“A show-cattle operation in Pueblo County is locked in a battle with the county commissioners and county planning commission about whether their cow-calf operation is technically a feedyard or not. Much of the fight seems lost in translation, and at the end of the day, an existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) that limits the number of livestock on the property may either settle the dispute or drive the need for a special permit. However, it does raise questions about right-to-farm resolutions, anti-agriculture precedents and the ability of decision makers to understand the multibillion-dollar ag industry.

Anna Pratt Coiner, the property owner and owner of Pratt Show Cattle, received orders from Pueblo County to cease utilizing her property as a feedyard. Feedyards have long drawn public scrutiny for odor, dust, flies and the ease in painting concentrated feeding as evil, despite the role it plays in feeding people and anchoring the state’s economy. I was hopeful following the failed City and County of Denver vote to outlaw slaughterhouses and maintain voters truly do value people and offer that vote as proof. From my perspective, the Pratt operation is not a feedlot and arguing the definition of the term is akin to beating one’s head against a sturdy wall.

At the conclusion of the zoning board of appeals meeting on Aug. 14, the board of county commissioners, acting as the Zoning Board of Appeals, voted unanimously to uphold the zoning violation for use of the subject property as a feedlot. Pratt will either have to keep her livestock numbers at five or less or seek a special permit from the county. To be clear, that does not, in any way, define an operation of more than five head of cattle as a feedyard.

The property is about 35 acres, and the Pratts have a home, barns and several pipe pens that house cattle either prepping for breeding, calving and preparing calves for sale to 4-H and FFA exhibitors. Curtis said cows and calves are brought to the property for short periods throughout the year before they are returned to the pasture. The general timeline, he said, is not indicative of a feedyard. In April and May, 35 donor cows are on the property while their eggs are fertilized and retrieved before sent to summer pasture elsewhere. In May through July, embryo transfers are completed on the property in groups of 30 head and they are on the property for about 48 hours before returned to pasture. In August and September, approximately 100 6-month-old calves are on the property being halter trained, washed and brushed daily, and prepared for sale to 4-H and FFA youth showmen. From October until December, calves not sold remain on the property to be trained and washed regularly. From January to March, the pregnant embryo recipient cows return to the property to calve. Once they calve, they stay on the property for three to four days before they return to pasture. This isn’t a feedyard situation, certainly, but it’s beyond the five-head limit. Hence, the deadlock.

There are tailwater irrigation concerns brought forth by a neighbor and there’s no lack of contention over the water and drainage. As always, whisky is for drinkin’ and water is for fightin’.

Commissioner Paula McPheeters said the distinction is the Pratts are raising more cattle than most people on that amount of land. She said she remains unconvinced “a small animal show operation is distinctly different than a feedlot.” She said she’s unsure nuisance complaints can be mediated “because now it’s pointing to the way the water flows, that it belongs in the ditch, that it’s coming from other places, but it never touches the reality that that’s a feedlot where there are animals eating and there is e coli in the presence of that land.”

This is a concerning comment painting any ag operation as an e coli breeding ground. It’s also concerning because there are worlds of differences between the Pratt operation and a feedyard. It’s not a distinction one is good and the other bad. It’s apples and oranges.

This is truly a frustrating situation for all involved and raises interesting questions about what production agriculture is. The right-to-farm resolutions in the state and various counties protect producers from most complaints about slow moving tractors on county roads, fragrant fertilizer application to fields, dust and dispatching the occasional unsupervised dog with a penchant for chasing and biting cows. Through the economy of scale, larger operations are often better equipped to control dust, odors and flies but they draw more than their fair share of criticism as “factory farms” or “giant corporate agribusinesses.” Sometimes you can’t win for losing, but hopefully the winners aren’t celebrating with a full plate courtesy of the ag industry.”