100 head per year In the hog mdustr}. four-fifths of the total S2k» million investment would be required of producers selling fewer than 500 head per \ ear Experts sa} that the added costs of runoff control could force man} small producers out of the livestock business As man} as 60 percent of the hog producers with runoff problems are small voume operators with high unit costs And additional in vestments per annual are much higher for smaller volume producers For example. small beef producers (under 100 head) might have to invest as much as $145 per head while large producers would have to invest onh S 3 per head. Drop out anyway. Some of the producers that can withstand the added financial burden may decide to drop out of the industry For some, uncertainty about future environmental con trols. such as nonpoint source control guidelines, may cause them to postpone investment decisions. Others may opt for concentrating production resources in other farm enterprises such as gram production In the short run, the economic impact of runoff controls would be greatest for "dairv and swine producers If producers left the livestock industry in large numbers, supplies of dain products and pork would tighten considerably | Continued on Page 44) ONLY BROCK has all this. Full Range Of Bin Sizes And Styles 6 models 28 sizes 5 7 9 and 12 foot diameters Capacities range from 3 to 55 tons Completely Galvanized Bin Every part from lid to boot including legs and braces is fully galvanized Better, Built Bin Heavier gauge steel higher tensile steel better galvanized finish manes BROCK the finest in its field New All Out Boot Design With a new one piece injection molded transition for new easier feed down Feed Bins and Grain Bins Many Sizes Available / - r * { ei £ t —ISi ej ~ M dels gpHH WE SELL, SERVICE AND INSTALL |l*l E. M. HERR EQUIPMENT, INC. IBBSsSci R.D 1, Willow Street Ground Level Operated Lid Lid opens or closes easily with the pul! of a chain Precision Fabrication A new plant using the latest manufacturing methods produces a more accurately punched more beautifully formed easily erected bin Brock Auger Delivery System A single motor delivery system for poultry hog and cattle feeding Brock Leadership Brock leads all others in the feed bin business You are years ahead with Brock Builds a Better Bin \ • fV M r Wi HiBRIIIB 7 II Vs. cs 9 II 10 Sues 2 raids :i/ 4JK r v i
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers