Publications
Managing a Livestock Operation to Minimize Odors
 Printer Friendly (PDF)
Considerations for New Facilities
• Considerations for Existing Facilities
• Odor Control with Chemicals
• Improved Management
• References
A growing concern in animal waste management is odor control. One study showed 75 percent of all complaints received regarding livestock facilities were due to odors. Public concern over air quality and water quality has grown as the number of confined animal operations increases and the rural areas of Arkansas become more populated. Some of the population increase in rural settings is non-farm families who are generally unaccustomed to living with livestock odors. Offensive odors are perceived by many to mean that environmental damage is occurring; however, this is not true if livestock manure is managed in a manner to prevent contamination of surface and groundwater supplies.
Odors from livestock production systems are generally regarded as nuisance pollutants which are not regulated under the Clean Air Act. Although these odors are non-toxic in open or well-ventilated areas, they affect human comfort. There is no practical way to eliminate odors, but using a good neighbor policy and following best management guidelines helps reduce the potential for odors and the resulting complaints.
Considerations for New Facilities
When considering the installation of a new livestock operation or expansion of an existing operation, consider the following items:
1. The distance to neighboring dwellings should be given high priority. Presently, the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology provides guidance on this item.
2. The potential for new neighbors and the potential impact this would have on the operation. This may result in the selection of another site.
3. Installation of waste treatment lagoons. Waste treatment lagoons, although significantly larger and more costly than holding ponds, could offer potential odor reduction. Lagoons also increase the amount of treatment the waste undergoes, and consequently the area needed for land application will be reduced.
4. Fresh water flush facilities with irrigation equipment are possible waste handling systems that have a potential for odor reduction and serve as a source of irrigation water. They require a large storage volume and a large volume of fresh water.
Considerations for Existing
Facilities
Existing operations offer new and different challenges. These facilities can’t easily be moved, and the distance to neighboring dwellings can’t be changed. Livestock producers should consider the following management options for existing facilities:
1. Modify existing storage facilities to include a lagoon to treat the animal manure before it is land applied. Treatment lagoons, although relatively expensive, may offer odor reduction advantages and reduced land application areas.
2. Dewater and clean out existing facilities. This is a complete renovation and has the potential to reduce odors. This may work well, particularly for older animal waste operations.
Odor Control with Chemicals
Chemical additives have been introduced during the past few years with mixed results. Very little research is available to quantify the effectiveness of chemicals for odor control of animal operations. Most of the available data are “testimonial,” with little scientific research conducted to support the fact. In most cases, there are about as many success stories as there are failures. Odor control chemicals are usually categorized under the following four types:
1. Masking agents have an odor that is stronger and hopefully more pleasant than the odor being masked.
2. Odor counteractants are materials that interact with odors and result in less odor intensity.
3. Odor absorption chemicals are granular or powder materials that can be applied to a solid surface to prevent escape of target gases.
4. Enzymatic products are designed to alter the biological pathways involved in manure decomposition.
Improved Management
1. Spread raw animal manure frequently, especially during the summer.
2. Spread early in the day as the air is warming and rising, rather than late in the day when the air is cooling and settling. This also allows the applied waste to dry, which reduces odors.
3. Avoid spreading manure on days when the wind is blowing toward populated areas or when the air is still and seems to hang.
4. Avoid spreading waste during times when it would be most objectionable to your neighbors. These times include holidays and weekends. Consider not spreading the day before holidays and weekends to minimize conflicts.
5. Follow the liquid animal waste management plan’s pumping schedule. Remove waste from the storage facility as often as the management plan requires, and more frequently if possible. Odors increase over the storage period and waiting to clean the storage facility only increases the potential odor.
6. Avoid spreading waste near heavily traveled roads. Keep equipment clean as possible and minimize leaks and spills. Appearance goes a long way in public perception.
7. Dispose of livestock mortality quickly and properly.
8. Keep housing facilities clean. The cleaner the facility, the less potential for odors.
9. Keep the farmstead clean. Such things as mowing the area, keeping the storage facility pumped down properly and similar items indicate good management. Appearance is important.
10. Work with neighbors to reduce conflicts and be considerate of their feelings.
References
VanKleeck, R. J., and N. R. Bulley. 1985. An assessment of separation distance as a
tool for reducing farm/neighbor conflict. pp. 446-453. In: The Proceedings of the Fifth
International Symposium on Agricultural Waste. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
This publication was funded in part by the Cooperative Extension Service, University of
Arkansas, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation
Commission.
Acknowledgment is given to ANGELA RIECK, former assistant specialist - waste
management, who was the primary author of this fact sheet. Acknowledgement is
also given to JOHN LANGSTON, Extension agricultural engineer (retired),
for assistance with this publication.
Authors:
Dr. Karl VanDevender, Extension
Agricultural Engineer
Dennis
Carman, State Conservation Engineer
DR. KARL VANDEVENDER is Extension agricultural
engineer, Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Arkansas, Little Rock. DENNIS CARMAN is a state conservation
engineer, Soil Conservation Service, Little Rock.
FSA3007-PD-3-02R
|
