The California legislature is looking to expand the use of agricultural compost, this time for livestock carcasses. But rendering industry representatives say broadly easing restrictions for mammalian composting will spread diseases and increase carbon emissions.
Proponents of Assembly Bill 411 — also known as the Caring About The Terrain, Livestock, and Ecosystems Act — argue the measure could drastically reduce transportation and predator burdens faced by ranchers when an animal dies of normal circumstances.
Authored by Assemblymember Diane Papan, D-San Mateo, and co-sponsored by the California Cattlemen’s Association, AB 411 would allow ranchers and livestock processors to compost carcasses according to management guidance
Asm. Diane Papan (Photo: Papan office)from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, CalRecycle and the State Water Resources Control Board. California’s Food and Agriculture Code currently requires producers to either bury an animal within three miles of where it died or transport it to a CDFA licensed animal hauler or other licensed facility.
Though CalRecycle can grant producers compost waivers during emergency conditions, the measure follows in the footsteps of 42 other states that have expanded the ability of farmers to conduct on-farm mammalian composting.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has also approved composting as an official carcass disposal method and offers best practice resources to ranchers.
“It is time for California to opt for this sensible solution that benefits ranchers, wildlife and the environment all at once,” said Papan during a committee hearing.
To transport or not to transport
Only three rendering plants in California accept animal remains, and rural producers across the state may travel hundreds of miles to deliver carcasses to a licensed facility.
Testifying before the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Clifton Wilson, an advocate on behalf of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, said that despite the size of the county's $62 million livestock production industry, the nearest rendering plant is in Sacramento County — roughly 300 miles away, or an 11-hour round trip.
“This is simply not feasible, and the environmental and physical imprint for moving these animals is just too costly to justify making use of these services consistently,” said Wilson.
He said that some local operations have opted to airlift and drop deceased cattle over the Pacific Ocean, having found helicopters to be more cost-effective than other modes of transport.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
Burying carcasses poses its own challenges, according to Kasey DeAtley, a Chico State University associate professor of agriculture and a cattle rancher in Lassen and Shasta counties. She explained to committee members that burial becomes impossible in the winter time as soil freezes, forcing ranchers to leave carcasses to decompose above ground.
DeAtley said her community does not have any permitted landfills nearby, thus leaving many to create “bone piles” on remote parts of their property.
And Kirk Wilbur, CCA vice president of government affairs, explained to Agriculture Committee members that exposed bones can attract predators, exacerbating ranch depredation incidents. He warned that wolves already pose a significant threat to ranchers, with CCA actively seeking changes to California’s wolf management restrictions.
Kirk Wilbur (Photo: CCA)He noted that carcass burial is also only allowed in certain counties, with many having specific ordinances around how deep the animal must be buried, how much it can weigh or how quickly the animal must be buried following its death.
“Routine mortalities are an unfortunate reality of raising livestock. Whether they result from predation, from accidents or from natural causes, when livestock do die, California ranchers have limited options for their disposal,” said Wilbur.
AB 411 has gained broad support across agricultural groups, including California Certified Organic Farmers, California Climate & Agriculture Network and California Farm Bureau.
It also gained an unlikely ally in Defenders of Wildlife, which has pushed against federal efforts to ease wolf protections in the lower 48 states.
Concerns with bill’s scope
Rendering companies are seeking amendments to the measure that would limit composting to producers in areas where rendering is not easily accessible.
Michael Koewler, president of Sacramento Rendering Co. and CDFA feed inspection advisory board member, said that many rendering plants have been forced to close as a result of residential expansion. To make up for the lost facilities, they now provide collection services to bring material in for processing.
“We work closely with the dairy industry and the cattlemen on a number of issues, because our two industries are very much intertwined,” said Koewler, asking the Legislature not to overlook the role of rendering in greenhouse gas reduction.
On behalf of Pacific Coast Rendering Association, advocate Dennis Albiani added that rendering plants provide a statewide disease control service, helping kill the buildup of pathogens associated with decomposition.
He acknowledged that communities like Humboldt and Lassen counties would benefit from eased composting restrictions, but reinforced that rendering services are practical in regions with dense populations of people and cattle.
“We think there should be a risk-based system that allows [composting] where it's needed,” said Albiani.
John Kennedy, a Rural County Representatives policy advocate, raised concerns with the scope of the bill. He suggested that Papan narrow the allowable size of carcasses and specify where animal tissue can be used as compost.
Asm. Mark González (D-Los Angeles), said he hears the rendering industry’s concerns, given his district is home to West Coast Rendering Co. But he voted for the bill, encouraging future conversation between the opposition and Papan.
In their AB 411 analysis, Natural Resources Committee staff suggest that CalRecycle and SWRCB be “adequately involved in the adoption of the best management practices,” not simply consulted.
They also suggested specific boundaries for offsite composting and limiting where compost can be applied.
Supporting research
DeAtley told lawmakers that over the last six years, a group of Chico State University researchers has conducted livestock morality composting studies to help inform a regulatory best management framework.
With exemptions granted by CDFA and CalRecycle, the researchers established two trial locations to collect data on over 30 compost cycles. They found that composting whole carcasses can be complete in 90 days, while butcher waste can finish in 45 days. They also found that compost does not accumulate toxins, like heavy metals or pathogens, but instead creates nutrients similar to traditional compost.
Using cameras, they also saw that compost piles attracted far fewer predators than neighboring bone piles, showing eight predator visits versus 341, respectively.
“The results of our data complement those in scientific journals in the position paper from CDFA that states that composting of mammalian tissue does not pose a threat to human or animal health,” said DeAtley.
As a farmer and rancher, Asm. Heather Hadwick, R-Alturas, thanked Papan for bringing the bill forward and giving producers an opportunity to protect their operations against predators.
“Any livestock owner will tell you, this is a huge struggle,” said Hadwick, who raises highland cattle in Modoc County.
The measure is now headed to the Asm. Appropriations Committee.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
