When the average person contemplates the process of livestock production, they might envision a cow being raised on a pasture then sent to a meat-packing facility. However, there is far more that goes into raising animals for food than meets the eye. And one of those factors includes managing livestock mortality. 

Livestock mortality is a topic most of us don’t like to talk about. However, sometimes livestock succumb to death due to illness, injury, genetic disorders or environmental conditions. 

Across the country farmers dispose of their dead animals by either sending them to rendering plants that process deceased animals, burial, burning or composting. 43 states allow livestock composting, but California — one of the nation’s top dairy and beef producing states — bans it. In many counties burial and burning is also banned. Instead, producers are legally required to send their deceased animals to rendering plants. 

“There are only a few rendering operations left in California. Rendering is a process that takes animal products like a dead cow and they will further break it down into a usable product,” Professor Kasey DeAtley of the College of Agriculture said. “But we only have three to five of those locations left in the state and they are primarily located in the Central Valley. [This] makes it very hard for producers to get rid of their animals, especially those on the north and coast.” 

So, what is a cattle producer supposed to do with a dead 1,300 pound bull?

To solve this problem, DeAtley and her colleague Laura Snell have worked since 2019 to gather data from personal research and experiments on livestock composting, and proposed AB411 in February. 

The bill would allow farmers to compost their livestock in the event of a mortality, but only when certain conditions are met and it is gone about in a way approved by the Secretary of Food and Agriculture,” according to TrackBill. 

The bill started the state legislative process back in February and as of April 2 it was presented to the Assembly Agriculture Committee. It was voted with eight votes to move forward to the Natural Resources Committee. The bill was passed by the committee, amended and sent to the Committee on Appropriations as of April 24. DeAtley said the bill will be discussed there until around September, when it will be voted on. 

Livestock producers are put in a difficult position because of the current legislation; most of them cannot get their animals to a rendering plant, but they cannot leave dead animals on their property because of the danger it creates. 

According to Professor Kate Moore of the College of Agriculture, “When you go more towards northern California you’re going to see a lot of predators right now — coyotes, wolves, bears, cougars. The big ones we have the most issue with are coyotes and wolves right now.” 

Predators are attracted to the smell of blood and dead animals that aren’t disposed of; this not only puts the other livestock in danger but property owners as well. 

“Where Kasey DeAtley is from, they are actually afraid to let kids outside because of the wolf issues,” Moore said.

Moore, with children of her own, raises chickens on her property and said every night foxes and coyotes prowl around the area looking for a meal. This is a dangerous safety risk to her whole family.

Livestock mortality composting has also been a research topic in numerous universities such as Cornell University, the USDA and the University of Calgary, according to DeAtley. 

“Advantages include increased biosecurity, timely disposal of mortalities, low risk of environmental contamination, low cost and relatively simple to do. Composting can be used for occasional mortality, emergency livestock mass casualties and disease outbreaks,” according to William Halfman and Carolyn Ihde of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

“ . . . our investigation over the last many, many years has really shown that clause [banning livestock composting] went into the code based on fear-based thoughts. There wasn’t a ton of research behind it. We have actively been trying to change that by working with state agencies, CalRecycle, California Department of Food and Agriculture, the State Water Board and the State Air Resources Board,” DeAtley said.

One concern with the legalization of livestock composting is the possibility of heavy metal concentration making its way into the water supply. DeAtley chose to specifically focus on this concern, which enabled her to receive the funding and legal permits to approach livestock mortality composting from a new perspective.

“One question that came up from CalRecycle is, ‘Does the composting process produce heavy metals?’ Chromium, molybdenum, nitrogen that can run off into waterways, affect the soil. We couldn’t find any literature that addressed heavy metals. That’s where our research came into play, became our hypothesis,” DeAtley said.

Over the past four years DeAtley has worked to answer this scientific question through the use of livestock composting piles and the help of nearly 30 Chico State students, two of those being graduate students who used the project for their master’s thesis. 

DeAtley showed me some photos of the composting process, which included cattle body parts being buried into the piles. Different parts of the animals were used and even the head, which is typically a waste byproduct. Instead of being thrown away it was composted into healthy soil.

DeAtley and the students performed 30 consecutive compost cycles and sent the samples to a commercial lab. The results showed that the soil’s heavy metal concentration was way below expected levels. This suggests that when livestock composting is done correctly, heavy metal concentration is not a concern. To top it off, none of the 60 soil samples tested positive for salmonella, and none of the composting pits had a gross smell, which is a common concern for composting.

“When you do it correctly, it’s safe,” DeAtley said. 

Through her research, DeAtley has supported that concerns over material runoff, odor and contamination are obsolete if the process is done with a great dose of tender love and care. 

Supporters of AB411 include the Butte County Local Food Network, Defenders of Wildlife, California Farm Bureau, California Climate & Agriculture Network, Western United Dairies, California Wool Growers Association, TomKat Ranch, Californians Against Waste and the People Food and Land Foundation.

DeAtley mentioned that some renderers, such as the California Rendering Association, are against the bill. If producers were to stop sending their animals to rendering plants and choose to compost them instead, it would take away valuable business. 

I reached out twice to a widespread livestock rendering company in California and across the country, Baker Commodities, for an interview regarding their opinion of AB411, but received no response. 

If AB411 is passed, it would greatly serve livestock producers who currently have to scramble to dispose of their deceased animals legally and efficiently. It would prevent them from having to resort to illegal measures for the sake of their safety and businesses. 

“If the bill passes, then it is our intent of my collaborator and I to seek more funding to hold workshops for producers . . . Regardless if the bill goes through or not, we will publish the data to the California Agriculture Journal,” DeAtley said.

As AB411 awaits further consideration, DeAtley has not stopped making an impact. Having recently been awarded Agriculture Woman of the Year in Sacramento, she continues to be a trailblazer who not only serves livestock producers and Chico State, but the agricultural industry as a whole.

Elena Mendonsa can be reached at [email protected]