Stephen H. Pohl

Comparison of Construction Costs for Vegetative Treatment Systems in the Midwestern United States

Vegetative treatment systems (VTSs) provide an alternative to containment basin systems for beef feedlot runoff control. Beef producers in the Midwestern United States have shown an increasing interest in using VTSs as a perceived lower cost option to containment basin systems. This article reports the actual construction costs associated with 23 VTSs (nine on permitted Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and 14 on non-permitted Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs)) and four containment basins located throughout Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. The VTS construction costs are reported on a per head space basis in 2009 adjusted dollars for each system. Cost comparisons are presented for CAFO and AFO facilities, and by system type. Additionally, estimated construction cost comparisons between open feedlots with VTS systems, open feedlots with containment basins, monoslope barns and hoop structures for beef production systems are provided. Results from the cost comparison indicate the average construction cost in 2009 dollars for an AFO or CAFO is

Comparison of Construction Costs for Vegetated Treatment Systems in the Midwest

655 per head space for animals housed in a monoslope barn with a concrete floor and

Field Performance Evaluation of a Ventilation System: A Swine Case Study

395 per head space for animals housed in a hoop structure. For AFOs and CAFOs, the average cost of an earthen lot with a containment basin costs is

Heat and Moisture Balances for a New Barn Design with Recirculated Air

361 per head space, while the average cost of an earthen lot implemented with a VTS is

Evaluating Energy Use and Conservation on Dairies in the Northern Great Plains – Outreach Efforts and Needs for Periods of Heat Stress

283 per head space. If only the feedlot runoff control system is considered, VTSs designed for CAFO facilities are less expensive on average to construct (

Monitoring the performance of vegetative treatment systems across subhumid and semiarid rainfall zones

85 per head space on average) than traditional containment basins (

Assessment of Ventilation Management Training Workshops

136 per head space on average). Similarly for AFO feedlot runoff control systems, a VTS was less expensive to build on average (

The real world of ventilation troubleshooting: a swine case study.

79 per head space on average.) than a containment basin on a similar facility (

Site, environmental, and airflow characteristics for mono-slope beef cattle facilities in the northern great plains

205 per head space). The data indicated on average the least expensive VTS for an AFO is a gravity VTS (

Evaluating energy use and conservation on dairies in the Northern Great Plains-Outreach efforts and needs for periods of heat stress

54 per head space average.) followed by a sprinkler VTS (