#06-141

Complete

Date Full Report Received

07/05/2008

Date Abstract Report Received

07/05/2008

Investigation

Institution:
Primary Investigator:

The goal of this project was to make Odor Footprint Tool (OFT) resources readily usable by pork producers and their technical advisors as a planning and screening tool when siting swine facilities. The project had the following objectives: 1) Produce odor footprints for ‘Nebraska Model’-sized finishing and sow units for six geographic regions in NE and develop footprints for the same-sized production units using ‘localized’ [AWDN] weather data for 2-3 selected counties within each region; 2) Compare ‘regional’ footprints to the ‘localized’ footprints within each region and describe implications of using one versus the other; 3) Compare the separation distances as illustrated with regional and localized odor footprints to existing zoning requirements for the selected counties; 4) Illustrate expected reductions in odor impacts on neighbors that are achievable by implementing suggested odor control technologies for each production scenario; 5) Provide information, training and assistance in the use of Odor Footprint Tool resources to key individuals in Nebraska who advise producers in planning new facilities. Detailed odor footprints for the specified sizes of swine facilities were developed for twenty-four locations throughout Nebraska: six regional sites and three “localized” sites within each region. Each odor footprint shows the predicted odor annoyance-free frequency as a function of the distance from the facility. Footprints developed using localized weather data differed only slightly from footprints produced using weather data from a regional site when the general topography of the sites was similar. However, when the general topography of sites was noticeably different, such as was the case for locations selected in the NE Panhandle, the footprints differed considerably. The detailed footprints for the lower odor annoyance-free frequencies were more consistent in size and shape than were the footprints for the higher odor annoyance-free frequencies. Simplified regional odor footprints generally missed 10-15% of the risk-based odor impact area for localized sites in this study, while being 75% too large overall on an area basis. A balanced perspective should be maintained between trying to capture all of the area impacted by odor and being overly conservative in designating the area off limits to building a swine facility. A graphical approach was developed to illustrate how a county’s setback requirements compared to science-based estimates of frequency of exposure to annoying odor levels. As expected, there were differences in how restrictive counties were of livestock facilities. Plans are to use this approach to equip rural communities with more reliable information upon which to make decisions. The effect of reduced odor emissions from implementing odor control was illustrated using odor footprints. The footprints showed reductions in areas that were generally similar to the reductions in emissions when using odor control. More effective odor control technologies, like biofilters, had much less risk-based area of odor impact compared to less effective odor control practices, like oil sprinkling. Pork producers in Nebraska were informed about the Odor Footprint Tool via presentations made at the 2008 Nebraska Pork Industry Day. Training workshops on use of the OFT were provided to key industry representatives to expand utilization of the OFT resources. Implications for the industry: – Odor footprint materials are now available specifically for pork production facilities, making it easier to communicate with producers and to work with conventional sizes of swine production facilities; – Now that ‘localized’ graphical resources and ‘regional’ resources have been compared, use of regional resources, which are relatively simple to use and require no additional modeling, can be recommended with more confidence for several regions. – An approach has been developed by which producers and rural communities can assess how setback requirements from local zoning ordinances compare to science-based frequencies of exposure to annoying odor levels. – As producers look to utilize the Odor Footprint Tool in planning facilities, there are now industry representatives trained and ready to assist producers. Contact information: Rick Stowell, Extension Specialist – Animal Environment University of Nebraska, (402) 472-3912, rstowell2@unl.edu