Nuisance Concerns and Odor Control1
J. RONALD MINER
ABSTRACT
Nuisance and odor control continue to be major
challenges to livestock and poultry producers across
the country. Dust and flies are the two most fre-
quently mentioned nuisances after odors. Research
and testing have devised systems that are capable of
achieving reduced frequency and intensity of odors,
flies, and dust; however, these systems are typically
more expensive to build and operate than is the stan-
dard lagoon holding basin. Producers who operate
close to sensitive odor perception sites are at a clear
disadvantage to those located in more remote loca-
tions. In addition to the cost factor is the uncertainty
associated with nuisance and odor control. Some
dairies are able to co-exist with their neighbors
despite frequent odor detection, but others find that
their neighbors demonstrate much less tolerance.
Odor control additives, either fed or applied to the
manure, have generally been less than fully success-
ful. Careful site selection, appropriate facility design,
flawless management, and a generous amount of posi-
tive local relations have proved to be the most effec-
tive means of avoiding cost from odor confrontations.
( Key words: manure, odor, dust, flies)
PERSPECTIVE
Livestock and poultry producers are accustomed to
risk; prices change. Some animals thrive, but others
perform poorly. Among the worrisome risk of
producers is that they will encounter an odor com-
plaint that threatens the enterprise. Neighbors of
livestock producers have taken legal action against
them based on the odor nuisance in many of the
traditionally agricultural states. These actions may
seek millions of dollars in damages and injunctions to
cause the operations to cease.
The best protection a dairy operator can have is an
environmentally sensitive operation that is regarded
as being an asset to the community. Major odor
Received July 15, 1996.
Accepted March 10, 1997.
1Technical Paper Number 11,003. Oregon Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Corvallis 97331.
1997 J Dairy Sci 80:2667–2672
Bioresource Engineering Department,
Oregon State University, Corvallis 97331
sources in otherwise odor-free residential areas are
almost certain to arouse objections. New enterprises
that are perceived as a threat to the existing social or
economic structure are more vulnerable than are ex-
tensions and expansions of existing operations.
ODOR IS REGULATED AS A NUISANCE
Odor is regulated as a nuisance in every state in
the US. Flies and dust are treated similarly.
Nuisance is generally defined as interference with the
normal enjoyment of property, a concept that origi-
nated with British common law. A distinction often is
made between a public nuisance (infringement on the
rights of a number of people) and a private nuisance.
In most cases, action is lodged against an odor source
as a public nuisance by a local or state agency seeking
relief in the form of administrative orders to cause an
abatement of odor, administrative penalties, or in-
junctive relief. The federal government does not have
regulatory authority over odor; hence, there are no
Environmental Protection Agency regulations or tech-
nical assistance for odor control. A private nuisance
action consists of a lawsuit between private parties
that seeks a court order to cause the operator to abate
the odor, an injunction to close the operation, actual
damages, punitive damages, or some combination of
these.
ODOR CONTROL
Research has provided a useful background on how
odors are produced, where odors are most likely to be
formed, how those odors might be prevented from
forming, and how odors might be captured rather
than allowed to escape. Techniques are also available
that allow prediction of the distances that odors will
be transported in identifiable concentrations under
various climatic conditions. Low velocity, constant
wind movement favors odor transport because such
wind movement minimizes dilution.
Engineering solutions have been demonstrated
that will solve most of the odor control issues. The
challenge is that those features of housing and ma-
nure management that are the most effective for odor
control are generally more expensive to construct or
2667
2668 MINER
operate than are those technologies that have greater
odor release. The design of systems for manure
management balances the construction and operating
cost of the system with the degree of odor control.
Where the threat of odor complaints or litigation has
been minimal, planners typically invest little in odor
reduction technology.
One of the challenges regarding odor control is the
difficulty in measuring odors in a way that is
meaningful to neighbors or the courts. Odors are a
complex mixture of volatile organic compounds
formed by the anaerobic decomposition of manure.
Over 100 compounds have been identified from de-
composing swine manure. Concentrations of in-
dividual compounds such as ammonia and hydrogen
sulfide are frequently measured, but the correlation
between these measurements and odor intensity is
not good. Sweeten and Miner ( 1 0 ) used a Scen-
tometer (Barneby Cheney, Columbus, OH) to docu-
ment the intensity of cattle feedlot odors at various
locations in the vicinities of two feedlots. Although
not precise, the Scentometer readings are relatively
easy to make and provide a degree of quantification to
the intensity of an odor. Another common analysis
has been to calculate the percentage of time an odor
would be detectable at a specific location, but this
approach is convenient for discussing the invasion of
an odor only. Odor intensities tend to decrease as
separation distance increases. Sweeten and Miner
( 1 0 ) showed the relationship between odor intensity
and distance that was similar to that illustrated in
Figure 1 for a cattle feedlot in Oklahoma. Although
this analysis shows a rapid decrease in odor intensity
as distance increases, the data always show extensive
scatter because of short-term variability in wind ve-
locities. Note that in Figure 1 the logarithm of odor
intensity was plotted. The odor intensity (D/T, the
dilutions to threshold) actually decreased by a factor
of 10 within the first 500 m.
Mannebeck ( 4 ) indicated that the installation of a
cover on an outside manure storage pit, tank, or
lagoon was an effective means of odor control because
this installation effectively reduced the ventilation
rate and, hence, the rate of odor emission. A packed
bed, dry scrubber filled with zeolite (clinoptilolite)
reduced ammonia emissions from a poultry house by
45% initially, but efficiency dropped to only 15% in 18
d (5).
The soil is an excellent medium to assist in odor
control because of chemical absorption, oxidation, and
aerobic degradation of organic gases. Lindvall et al.
( 3 ) determined that soil injection reduced odor emis-
sions from liquid swine manure by over 90% com-
pared with surface spreading. Odor from soil-injected
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 80, No. 10, 1997
Figure 1. The relationship between odor intensity and down-
wind distance based on measurements made near an Oklahoma
feedlot. The odor intensity decreased by a factor of 10 within 500 m
( 9 ) . D/T = Dilutions to threshold.
manure was about equal to that from a soil surface
that was free of manure. Disc harrowing or plowing of
surface-spread manure reduced the odor threshold
level by 67 to 95%.
Soil filters with perforated pipe in a shallow soil
bed have proved to be effective for scrubbing odors
from a process area or building exhaust air.
Kowalewsky et al. ( 2 ) removed 52 to 78% of ammo-
nia and 46% of the organic constituents from the
ventilation air from a swine confinement building
using a soil filter system. Bohn ( 1 ) reported 99.9%
odor reduction from a soil filter used to treat high
density odors from rendering plant cookers. Soil
filters required a moderately fine textured soil, suffi-
cient moisture, and pH control of 7 to 8.5. A typical
land area requirement is 8.2 to 15.1 m2/m3 per min.
(2500 to 4600 ft2/1000 ft3 per min). Sweeten et al.
( 9 ) measured a 95 to 99% reduction in ammonia
emissions and a 30 to 82% reduction in odor intensity
(matching butanol concentrations) using a 0.10-ha
(0.25-a) sand filter field to scrub air from a poultry
operation that composted manure.
Under current social and regulatory constraints, no
easily identifiable level of odor control can be ensured
as being acceptable. Sites that are close to developed
areas, along major highways, or near an adequate
feed and labor supply may have more demanding odor
control constraints, making them more expensive to
develop. Anaerobic lagoons are generally regarded as
the least-cost means of manure storage and treat-
ment, but lagoons also have a high level of odor
production during certain times of the year. An im-
portant issue is whether the savings from using an
 SYMPOSIUM: MANURE MANAGEMENT
anaerobic lagoon at a specific site is sufficient com-
pensation for the risk that might be associated with
complaints about odor.
Products to Control Odors
Livestock and poultry manures are a rich mixture
of organic materials and organisms being shed from
the intestine of the animals. Without further addition
of nutrients, enzymes, or microbial additives, degra-
dation begins almost immediately. The nature of the
decomposition process, whether aerobic or anaerobic,
rapid or slow, depends upon the environment in
which that decomposition occurs.
Throughout decomposition, various components of
the fresh manure as well as materials formed in the
decomposition process tend to escape because of their
volatility. The compounds of smaller molecular mass
tend to escape most rapidly. The volatility of many of
these components is dependent upon the environment
in which they exist. For example, hydrogen sulfide,
which has an odor of rotten egg, is more volatile
under acidic conditions. Ammonia is the opposite: it is
more volatile under alkaline or basic conditions.
Thus, one of the early proposals to control odors was
to adjust the pH of the manure storage or treatment,
but, although the pH adjustment can change the na-
ture of the odor, most people agree that little progress
has been made on overcoming the odor problem.
Manure decomposition begins even before excre-
tion. The proteins are degraded into amino acids, and
the carbohydrates are shortened to energy-producing
sugars. Within the animal intestine, that process oc-
curs in a warm anaerobic environment with little
temperature variability. Immediately upon excretion,
the volatile materials present vaporize, and the odor
of fresh manure is detected in the area. Depending
upon the environment in which the manure is main-
tained, further biodecomposition can occur. If suffi-
cient oxygen is present, the aerobic process proceeds,
producing relatively nonodorous products. If the sup-
ply of oxygen to the bacterial population is inade-
quate, more odorous end products are formed. In a
liquid slurry, the water becomes saturated with these
materials, and, whenever the liquid is agitated, a
release is abundant. There are ways to stop this
decomposition, but, under most housing systems,
none of these is operationally or economically attrac-
tive.
Decomposition of manure by anaerobic bacteria can
be stopped by creating an environment that is un-
suitable for anaerobe survival. Bedding traditionally
served that role. By mixing a small amount of ma-
nure with a large volume of straw, an environment is
2669
created in which the bulk is sufficiently dry so that
air permeates the mass. As a result, anaerobic bac-
teria are inhibited, and aerobic bacteria, fungi, and
more complex organisms thrive. This situation cre-
ates compost odor. Some ammonia escapes, but, in
general, the gases that are released are not overly
offensive. The addition of sufficient quantities of oxy-
gen to a liquid can promote a similar process. Sewage
plants with extended aeration treatment plants and
oxidation ditches for swine manure utilize this
process. Although these methods have been effective
in reducing odors, the operating costs have made
them unattractive to livestock producers except under
those conditions in which odor control was at a
premium and when lack of odor control might pose
threats to the enterprise.
Another technique to prevent anaerobic decomposi-
tion is to maintain the temperature sufficiently low
that biological activity is inhibited. This technique
has little application to the control of odors, but does
explain the unusually severe odors encountered from
lagoons during the spring when the water warms
after a winter of limited biological activity.
Several individuals have sought additives that
could be fed to animals, added to the manure storage
pit, or sprayed over the manure to eliminate odors.
Among these have been products containing concen-
trations of specialized bacteria or enzymes that were
selected to alter the pathway of decomposition. Thus
far, objective evaluation has confirmed what science
would predict: a large concentration of bacteria and a
plentiful supply of enzymes exist in manure already.
The likelihood that a small volume of an additive
would change the pathway of decomposition is very
small. Similarly, the ability to add an alternate
odorant that is strong enough to mask the manure
odor but yet be socially acceptable is also most un-
likely. Warburton et al. ( 1 1 ) conducted odor control
studies using an extensive array of additives, includ-
ing biological supplements, masking agents, and odor
suppressants. Their studies indicated that none of the
products tested was effective in reducing odor. Miner
and Stroh ( 6 ) reported similar results in a study of a
cattle feedlot. More recently, Patni and Jui ( 7 ) tested
a number of odor control additives with the same
results, except for the addition of peat moss, which
formed an intact scum layer on top of the manure
storage tank.
Based on these repeated investigations, the most
reasonable conclusion is that only those additives
that are logically capable of changing the odorant
production process, stopping the escape of odorous
gases, or preventing the transport of those gases to
downwind receptors have value as farmer-applied
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 80, No. 10, 1997
2670 MINER
remedies for odor. There is no easy solution to odor
problems, but there are some very reasonable steps
that a responsible livestock producer can take to
minimize the frequency and intensity with which
odors from a livestock operation are detected by sensi-
tive neighbors.
Recent nutritional research ( 8 ) has the potential
to balance amino acids in the ration to reduce the
amount of N and S excreted. This approach has the
long-term possibility of reducing the quantity of
wasted nutrients and, therefore, a portion of the odor
burden.
Controlling Odors from Manure
Application to Cropland
Each year, livestock producers are pummeled by
their friends and neighbors with regard to the odors
associated with the distribution of manure to
cropland. Alternatives exist to conventional surface
spreading. Equipment is available to inject manure
into cover crops or to knife liquid manure into the
soil. Each of these technologies requires more time
and the use of more equipment that does distribution
on the land surface of either solid manure from a
manure spreader or liquid from an irrigation system.
The critical question for the dairy producer is how
important it is to control the odor that is associated
with spreading manure.
The answer to this question may be that it is more
important than one would think. Most state laws
provide a degree of protection for well-conducted
agricultural practices, but that protection may not
always be adequate, considering that alternatives ex-
ist that greatly reduce the odor escape and make
more complete use of the nutrients available. In the
final analysis, the answer is a matter of balance.
There is an additional cost to injecting manure, and
not all soils are suitable for injection. Manure injec-
tion takes longer than surface application. Finally, if
the wind blows from the residences toward the farm,
no odor travels to the residence anyway.
No single rule serves every farm or farmer. The
answer to odor control problems depends upon the
environmental sensitivity to which each owner or
manager must respond. Not all fields are equivalent
for the application of manure. There may be fields
and days on which soil injection of manure is the most
reasonable answer.
PLANNING A FARM TO CONTROL ODORS
Just as there is no magical cure for odors, there is
no mystery about the formation of odors. With proper
planning, any desired level of odor control can be
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 80, No. 10, 1997
achieved. More elaborate systems are obviously more
expensive than less sophisticated techniques. For
many operations, site selection is the only odor con-
trol technology that is required. Good judgment is
critical. Clearly, an acceptable degree of odor control
will be more difficult and probably more expensive to
achieve if the facility is located adjacent to a subur-
ban housing development, a school, or a shopping
center in an urban area. Areas identified as being
appropriate for upscale retirement living have also
proved difficult. Adequate land for manure disposal
that is accessible for odor control is critical.
Facility design is the second opportunity to achieve
odor control. Depending upon the degree of control
sought, several alternatives can be selected. Systems
that facilitate frequent manure removal lead to less
in-house generation of odor. The extent to which the
floors, walls, and animals can be maintained clean
and free of manure is important in determining the
amount of odor that is subsequently discharged in the
exhaust air. Pulling exhaust air from beneath slatted
floors but above the liquid manure level minimizes
building odors, but such exhaust air, if discharged
toward a sensitive neighbor, may well become a
problem.
The choice of the manure storage is the next oppor-
tunity for odor control. Storage may range from a
carefully covered above-ground manure storage tank
to an open earthen basin into which liquid manure
flows prior to application to cropland. Just as these
options differ in cost, so too do they differ in the
amount of odor released. Anaerobic lagoons have been
among the most popular manure storage and treat-
ment devices during the past 30 yr. Lagoons typically
provide long-term storage and considerable conver-
sion of manure solids into liquid that can be pumped
with conventional centrifugal pumping equipment.
Groundwater concerns dictate that anaerobic lagoons
be constructed so that downward movement of the
water is restricted to a very small amount. In addi-
tion to storage, these lagoons facilitate anaerobic
decomposition of the manure, converting nitrogen to
ammonia, sulfur to hydrogen sulfide, and the carbo-
hydrates to carbon dioxide and water. Intermediates
are also released. As herds have grown, so have la-
goon sizes. Large anaerobic lagoon surfaces of 8 ha
(20 a ) and larger have released odor for several
miles.
An option to anaerobic lagoons is the use of aerated
or aerobic lagoons. Aeration is typically accomplished
by placing a floating mechanical surface aerator in
the lagoon. Aerator requirements are typically 1 hp
for each 50 finishing pigs. Power costs are high, and
initial investment for aerators may be in the order of
 SYMPOSIUM: MANURE MANAGEMENT
$200/hp. Although aerated lagoons were popular in
the 1970s, their use has been restricted to emergency
situations during the past decade.
Another option to capture the treatment benefits of
anaerobic lagoons but to avoid odor problems has
been to cover the lagoons. Gastight rubber covers
have received some use, but, for the larger lagoons,
they, too, have been sufficiently expensive to be unac-
ceptable to most swine producers and would be even
more so to dairy producers who are responsible for
large dairy lagoons. Several years ago, dairy waste
lagoons that developed floating scum covers were
generally less odorous than were those with a free
water surface. Research has indicated that other
permeable covers may also offer similar benefits.
Research currently underway at Oregon State
University is attempting to develop a low cost, float-
ing permeable cover that has this benefit.
THE IMPORTANCE OF PERCEPTION
Lawsuits generally result when people perceive sit-
uations differently. In the case of odor complaints, the
offended neighbor perceives the odor situation as
much more severe than the owner does. Part of this
difference in perception has to do with the subjective
nature of odor. Each person has individual responses
to odors. Part of this is training, and part has to do
with previous experience and the extent to which one
can or should be inconvenienced for the benefit of
neighbors.
Livestock producers can draw one important in-
sight from the subjective nature of odor responses.
Odors from the operations of respected neighbors,
trusted friends, and valued community supporters are
dramatically less objectionable than that from the
invasive, irresponsible, newcomer. Seldom is a
nuisance suit filed between friends or people who
value one another’s friendship. There clearly is a
reward for the responsible community member who is
appreciated by his neighbor.
LEGAL CONCERNS
Odors are an established feature of livestock
production systems. To date, odor sources have been
subject to nuisance suits based on the unreasonable
interference with their neighbors’ use of their pro-
perty. Under most conditions, the damages awarded
in such suits have been those associated with actual
property damages and decreased property values. The
costs of neighbor response to the odors have also been
reimbursable. In exceptional cases, punitive damages
have been awarded in association with odors. Puni-
tive damages have to do with behavior that is per-
2671
ceived as deliberately irresponsible or that shows a
belligerent disregard for the property of others.
It is important that livestock producers take seri-
ously any legal steps that are taken or being proposed
by neighbors relative to odor nuisance. Attorneys who
have experience with such actions have learned to
assemble the data necessary for a successful defense
of an operation. High quality objective data that docu-
ment that the complaint is unreasonable is the single
most effective defense against a lawsuit. Even better,
however, is the avoidance of the suit.
Producers can avoid many of the potential lawsuits
that threaten them by being worthy of retention in
their local communities. Communities support enter-
prises that contribute to the overall well-being of the
area. When the benefits of an operation in the com-
munity outweigh the total cost, that operation be-
comes worth keeping.
ODOR CONTROL
AND NUTRIENT CONSERVATION
A relationship exists between manure treatment
and the extent to which nutrients, particularly nitro-
gen, are conserved. Anaerobic decomposition involves
the conversion of nitrogenous compounds to ammonia.
When these anaerobic units are open to the at-
mosphere, ammonia has a great tendency to escape.
Mechanically aerated storage units for manure are
similarly prone to nitrogen volatilization. This ten-
dency to lose nitrogen is related to the establishment
of alternate aerobic and anaerobic conditions. When
aerobic conditions are maintained, ammonia is con-
verted to nitrates. Those nitrates are subject to fur-
ther conversion to nitrogen gas if at a later time the
slurry becomes anaerobic.
Maximum conservation of manure nutrients is
achieved when manure is collected and incorporated
into the soil with minimum handling and delay. This
ideal is seldom possible but establishes the standard.
Retention of manure in a storage tank with minimum
dilution and handling, followed by frequent soil incor-
poration, is a second best technique of nutrient reten-
tion. More extensive handling, treatment, or spraying
operations increase nitrogen volatilization and loss as
a soil nutrient. Long-term storage in which anaerobic
decomposition is nearly complete represents the
greatest possible nutrient loss. Long-term anaerobic
lagoon treatment, followed by high pressure spray
irrigation, can achieve nitrogen losses that are well in
excess of 75%. Whether this loss is good or bad de-
pends on the cost of alternative nitrogen sources, the
availability of cropland on which to utilize the ma-
nure, and the more personal attitude toward the vir-
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 80, No. 10, 1997
2672 MINER
tue of energy conse rvation. The other major plant
nutrients, phosphorus and potassium, are much more
durable than is nitrogen. As a result, much smaller
fractions of these nutrients are lost during manure
handling and storage.
ODOR CONTROL FOR THE FARM
Research over the past 25 yr has shown that the
odors around a livestock operation can be controlled.
Most of the odors people complain about are those
related to manure decomposition. The method of han-
dling is vitally important in controlling odors. Even
more important, however, are some preliminary deci-
sions.
Site Selection
Careful consideration of all aspects of a site avoids
numerous future conflicts. Sites that are close to resi-
dences require more expensive technology for odor
control and increase the risk of devastating conflicts
over odors. Although the direction of the prevailing
wind is important, wind direction is not absolute
protection because of the tendency of the wind to blow
from all directions.
Building and Equipment Designs
Modern facility designs include features that
quickly separate manure and animals. Whether slot-
ted floors or flushed gutters are used, manure-covered
surfaces should be minimized.
Manure Management Technologies
Covered manure storage units, aerobic storage and
treatment devices, and soil injection equipment are
available and can be designed to serve those systems
that justify their additional costs. It is important that
designers continue to use care to identify sites that
are appropriate for more elaborate technologies for
odor control and sites where conventional manure
management is sufficient.
Effective Odor Control
The housing facility, method of manure storage
and treatment, and method of manure application to
cropland of a livestock management system deserve
and demand consideration if odor control is to be
achieved. Inadequacies in any one of the three can be
sufficient to cause the system to fail.
Dust and Fly Control
Dust and flies are generally claimed as annoyances
along with odors when nuisance complaints are
lodged. Dust is associated with open lots and dry
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 80, No. 10, 1997
climate. The lot manager can generally control dust
with careful control of the surface moisture content.
Increasing the animal density during hot, dry
weather is one option. This additional urine load can
contribute to improve lot conditions. Supplemental
water through a carefully designed sprinkler system
or other distribution equipment is a second option.
The important concern is uniform application and
careful management. Excess water can lead to wet
areas, which contribute to odors and potential fly
breeding.
Fly control is also possible with a combination of
good facility design and astute management. Lots can
be designed to minimize the accumulation of the
moist manure that allows flies to reproduce. Areas
around feedbunks and along fences have long been
culprits. Proper construction and lot cleaning can pre-
vent breeding in these particular sites. Quality pens
do not accumulate wet manure in low areas, and good
sprinkler systems do not create wet areas that accom-
modate fly breeding. Supplemental chemical control
may be necessary, but most entomologists suggest
that design and management activities are the first
line of defense.
REFERENCES
1 Bohn, H. 1972. Soil absorption of air pollutants. J. Environ.
Qual. 1:372.
2 Kowalewsky, H. H., R. Scheu, and H. Vetter. 1979. Measure-
ment of odour emissions and imissions. Page 609 in Effluents
from Livestock. J.K.R. Glaser, ed. Elsevier Appl. Sci. Publ.,
London, England.
3 Lindvall, T., O. Noren, and L. Thyselius. 1974. Odor reductions
for liquid manure systems. Trans. ASAE 17:508.
4 Mannebeck, H. 1985. Covering manure storage tanks to control
odour. Page 188 in Odour Prevention and Control of Organic
Sludge and Livestock Farming. V. C. Nielsen, J. H. Voorburg,
and P. L’Hermite, ed. Elsevier Appl. Sci. Publ., London, Eng-
land.
5 Miner, J. R. 1981. Controlling odors from livestock production
facilities: state of the art. Page 297 in Livestock Wastes: A
Renewable Resource. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
6 Miner, J. R., and R. C. Stroh. 1976. Controlling feedlot surface
odor emission rates by application of commercial products.
Trans. ASAE 19:533.
7 Patni, N. K., and P. Y. Jui. 1993. Effectiveness of manure
additives. Paper No. 93-4021, Summer Mtg. Am. Soc. Agric.
Eng., Spokane, WA. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
8 Sutton, A. L., K. B. Kephart, J. A. Patterson, R. Mumma, D. T.
Kelly, E. Bogus, D. D. Jones, and A. Huber. 1995. Changing
nitrogen levels in swine diets to reduce manure odors. Page 127
in Proc. Int. Livest. Odor Conf., Ames, IA.
9 Sweeten, J. M., R. E. Childers, S. J. Cochran, and R. Bowler.
1991. Odor control from poultry manure composting plant using
a soil filter. Appl. Eng. Agric. 19:439.
10 Sweeten, J. M., and J. R. Miner. 1993. Odor intensities at cattle
feedlots in nuisance litigation. Bioresour. Technol. 45:177.
11 Warburton, D. J., J. N. Scarbrough, and D. L. Day. 1981.
Evaluation of commercial products for odor control and solids
reduction of liquid swine manure. Page 309 in Livestock
Wastes: A Renewable Resource. Proc. Fourth Int. Symp. Livest.
Wastes. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.