Tag: dairy cattle

Posted on

A Surface Aeration Unit for Odor Control from Liquid Swine Manure Storage Facilities

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine, Dairy, Poultry
Use Area: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Aeration
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors

System Summary

A surface aeration system composed of an aerator module with six venturi air injectors has been demonstrated to effectively reduce odor level (measured by odor detection threshold) emitted from an operating swine manure anaerobic lagoon. Past research reports have shown that partially aerating manure can reduce the power consumption by up to 80% as compared to full aeration, while still achieving satisfactory odor amelioration. Data from this project provide further evidence that it is not only feasible but also affordable for animal producers to consider using this technology to control odor. A reduction in odor detection threshold by about 67% was achieved after the surface aeration system started operation in the test lagoon for about 10 days. It was also observed that the aeration treatment could maintain a dissolved oxygen level of 0.3 mg/L in the top lagoon liquid and the aerated layer worked like a biological cover that had the capability of destroying the odorous compounds passing through it. Although the surface aeration technology presented in this paper is tested in swine manure lagoons, it is expected that the technology can also be applied to manure lagoons of other animal species such as dairy and poultry. As a matter of fact, there are already experiments being carried out on a poultry lagoon in Texas using the same aeration apparatus, the results from which will be compared with those presented here. It is anticipated that the aeration system will be available to animal producers in the near future.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • The surface aeration system can be applied to any open liquid manure storage facilities
  • Odorous compounds are intermediate products during anaerobic digestion and, without treatment, they will be emitted into air causing odor problems
  • Aeration is to provide oxygen to the aerobic microorganisms in the liquid so that they can actively decompose these odorous compounds
  • Surface aeration establishes a biological cover in which aerobes use the provided oxygen to clean up the odorous materials before they reach the air

 

Limitations

  • This technology is not suitable for in-barn manure storage structures such as deep pits
  • Since the surface aeration system is placed outdoors, the ambient temperature should always be above freezing point so the technology cannot be used in northern states of the country in winter.
  • Ammonia emission from the lagoon liquid under treatment may be increased due to increased pH in the liquid and the mixing effect

 

Cost

The capital cost of this surface aeration system is relatively inexpensive and all the venturi air injectors are commercially available (under $200/each). For a one-acre lagoon, the equipment cost including materials and installation may be anywhere between $10,000 and $15,000 and the running cost (for a 4.5 horsepower pump running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year) will be 4.5 hp x 0.75 kW/hp x 24 h/day x 365 day/year = 29,565 kWh. Assuming the price per kWh being at $0.07, the total annual cost for the operation will be 29,565 kWh x $0.07 = $2,070. Considering the particular lagoon receiving manure from 4,000 head finishing pigs and 2.5 production cycles a year, the treatment cost per pig marketed is only around 21 cents.

Authors

Jun Zhu1, Chunying Dong1, Cutis Miller1, Liang Wang1, Yecong Li1, Saqib Mukhtar21University of Minnesota, 2 Texas A&M University
Point of Contact:
Jun Zhu, zhuxx034@umn.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

RAPP Technology for Control of Gas and Odor from Swine Manure Pits

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine
Use Area: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Chemical Amendment
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors, Ammonia, Carbon Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide

System Summary

This gas and odor reduction technology, Rapp Technology, consists of an oil cover and a neutralizer that is an alkaline solution. The laboratory study in swine manure reactors to simulate deep manure pit demonstrated statistically significant reductions of ammonia, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and odor from the treated reactors. Compared with previously tested commercial manure additives, this technology is more effective in mitigating gas and odor emissions from simulated deep manure pits.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • The oil cover is added at initial application. It floats on the surface of the manure slurry to slow the releases of gases and odorous molecules while allowing excrement to pass through.
  • The neutralizer solution is injected beneath the oil cover periodically. It neutralizes the volatile fatty acids and phenols in the slurry to their ammonium salts. Such salts are more prone to stay in the aqueous slurry because they are more water-soluble and less volatile than the original acids.

 

Limitations

  • The oil cover is not suitable for applying on the manure on the barn floors.
  • The effect of neutralizer on emission reduction could not be differentiated from the effect of oil cover in the lab test.
  • Future high quality field studies are needed.

Cost

During the lab test, the oil and the neutralizer (both by Custom Formulating & Blending, Bristol, IN) cost $1.13 and $ 0.67 per reactor, respectively. According to Juergens Environmental Control (Carroll, Iowa) for field application of the neutralizer, the fixed cost of the system for 1000 to 8000-pig finishing operations averages $2.50 – $5.00 per pig per 3-year term (shipping and labor not included). The cost of neutralizer operation averages $ 0.01 per pig per day over one year.

Authors

Ji-Qin Ni1, Sam Hanni1, Albert J. Heber1, Warren M. Kosman2, Gary Rapp3, 1Purdue University, 2Valparaiso University, 3Juergens Produce and Feed Company
Point of Contact:
Gary Rapp, garyrapp@westianet.net

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Negative Air Pressure Cover for Preventing Odor Emission from Earthen Manure Storage

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine
Use Area: Manure Storage
Technology Category: Covers
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors

System Summary

An impermeable synthetic cover system was developed by DGH Engineering in Manitoba, Canada for mitigating odor emission from earthen manure storage basins (EMSB). The system uses lightweight plastic as the cover so that it is affordable to producers. An air pumping system creates negative pressure between the cover and the manure surface to hold down the cover to ensure the cover is robust enough to withstand wind forces. The air pumping system consists of small exhaust fans (four to six fans of 50 – 70 L/s each) and perforated ducts placed about the EMSB perimeter. Odor emission from the NAP covered EMSB (due to the air pumping system) is negligible (1%) in comparison with the open EMSB. Additional benefits of the NAP cover system include the retention of manure nitrogen, thus increasing the fertilizer value of manure; isolating precipitation from the manure, thereby increasing storage volume; and reducing greenhouse gas (methane) emissions.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Large surface areas of earthen manure storage basins emit large amount of odor to the atmosphere
  • A NAP cover forms a physical barrier between the manure surface and the atmosphere to prevent odor release into the atmosphere
  • The negative pressure between the cover and the manure surface holds the cover down to resist wind forces.

 

Limitations

  • When using traditional agitation and pump-out equipment, removing and replacing the cover for pump-out may increase the wear on the cover and add labor and time to the pump-out operation.
  • An air assisted agitation system should be used.

 

Cost

The capital cost varies from $10.00 to $15.00 per m², installed. The annual cost per pig marketed for typical 5,000 and 10,000 head swine finisher operations is estimated to be $1.40 and $1.13.

Authors

Q. Zhang1, D. Small 2
1University of Manitoba, 2 DGH Engineering
Point of Contact:
Doug Small, dgh@dghengineering.com

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

A Review of Permeable Cover Options for Manure Storage

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Beef, Dairy, Swine
Use Area: Manure Treatment
Technology Category: Covers
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Ammonia, Odors, Hydrogen Sulfide

System Summary

Covers have been demonstrated to provide effective odor and air emissions control for manure storage structures. Impermeable covers made from flexible synthetic materials provide excellent odor and emissions control, but typically have a high capital cost requirement. Permeable covers provide an alternative to impermeable synthetic covers. Permeable covers will typically not provide as great a level of odor control as impermeable covers, but the initial capital cost is lower. Permeable covers do not require gas or rain water collection systems since gases are allowed to migrate through the cover and rainwater will infiltrate through the cover into the storage. Permeable covers have been successfully constructed from a variety of materials including straw, light weight expanded clay aggregate (LECA), ground rubber and geotextile materials. Materials such as straw, have a short lifespan (from two to six months depending on manure solids content and rainfall levels), while materials such as LECA have been shown to remain viable for more than ten years. Various permeable cover materials have been shown to reduce odor from 40% – 90%, and to reduce ammonia from 40% to 80% depending on permeable cover material and depth.

 

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Permeable covers provide a layer on the manure surface that shields the manure surface from contact with the air
  • Most permeable cover materials provide an aerobic zone in the cover material that will help control odor
  • No gas or water collection systems are required since both gases and rain water will pass through the permeable cover material
  • Some permeable cover materials such as straw provide a short-term solution, while other like LECA can last more than ten years

 

Limitations

  • Some permeable cover materials (such as straw) have very short effective lives (2 – 6 months)
  • Long-term permeable cover materials (such as LECA) can have costs near those of synthetic impermeable covers
  • If a permeable cover material sinks into the stored manure, it must be dealt with during land application
  • Rainwater volume must be accounted for in the manure storage since direct precipitation will infiltrate into the manure storage

A permeable straw cover on an earthen manure storage structure.

Cost

Permeable covers can provide reductions in odor, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide emissions from manure storage facilities. A wide variety of organic and manmade materials have been utilized to construct permeable covers with variable results and costs ranging from $0.10 to $1.75 per square foot installed. Straw is the least cost permeable cover material with an approximate cost of $0.10 per square foot installed. Longer lasting materials such as LECA have installed costs that can exceed $1.00 per square foot installed. Permeable cover materials are typically floated on the stored manure surface and can provide an aerobic zone that manure gases must pass through when released. Permeable covers can be used with earthen, concrete and steel manure storage systems and with slurry manures generated by swine, dairy and beef animals.

Lightweight expanded clay aggregate (LECA) cover on a concrete swine manure storage tank.

Authors

Robert Burns and Lara Moody, Iowa State University
Point of Contact:
Robert Burns, rburns@iastate.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Water Requirements for Dust Control on Feedlots

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Beef, Dairy
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Facility Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Dust, Odor

System Summary

Feedlot dust contributes to cattle illness along with potential non-attainment of PM10 emission standards in localized areas of North America. Increasing the surface moisture content decreases the potential for entrainment of PM10 particles during evening cattle activity resulting in improved cattle health and attainment with air quality standard. Individual feedlots vary in capacity, pen density and overall area necessitating educational outreach efforts including one-on-one technology transfer. A computer model was developed to enable feedlot owners to evaluate their particular facilities including the potential water requirements and cost of mitigating dust and other air emissions. The water requirement is estimated based on initial soil moisture, desired final moisture content, surface coverage area, soil wetting depth, sprinkler efficiency and application time. These parameters are used to estimate well capacity, main and branch water pipe size, number of wetting zones based on sprinkler head capacity, application time and nozzle requirements. Pumping requirements are based on application rate, pump efficiency and total head losses. Operational costs are based on an initial investment in the system along with pumping cost. This results in a total cost per head per month based on the fixed and variable cost.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Design sprinkler package for open lot dust control
  • Economic analysis of the dust control system
  • Spreadsheet based model – easy to use
  • Provides quick evaluation of when inputs parameters are varied
  • Estimates daily water requirements per head for dust control

Limitations

  • Results dependent on input parameters
  • Assumes water application is uniform
  • Assumes initial cost of installation of a sprinkler package is known
  • Adequate water availability for dust control

Cost

The cost of dust control on open feedlots ranges from $0.60 to $2.40 per marketed head. The cost of the infrastructure of the sprinkler system or water application equipment is reduced with increases in feedlot capacity or marketed head per year. The fixed cost represents 60 to 80 percent of the annual cost. The variable costs are dependent on the days per year necessary for attainment of PM10 emissions from open feedlots or earthen dry lots commonly found in the High Plains region of the North America.

Authors

Joseph Harner 1, Ronaldo Maghirang1, Edna Razote11Kansas State University
Point of Contact:
Joseph Harner, jharner@ksu.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Technologies for Mitigating Air Emissions in Dairy Production

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

Air Mitigation Technologies for Dairy Production

Posted on

Siting Animal Production Facilities and Evaluating Odor Control Options Using the Odor Footprint Tool

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry, Dairy, Beef, Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing, Manure Storage
Technology Category: Facility Siting
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor

System Summary

The Odor Footprint Tool is a worksheet/spreadsheet that provides objective, science-based information on the risk-based impact of odors generated by livestock facilities. The user enters information about the livestock facilities for a given site, the site location (for selection of regional weather data), use of supplemental odor control, and any special terrain around the site. After using the Odor Footprint Tool, the user obtains minimum setback distances in four directions matching up with targets for avoiding odor annoyance. The Odor Footprint Tool can help assess the reduction in the size of a facility’s odor footprint due to use of proven odor control technology.

By using the Odor Footprint Tool, producers and their advisors can mitigate neighbor impacts of odor and air-borne pollutants through improved siting of facilities. They can also use the Odor Footprint Tool to assess the benefit of odor control technologies in terms of reduced area of odor impact, which encourages the utilization of effective control technologies.

Applicability

  • Assesses frequency of odor annoyance from housed swine, cattle and poultry production facilities
  • Considers animal housing facilities and manure storage facilities
  • Assesses reduction in odor footprint due to using proven odor control technology
  • Used on a regional basis within a state
  • Recommended for use as a planning and screening tool

Limitations

  • Not ready for use with open lots, treatment lagoons, and other large area sources
  • Not for assessing odor annoyance during application of manure
  • Requires its own set of emission values
  • Dispersion modeling is required upfront for confident use in a new region having differing weather patterns.
  • Simplified footprints may seem over-simplified or lack desired level of precision

Cost

There is no direct cost for using the publicly available versions of the Odor Footprint Tool to obtain directional setback distances or for conferring with an Extension educator. When producers defer use to an advisor/consultant, it is reasonable to expect to pay for consultant time associated with using the tool, getting their technical response and recommendations, creating project-specific visuals, and presenting material to permitting authorities, local zoning commissions, lenders, etc.

The primary costs associated with the Odor Footprint Tool are upfront costs of calibrating and validating the dispersion model and performing dispersion modeling using weather data for a specific area. Grant funds have been utilized within Nebraska and South Dakota for this purpose.

Authors

Rick Stowell, Chris Henry, Crystal Powers, and Dennis Schulte
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Point of Contact:
Rick Stowell, rstowell2@unl.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Reducing H2S, NH3, PM, & Odor Emissions from Deep-pit Pig Finishing Facilities by Managing Pit Ventilation

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine (maybe Dairy and Poultry)
Use Area: Animal Housing
Technology Category: Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odor, Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia, Particulates (PM10)

System Summary

A recent study determined that a large majority (75 to 80 %) of the total NH3 and H2S emissions from a 2000-head tunnel-ventilated deep-pit pig-finishing barn for 45 days during August and September 2004 were emitted from the pit exhaust stream even though only 20 to 30 % of the total barn’s ventilation air was being provided by pit fans. This information allows producers with deep-pit facilities to strategically utilize catch and treat emission control technologies, such as biofilters, ONLY on pit fans airstreams that would result in large reductions (>50%) in the emissions of hazardous gases, odor, and particulate matter by treating only a small portion of the total ventilation air (figure 1). Another follow up study found that emissions of certain pollutants, may be reduced slightly (10 to 20%) by simply eliminating pit fans altogether for a deep-pitted pig building.

The phenomenal of a majority of the barn’s airborne pollutants being emitted by pit fans, may also be true for other swine production phases or for even other species (dairy and poultry) housed in deep pit facilities. This would mean that emission reductions of >50 % for certain pollutants are potentially possible when emission control technologies like biofilters are strategically placed on large emitting pit fan sources in deep-pit buildings. If only small reductions (<20%) of certain pollutants are needed, this maybe accomplished by the elimination of pit fans altogether.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Pit Fan(s) airstreams contain a majority of the critical airborne pollutants (NH3, H2S, PM10, odor) from deep-pitted pig buildings
  • If biofilters are strategically used on pit exhaust air, sizable (>50%) emission reductions of some pollutants are possible for either existing or new deep-pit facilities

Limitations

  • Information only available presently for deep-pit pig finishing barns but anticipated similar results for other swine plus dairy and poultry housed in deep-pit buildings
  • Valid for NH3, H2S, odor, and certain PM fractions, not known if greenhouse gases will also be concentrated in the pit fan exhaust air of deep-pit facilities

Cost

There is no additional cost of this “technology” since a well-designed and operating ventilation system is required in any animal facility and especially in a deep-pitted pig building. There actually may be a cost saving if producers decided to install no or only a limited number of pit fans instead of the standard number for the livestock industry which is approximately 20% of the total barn’s ventilation system. A cost savings is often realized since the installation of pit fans is typically more expensive than wall fans plus pit fans have higher maintenance requirements and are more frequently in need of replacement.

Authors

Larry D. Jacobson1, Brian P. Hetchler1,David R. Schmidt11Bioproducts & Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota
Point of Contact:
Larry D. Jacobson, jacob007@umn.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

The Use of Vegetative Environmental Buffers For Livestock and Poultry Odor Mitigation

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

The proceedings, “Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations”, with expanded versions of these summaries can be purchased through the Midwest Plan Service.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Poultry, Dairy, Beef, Swine
Use Area: Animal Housing and Manure Storage
Technology Category: Vegetative Buffers
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Particulate Matter, Odor, Ammonia

System Summary

Vegetative Environmental Buffers (VEBs) – linear arrangements of trees and shrubs planted near and around livestock/poultry production sites – have been shown to incrementally mitigate odors, particulates, and ammonia through a complex of dynamics. Among the most important dynamics are: 1) enhancement of vertical atmospheric mixing through forced mechanical turbulence – leading to enhanced dilution/dispersion of odor; 2) odor filtration through particulate interception and retention – odor largely travels by way of particulates; capturing particulates also captures odors; 3) odor/particulate fallout due to gravitational forces enhanced by reduced wind speeds; 4) adsorption and absorption of ammonia onto and into the plant – this is due to a chemical affinity that ammonia has to the waxy coating on tree leaves; 5) softening socio-psychological responses to odor due to improved site aesthetics and creating “out of sight, out of mind” dynamics; and 6) improved producer/community relations by using highly visible odor management technology.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • As air moves across vegetative surfaces, leaves and other aerial plant surfaces can remove odors, dust, gas, and microbial constituents of airstreams.
  • VEBs can mitigate odors/ particulates from all livestock/poultry species;
  • VEBs are size neutral technology and can be used to mitigate odors/particulates from all sources of odor: buildings, manure storage, and land application.
  • Trees/shrubs are among the most efficient natural filtering structures in a landscape.

Limitations

  • Mitigation effectiveness is highly site specific and will vary considerably from farm to farm.
  • VEBs often require considerable land area and may take up to five years to become physically effective.
  • Care in VEB design must be taken to avoid causing snow deposition, ventilation, and on-farm visibility problems.
  • At best, odor/particulate mitigation will be “incremental” and therefore should be always used with other odor management strategies.

Cost

Costs for VEB systems are highly variable and are site/design specific – but for midsized producers (and larger) VEBs likely amount to just a few cents per animal produced. There are three main categories of expenses associated with VEBs: 1) Site prep costs, 2) tree establishment costs, and 3) long term maintenance costs. It should be noted that the majority (usually in the range of 40-70%) of the total cost is “upfront” and is tied to the cost of the initial planting stock (e.g. older, larger nursery stock can be considerably more expensive than bare-root seedlings but such an investment may “buy time” in VEB establishment). Long term maintenance costs vary depending upon the overall health of the VEB. It should be recognized that there are expenditures that occur regularly throughout the life of a VEB and maintenance is an annual process, however as a VEB system matures the annual maintenance requirements will likely decrease over time.

Authors

John C. Tyndall11Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management
Point of Contact:
John C. Tyndall, jtyndall@iastate.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Posted on

Pennsylvania’s Odor Siting Index

Reprinted, with permission, from the proceedings of: Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference.

This Technology is Applicable To:

Species: Swine, Beef, Poultry, Dairy
Use Area: Animal Housing and Manure Storage
Technology Category: Facility Siting and Management
Air Mitigated Pollutants: Odors

System Summary

The Pennsylvania Siting Index was developed in response to specific state legislation (PA Act 38 of 2005) in an effort to objectively evaluate locations for new or expanding regulated animal operations, then develop an Odor Management Plan to reduce the potential for community conflict from building and manure storage odors. The goal is to construct livestock operations where community odor conflict potential is minimized. Data from the site and site map are entered into the index and the resulting score indicates the complexity of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that must be adopted for a producer to develop the site. Scores of less than 50 index points do not require BMPs. Scores from 50 to 99.9 index points require “Level 1” BMPs, which are generally standard, industry-accepted practices. Scores greater than 100 points require more costly and complicated “Level 2” BMPs. The index cannot be used to prevent an individual from constructing an operation, nor is it used to mitigate specific air emissions.

Applicability and Mitigating Mechanism

  • Required for new and expanding regulated animal operations in Pennsylvania.
  • Objectively scores sites on a numerical scale.
  • Encourages producers to locate animal operations on sites with a low risk of community odor conflict.
  • Requires odor-reduction Best Management Practices if the index score is high.
  • Requires approved Odor Management Plan and annual operation inspection.

Limitations

  • The index does not measure odors or gasses, nor assess effectiveness of BMPs.
  • Weighting of index scores is based on limited data.
  • Producers may not be required to implement BMPs when the number of surrounding homes is minimal, even if those homes are relatively close to the animal facility.
  • The index does not account for future development around an animal operation.
  • Potential for inversion odor conflict is not included in the index.

Cost

The Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission estimates the cost to producers will be approximately $1120 for an index and associated odor management plan. BMP installation and maintenance would vary, depending on BMP complexity. If producers choose a site with an index score of <50 points, BMPs would not be required thus erasing all BMP costs.

Authors

Robert Mikesell1, Karl Dymond2, 1Penn State Department of Dairy and Animal Science, 2 Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission
Point of Contact:
Robert Mikesell, rem9@psu.edu

The information provided here was developed for the conference Mitigating Air Emissions From Animal Feeding Operations Conference held in May 2008. To obtain updates, readers are encouraged to contact the author.

Proudly powered by WordPress