Iowa State Methods Of Odor Control

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY ODOR CONTROL METHODS USED BY IOWA PORK PRODUCERS James Kliebenstein, Jeffrey Lorimor, Benjamin Larson January 2003

Working Paper # 03002

Department of Economics Working Papers Series

Ames, Iowa 50011 Iowa State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, marital status, disability, or status as a U.S. Vietnam Era Veteran. Any persons having inquiries concerning this may contact the Director of Affirmative Action, 1031 Wallace Road Office Building, Room 101, 515-294-7612.

Odor Control Methods Used By Iowa Pork Producersa James Kliebenstein, Department of Economics Jeffrey Lorimor, Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Benjamin Larson, Department of Economics Introduction Air/odor issues related to livestock production have received much attention recently. This attention has come from many fronts - policy makers, media, state residents, and agribusiness including livestock producers. While the discussions have been frequent and regulations have been instituted, little is known about the current status of livestock producer use of air/odor control measures. There is not a baseline of air/odor control measures currently in use. A recent Iowa Pork Producers Association survey showed that about two-thirds (63%) of the respondents felt air quality/odor was an issue to be evaluated. They encouraged development of odor and air quality solutions that minimize odor effects. Moreover, in the 2001 survey, environmental concerns were ranked as the biggest obstacle producers face in trying to prosper. This report focuses on establishing a baseline of air/odor control measures currently in use by Iowa Pork Producers. Baseline information on air/odor control measures currently in use can serve multiple purposes. First, it can be used for societal and industry education on the current technologies in use. It can also help reaffirm the industry's commitment to the issue. Secondly, it will assist in documenting changes in technology adoption over time. Third, it can be used to establish a producer educational focus in the air/odor issue area and help identify air/odor control technologies that are effective and low cost control technologies. Fourth, it can be established as the base for use in evaluating industry impacts of selected air/odor control technologies. This would aid in analyzing industry impacts of alternative regulatory actions. Regulatory action has been taken with limited evaluation of industry and/or producer impacts. Method To obtain information on odor control methods used in the Iowa swine industry, a survey was sent to Iowa pork producers. The mailing list was coordinated with the Iowa Pork Producers Association. There were 3,249 surveys sent in early August 2002. Of these, 575 were returned; thirteen were no longer raising pigs leaving 562 usable surveys. The surveys were structured to obtain information on level of use of odor control methods. Level of satisfaction of respective odor control methods was also obtained from respondents, which were using or had used the respective odor control methods. Additionally, information was obtained on type of production systems such as confinement, hoop, etc. in use. Information on type of producer (farrow-to-finish, finisher, etc.) was also obtained. Other information included distance to nearest neighbors and other ways that producers use to improve neighbor relations.

a

This research was supported by the Iowa Pork Producers Association and the Iowa State University College of Agriculture.

This report provides a summary of the type of odor control methods used by Iowa pork producers. The level of satisfaction in those methods is also provided. General industry information is also provided along with what producers are doing to improve neighbor relations. General Results Information on the number of pigs marketed by the survey respondents in 2001 is provided in Table 1. This shows that about 11 percent marketed less than 1,000 pigs. About one-third of the respondents marketed from 1,000-2,999 pigs. About 16 percent marketed from 3,000-4,999 pigs while about a fourth (22.71 percent) marketed from 5,000 to 9,999 head. Thirteen percent marketed 10,000-24,999 pigs while about 6 percent marketed 25,000 or more pigs annually. The largest number of respondents had a farrow-to-finish operation as shown on Table 2 (40.2 percent). About one in five bought and finished feeder pigs (18 percent) or bought and finished early weaned pigs (19.4 percent). About one in seven (14.6 percent) had a contract finishing operation. Table 3 provides information on type of production facilities in use by production phase. The facility types were hoop structure, open-lot with shelter or pastures, naturally ventilated confinement, and mechanically ventilated confinement. Producers were able to indicate multiple facility types. Table 3 demonstrates that there is a wide array of facility types in use by production phase. The farrowing as well as the nursery phases were primarily completed in a confinement system with mechanical ventilation. Breeding-gestation and finishing were more varied but still were predominately confinement facilities. Finishing systems had a greater tendency to use natural ventilation. The largest use of hoop facilities was for finishing. Open lot with shelter or pastures was a popular system for the breeding-gestation phase. It should be noted that the finishing phase showed a large number of producers with multiple facility types (43 percent of respondents). Most producers had a deep pit as the primary manure storage system (Table 4). Sixty-eight percent of the producers indicated that this system was a primary storage system. Moreover, it represented 60 percent of the systems. About 20 percent indicated they had a solid/bedded manure storage system. Eighteen percent had an outdoor slurry pit system while six percent had an anaerobic lagoon. The distance from the main production facility to the nearest neighbor is provided in Table 5. One in eight respondents (12.7 percent) indicated that the nearest neighbor was within oneeighth of a mile from the production facility. About one third (32.8 percent) indicated that the nearest neighbors were from one-eighth to one-fourth mile from the facility. The nearest neighbor was from one-fourth to one-half mile from the facility for about another third (37 percent) of the respondents. Less than one percent had the nearest neighbor located more than one mile from the facility. Odor Control Methods Used and Satisfaction

The survey asked whether producers were using, or had previously used 24 different technologies to help reduce odors. The technologies were divided into four general groups, 1) those associated with buildings, 2) those with manure storage, 3) feed modifications, and 4) land application. Producers who were using, or had used, each technology were asked to indicate whether they were satisfied, indifferent, or unsatisfied with that technology. Table 6 provides the results. The four technologies that were the most popular with producers were windbreaks (38 percent using and 64 percent of those using them were satisfied), deep pit buildings (77 percent using and 77 percent of those using it were satisfied), composting mortalities (50 percent using and 75% were satisfied), and soil injection (69 percent using and 88 percent of those composting using injection were satisfied). Each of these technologies had a low number of producers which discontinued use; 1 percent, 1 percent, 6 percent, and 7 percent for windbreaks, deep pits, composting, and injection, respectively. Some technologies were well liked by the users, but were not used by many producers, or had a higher dropout rate. Examples of these technologies are biocovers with 10 percent of producers using them, but 70 percent which used them were satisfied. Bedded manure systems were used by 36 percent of the respondents and 59 percent using them were satisfied; but 16 percent had quit using the systems. Biocover users represented only 10 percent of respondents; but 69 percent of the users were satisfied. Of those that used biocovers, 16 percent had quit using them. Aeration was used by only 6 percent of which 55 percent were satisfied. Twenty-two percent of those using aeration had quit using it. Producers were dissatisfied with some of the technologies. Plastic covers, both permeable and impermeable were tried by only 2 percent of producers. Only one-third of those which used impermeable covers were satisfied with them; one-third (33 percent) were dissatisfied. Only one in five (20 percent) were satisfied with permeable covers; 60 percent were dissatisfied. This represents the highest level of dissatisfaction of all the technologies. Of those who had tried using covers, 67 percent and 40 percent quit using impermeable and permeable covers respectively. Manure additives were used by 43 percent of the producers, but only 23 percent were satisfied and 54 percent had quit using them. The use of ozone was tested by nearly 2 percent of the producers, but none were satisfied. Most were indifferent (63 percent) while 37 percent were dissatisfied. Seventy percent of ozone users quit using the technology. Items That Producers are Doing to Improve Neighbor Relations Table 7 provides information from an open-ended question that asked producers to indicate other things they are doing to improve neighbor relations. There were 251 producers who responded and 345 responses were provided. The responses were classified into the categories shown in Table 7. The following provides a brief discussion of the types of responses which were classified in the respective categories. Weather (Rain, Wind, and Temperature)- Responses which related to manure application after, before, or during one or more weather conditions Communications/ Neighbor Relations/ Respect- Responses which indicated producer interaction with their neighbors or their community in order to obtain suggestions, provide community involvement, or friendly interactions with neighbors.

Landscaping/Upkeep of Facility and Area- Responses which indicated that producers try to improve the appearance of their facilities and area around facilities. Timing of Application- Responses which indicated that producers attempt to avoid applying manure during certain times such as avoiding holidays, neighbor gatherings, or weekends. Give Pork/Gift/Manure- Responses which indicated that producers tried to provide a gift or service to neighbors. This ranged from gifts of pork, to moving snow, to providing manure for crops. Location of Facility/ and Where Applied- Responses which indicated that producers tried to place or avoid placing facilities and/or manure in certain areas. This ranged from facility placement to avoiding traveling on highways (travel through fields) with manure. Limit Exposure/ Number of Applications- Responses which indicated that producers tried to limit the exposure of neighbors to manure odor or carcasses. This included everything from the number of applications, to volume applied, to applying as rapidly as possible. Incorporate/ Inject- Indicated incorporation or injections. Ranged from knifing (injecting) the manure in to disking in the manure. Other- Indicated a response that did not match a category.

Paying attention to weather and weather patterns and communicating with neighbors were the two most predominant responses. About 30 percent of the respondents were in each category. The use of landscaping, timing of application, providing gifts of pork etc., and location of the facility and the manure application site was listed by about 12 to 16 percent of the respondents. Items such as limiting exposure or incorporation/inspection of manure received numerous responses but represented about six percent of the respondents.

Table 1. Number and Percent of Producers by Number of Pigs Marketed in 2001. Number of Pigs Marketed

Number of Producers

Percent of Producers

Less Than 500 500-999 1,000-1,999 2,000-2,999 3,000-4,999 5,000-9,999

31 28 92 82 85 124

5.68 5.13 16.85 15.02 15.57 22.71

10,000-14,999 15,000-24,999 25,000 Or More

41 29 34

7.51 5.31 6.23

Table 2. Type of Pork Production Operations. Type of Operation Farrow-To-Finish Farrow-To-Feeder Pig Farrow-To-Early Wean Feeder Pig Finisher Farrow-Feeder Pig, Contract Finishing Early Wean-Pig Finisher Contract Farrow-To-Finish Contract Farrowing/Nursery Contract Finisher Seedstock Supplier Other

Number of Producers

Percent of Producers

226 20 24 101 2 109 3 11 82 10 7

40.2 3.6 4.3 18.0 .4 19.4 .5 2.0 14.6 1.8 13

Table 3. Number of Producers With Respective Production Systems By Phase of Production.

Production Phase

Hoop Structures

Open-lot with shelters or pastures

Confinement natural ventilation

Confinement mechanical ventilation

Total

15 0 3 59

147 14 9 159

89 33 29 352

113 260 346 227

364 307 387 638

Breeding-gestation Farrowing Nursery Finishing

Table 4. Primary Manure Storage System.

Manure Storage System Deep pit Solid/bedded Outdoor slurry pit Anaerobic lagoon

Number of Producers

Percent of Producers

Percent of Systems

383 116 102 34

68.2 20.6 18.2 6.1

60.3 18.3 16.0 5.4

Table 5. Distance from Main Production Facility to Nearest Neighbor. Distance

Less than 1/8 mile 1/8 to ¼ mile ¼ to ½ mile ½ to 1 mile More than one mile

Number of Operations

Percent of Operations

70 181 204 93 3

12.7 32.8 37.0 16.9 .6

Table 6. Type of Odor Control Technology By Use and Satisfaction Level.

Biofilter * Windbreak ** Oil Sprinkling Bedded System Ozone

Number Using or Previously Used 9 214 9 203 10

Level of Satisfaction (%) Percent Using Percent or Previously Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quit Used 1.60 25.00 37.50 37.50 11.11 38.14 63.64 35.45 0.91 0.95 1.60 33.33 44.44 22.22 55.56 36.12 59.0 34.1 6.9 15.76 1.78 0.00 62.50 37.50 70.00

Bio Cover Impermeable Plastic Permeable Plastic Deep Pit Other Type Cover Aeration Lagoon *** Solids Separation Composting-Pigs Composting-Manure Other

55 6 5 433 21 33 48 23 280 114 16

9.79 1.07 0.89 77.05 3.74 5.87 8.54 4.09 49.82 20.28 2.85

68.89 33.33 20.00 76.60 84.21 55.56 45.16 60.00 75.49 65.69 100.00

24.44 33.33 20.00 20.48 15.79 22.22 41.94 35.00 20.23 26.47 0.00

6.67 33.33 60.00 2.93 0.00 22.22 12.90 5.00 4.28 7.84 0.00

16.36 66.67 40.00 1.39 4.76 21.21 4.17 8.70 5.71 13.16 0

Manure Additive Feed Additive Low Protein Diet Other

240 152 43 8

42.70 27.05 7.65 1.42

23.36 37.96 37.14 71.43

44.39 43.80 48.57 28.57

32.24 18.25 14.29 0.00

54.17 30.92 18.60 0

Don't Agitate Immediate incorporation Soil Injection Other

111 294

19.75 52.31

54.35 71.20

28.26 22.80

17.39 6.00

20.72 14.63

390 56

69.40 9.96

88.32 70.83

10.83 20.83

0.85 8.33

7.18 5.36

* Includes biofilters that included mechanical ventilation. ** Combines windbreak and shelterbelt. *** Includes lagoons and anaerobic.

Table 7. Items That Producers are Doing to Improve Neighbor Relations(a).

Item Weather (Rain, Wind, and Temperature) Communications/ Neighbor Relations/ Respect Landscaping Upkeep of Facility & Area Timing of Application Give Pork/Gift/Manure Location of Facility/ and Where Applied Limit Exposure/ Number of Applications Incorporate/ Inject Other Number of Responses (a)

Number of Responses

Percent of Responses

Percent of Respondents

77 75 41 38 31 28 18 17 20 345

22.32 21.74 11.88 11.01 8.99 8.12 5.22 4.93 5.80

30.68 29.88 16.33 15.14 12.35 11.16 7.17 6.77 7.97

There were 251 participants who responded and there were 345 responses.