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 one-
eighth 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 Number of Percent of

Pigs Marketed Producers Producers

Less Than 500 31 5.68

500-999 28 5.13
1,000-1,999 92 16.85
2,000-2,999 82 15.02
3,000-4,999 85 15.57
5,000-9,999 124 22.71
10,000-14,999 41 7.51
15,000-24,999 29 5.31
25,000 Or More 34 6.23

Table 2. Type of Pork Production Operations.

Type of Number of Percent of

Operation Producers Producers

Farrow-To-Finish 226 40.2

Farrow-To-Feeder Pig 20 3.6
Farrow-To-Early Wean 24 4.3
Feeder Pig Finisher 101 18.0
Farrow-Feeder Pig, Contract Finishing 2 .4
Early Wean-Pig Finisher 109 19.4
Contract Farrow-To-Finish 3 .5
Contract Farrowing/Nursery 11 2.0
Contract Finisher 82 14.6
Seedstock Supplier 10 1.8
Other 7 13
Table 3. Number of Producers With Respective Production Systems By Phase of
Production.

Open-lot
with
shelters Confinement Confinement
Production Hoop or natural mechanical
Phase Structures pastures ventilation ventilation Total

Breeding-gestation 15 147 89 113 364

Farrowing 0 14 33 260 307
Nursery 3 9 29 346 387
Finishing 59 159 352 227 638

Table 4. Primary Manure Storage System.

Number of Percent of Percent of

Manure Storage System Producers Producers Systems

Deep pit 383 68.2 60.3

Solid/bedded 116 20.6 18.3
Outdoor slurry pit 102 18.2 16.0
Anaerobic lagoon 34 6.1 5.4

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

Distance Number of Percent of

Operations Operations

Less than 1/8 mile 70 12.7

1/8 to ¼ mile 181 32.8
¼ to ½ mile 204 37.0
½ to 1 mile 93 16.9
More than one mile 3 .6
Table 6. Type of Odor Control Technology By Use and Satisfaction Level.

Level of Satisfaction (%)

Percent Using
Number Using or or Previously Percent
Previously Used Used Satisfied Indifferent Unsatisfied Quit
Biofilter * 9 1.60 25.00 37.50 37.50 11.11
Windbreak ** 214 38.14 63.64 35.45 0.91 0.95
Oil Sprinkling 9 1.60 33.33 44.44 22.22 55.56
Bedded System 203 36.12 59.0 34.1 6.9 15.76
Ozone 10 1.78 0.00 62.50 37.50 70.00

Bio Cover 55 9.79 68.89 24.44 6.67 16.36

Impermeable Plastic 6 1.07 33.33 33.33 33.33 66.67
Permeable Plastic 5 0.89 20.00 20.00 60.00 40.00
Deep Pit 433 77.05 76.60 20.48 2.93 1.39
Other Type Cover 21 3.74 84.21 15.79 0.00 4.76
Aeration 33 5.87 55.56 22.22 22.22 21.21
Lagoon *** 48 8.54 45.16 41.94 12.90 4.17
Solids Separation 23 4.09 60.00 35.00 5.00 8.70
Composting-Pigs 280 49.82 75.49 20.23 4.28 5.71
Composting-Manure 114 20.28 65.69 26.47 7.84 13.16
Other 16 2.85 100.00 0.00 0.00 0

Manure Additive 240 42.70 23.36 44.39 32.24 54.17

Feed Additive 152 27.05 37.96 43.80 18.25 30.92
Low Protein Diet 43 7.65 37.14 48.57 14.29 18.60
Other 8 1.42 71.43 28.57 0.00 0

Don't Agitate 111 19.75 54.35 28.26 17.39 20.72

Immediate 294 52.31 71.20 22.80 6.00 14.63
incorporation
Soil Injection 390 69.40 88.32 10.83 0.85 7.18
Other 56 9.96 70.83 20.83 8.33 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).

Number of Percent of Percent of

Item Responses Responses Respondents

Weather (Rain, Wind, and Temperature) 77 22.32 30.68

Communications/ Neighbor Relations/ Respect 75 21.74 29.88
Landscaping Upkeep of Facility & Area 41 11.88 16.33
Timing of Application 38 11.01 15.14
Give Pork/Gift/Manure 31 8.99 12.35
Location of Facility/ and Where Applied 28 8.12 11.16
Limit Exposure/ Number of Applications 18 5.22 7.17
Incorporate/ Inject 17 4.93 6.77
Other 20 5.80 7.97
Number of Responses 345
(a)
There were 251 participants who responded and there were 345 responses.