EPA-600/2-78-083
April 1978
Environmental Protection Technology Series
CONTROL OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION ODORS:
The State-of-the-Art
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomie Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Servtce, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-083
April 1978
CONTROL OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION ODORS:
THE STATE-OF-THE-ART
by
R. Douglas Kreis
Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate
administration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the
quality of our environment.
An important part of the Agency's endeavors to fulfill its mission
involves the search for information about environmental problems, manage-
ment techniques and new technologies through which optimum use of the
nation's land and water resources can be assured. The primary and ulti-
mate goal of these efforts is to protect the nation from the scourge of
existing and potential pollution from all sources.
EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search through
a nationwide network of research facilities.
As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to: (a) investi-
gate the nature, transport, fate and management of pollutants in ground-
water; (b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating wastewaters with
soil and other natural systems; (c) develop and demonstrate pollution con-
trol technologies for irrigation return flows; (d) develop and demonstrate
pollution control technologies for animal production wastes; (e) develop
and demonstrate technologies to prevent, control or abate pollution from
the petroleum refining and petrochemical industries; and (f) develop and
demonstrate technologies to manage pollution resulting from combinations
of industrial wastewaters or industrial/municipal wastewaters.
This report is a contribution to the Agency's overall effort in ful-
filling its mission to improve and protect the nation's environment for
the benefit of the American public.
William C. Galegar, Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Odors emanating from animal production facilities are the primary
environmental cause for complaint resulting in great corrective expense
and, in many instances, facility closure. The current state-of-the-art
of odor control technology ranges from intensive waste management and
good housekeeping practices to chemical treatment and facility isolation.
These controls at best only limit the generation and/or quality of animal
production odors. The most effective odor limiting technologies are the
most cost intensive. Therefore, the methods used are dependent upon the
seriousness of the situation and the~ cost-benefit that may be derived
from their use.
Original facility design and site selection considerations are of
great importance to the existence of confined animal feeding enterprises
with a non-farm population which is encroaching at increasing rates into
rural areas. Land use planning and zoning restrictions for agricultural/
animal feeding purposes may well be the ultimate odor control tool of the
future for newly instituted facilities. Extensive basic and applied
research is required to provide adequate technology for use by existing
facilities.
This report covers a period from July 1, 1977, to December 31, 1977,
and work was completed as of December 31, 1977.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
British to Metric Unit Conversion viii
Acknowledgments ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 4
3. Recommendations 6
4. The Air Pollution Problem 9
Noxious, Toxic, and Explosive Gases 9
Nutrient Transport 10
Dust 10
Maldorous Gases 11
5. Institutional and Societal Constraints 12
6. Odor Evaluation 16
Odor Composition 16
Odor Quality and Strength 19
Occurrence of Odors 19
Measurement of Odor Quality and Strength 19
7. Control of Nuisance Odors 25
Causes of Odors 25
Methods of Control 26
8. Summary 45
References 47
Appendix 59
-------
FIGURES
Number Pag
1 Relationship of Feeding Site to Population Centers,
Wind Direction, and Odor Buffer Zone 27
2 Surface Wind Roses, Annual 29
3 Surface Wind Roses, July 30
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Livestock Wastes Characteristics 3
2 Percent of Feedlots in 13 Major Western Feeding States
Receiving Pollution Complaints During 1973 11
3 Citation of Chemicals Identified as Volatiles from Cattle,
Poultry, and Swine Wastes 17
4 Odor Threshold and Quality Description of Chemicals Considered
to be Important to Organic Waste Odors 20
5 Methods Used to Collect Chemicals Volatilized from Animal
Wastes 22
6 Gas Chromatographic and Other Methods of Analysis of Odors
and Volatiles 23
7 Odorous Compounds Identified from the Atmosphere in a Beef
Cattle Confinement Chamber Under Three Manure Handling
Programs 32
8 Summary of Odor Intensities at 17 Texas Cattle Feedlots. . . 32
9 Maximum Time of Total Hydrogen Sulfide Reduction in Liquid
Dairy Wastes Treated with Hydrogen Peroxide 40
10 The Cost of Treating Liquid Manure for Odor Control 40
11 Quantity and Comparative Costs of Odor Control Chemicals
Evaluated by Ulich and Ford 41
vli
-------
BRITISH TO METRIC UNIT CONVERSION
PRESSURE UNITS
1 pound per square inch (psi) = 70^308 grams ,.per_ square centimeter
(gr/cm2)
1 inch of mercury (in.—Hg) = 345-. 3 kilograms per square meter
(kg/ni2)
1 inch (in.) = 2.54 centimeters (cm)
1 foot (ft.) = 0.305 meters (m)
1 mile (mi.) = 1.609 (kilometers (km)
VOLUME
1 cubic foot (ft3) = 0.028 cubic meters (m3)
AREA
? 2
1 square foot (ft^) = 0.093 square meter (m )
1 acre (ac) = 0.405 hectares (ha)
WEIGHT
I
1 pound (Ib) = 0.454 kilogram (kg)
1 ton (tn) = 0.907 metric ton (t)
WEIGHT PER UNIT OF AREA
tons per acres (tn/ac) = 2.240 metric tons per hectare (t/ha)
pounds per acres (Ib/ad) = 1.121 kilograms per hectare (kg/ac)
CAPACITY
1 gallon (gal.) = 3.785 liters (1)
TEMPERATURE
Degrees Celsius (° C) = 5/9 (F-32) where F in temperature is degrees
Fahrenheit
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance and guidance provided to the preparation of this report
by Dr. Larry W. Canter, Director; Dr. James M. Robertson; and Dr. Leale E.
Streebin of the School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, The
University of Oklahoma at Norman and Dr. Mickey L. Rowe, Director, School of
Environmental Science, East Central Oklahoma State University at Ada is
gratefully acknowledged.
ix
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Control and management of animal production odors is a relatively
new problem faced by the redmeat and poultry and dairy product production
industry. The need to manage and control odors was brought about by a
revolution in animal production methods which in turn was stimulated by
rapid population growth following World War II and more recently by a
greater public awareness for the quality of the human environment. Prior
to this revolution, these products were produced as secondary to cash
field crops on small family farms. The numbers of animals raised were
limited by the capabilities of the individual farmer and his family to
care for the animals, raise all of the feed fed to the animals, and carry
out the primary agricultural production activities of the farm.
By the mid 1950"s, the family farms could no longer keep up with
the increasing demands for animal products. The age of farm specializa-
tion was inevitable and the revolution of animal production methodology
had begun. The poultry and dairy industry led the way. Chickens, both
fryers and layers, were being raised in increasing numbers in very close
caged confinement. Today it is not uncommon to find over a million birds
in such facilities. Dairy cows were being maintained in large herds in
resting barns and permitted to leave only for their daily milkings.
Dairy herds now range in size from 50 to 2,000 head. In most cases
these facilities were located near or adjacent to large metropolitan
areas. This arrangement facilitated the timely and low cost distribu-
tion of the fresh products to the consumer.
In the early 1960"s, the beef cattle and swine production industries
followed the trend of the poultry and dairy industry. The swine industry
was also being enclosed entirely within buildings. Swine facilities now
include farrowing units, piggeries, and fattening units all within the
same feedlot which may range in size from 50 to several thousand animals.
The smaller operations may still be "out-of-doors"; however, the larger
operations are totally enclosed and maintained under closely controlled
and monitored hygienic conditions (1). The first phase beef cattle feedlots
ranged in size from 500 to 10,000 head and were designed without regard
for the environment. In some cases, these lots were located to take
advantage of natural drainage to transport rainfall runoff and solid wastes
from the pen surfaces. More modern designs include environment protecting
considerations and range in capacity from a few'hundred up to 150,000 head.
The largest cattle feeder in the United States maintains two feedlots with
a total capacity of over 250,000 head. Sheep feeding has not been of great
-------
importance until recently. Some sheep feedlots now have capacities of up
to 20,000 head. Beef, swine, and sheep feedlots, unlike poultry and dairy
facilities, are located in the vicinity of the feed producing areas. This
is due to the comparative costs of transporting refrigerated meat versus
the cost of transporting much larger volumes of feed to the animals. This
trend toward such large capacity animal feeding facilities has greatly
magnified the waste handling problem which includes aesthetic nuisances
and hazardous conditions for human and animal health.
Estimates of the domestic livestock population in the United States
in 1973 (2) were 61 million hogs, 17.7 million sheep, 11.6 million milk
cows and heifers, 127.5 million chickens, 3.5 million turkeys, and 121.5
million beef cattle of which 14.4 million cattle were on feed. The popula-
tion of beef cattle in 1950 (3) was 65.7 million of which 6.4 million were
on feed. During this 23-year time span, the total number of cattle doubled
and the percentage on feed increased from 6 to 12 percent. This large
increase in total numbers of animals in such large concentrations has also
greatly magnified the waste handling problem which includes aesthetics,
nuisances, and animal and human health hazards.
Before the revolution in the animal production industry, the animals
were raised on pastures where their wastes were dropped, broken down by
natural processes, and assimilated into the soil providing nutrients and
humus to condition the land. The large increases in total numbers of
animals and the confinement of animals in such great concentrations has
greatly magnified existing and created new wastes handling problems. The
total production of wastes from all domestic livestock in the United States
is about 2 billion tons* annually, of which approximately 50 percent is
produced by large-scale confinement feeding operations (4). The amounts of
manure produced by livestock (5) are presented in Table 1. Based on these
characteristics a 950 pound steer will produce approximately 11 tons of
manure annually. Expanding this figure to a 10,000 head capacity feedlot,
there will be approximately 110,000 tons of manure to be disposed of
annually or approximately 300 tons daily. A poultry farm with 100,000
turkeys produces 15 tons of wastes daily (4) and 270,000 laying hens
generate an estimated 35-40 tons of manure on a daily basis (6). These
manure wastes and those of sheep and swine produce offensive gases and
odorants when wet and decomposing and disagreeable dust particles when dry.
*English and metric units are used throughout this report as they were
presented in the literatured surveyed. Conversion of units from one system
to the other could lead, in some instances, to errors in interpretation as
the data from which they were obtained is not in its entirety available to
this author. Conversion factors are listed following the list of figures.
-------
TABLE 1. LIVESTOCK WASTES CHARACTERISTICS (5)
Animal weight (Ib)
Manure Production (Ib/day)
Moisture (%)
Dairy
Cattle
1,400
80.6
85
Beef
Cattle
950
60
85
Poultry
5
0.37
72
Swine
200
17
82
Sheep
100
7
77
*
Fresh mixed manure and urine.
According to Faith (7), there are two basic odors associated with
feedlot wastes:
1. The natural aroma inherent of fresh excreta which is not persistent
and dissipates rapidly as the excreta cools;
2. The offensive putrid odors of gases produced by the biological
decomposition of excreta under anaerobic conditions (putrefaction).
The natural odor of fresh excreta is not of great concern as it is not a
strong odor and is not offensive to most people. However, the odors produced
by the anaerobic decomposition of manure wastes are of major concern. Every
attempt should be made to control or eliminate the conditions which cause
these odors.
The objectives of this paper are to determine the current state-of-the-
art of production, measurement, and control of odors generated in concentrated
animal feeding units, and to indicate broad areas of need and directions for
future research such that current and long-range odor control research
priorities may be established.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The current state-of-the-art of odor control is indicative of a low
level, low priority research effort which lacks a well organized and co-
ordinated apprbach even though odor nuisance is the primary cause for pol-
lution complaints resulting in legal actions against the industry. In spite
of the level of organization, many alternative approaches to the problem
have been investigated with varying degrees of success. Some generalized
conclusions which may be drawn by summarizing the results obtained through
individual efforts include:
1. Odor abatement after the odorants are produced and evolved into
the atmosphere provide only temporary relief from the problem at
great expense.
2. Odor production potentials in many instances can be significantly
reduced during conceptual stages of facility planning by incor-
porating engineering designs into the facility which provide for
maintenance of low moisture levels in the manure and ease of
manure removal and management.
3. Judicious site selection can provide additional odor potential
reduction plus a reduction of incidence of complaint should
malodors periodically be formed.
4. Existing facilities may require extensive alteration to accomplish
reduction in odor production.
5. Feedlot operators must conscientiously implement and maintain
optimal odor reducing wastes, facility, and animal management
practices.
6. Handling manure as a solid whenever feasible will reduce the
volume of wastes to be handled, plus eliminate the need for cost
intensive aeration and chemical treatment for odor control in
slurry wastes.
7. Odor produced in liquid manure storage and runoff retention systems
can, in many cases, be controlled by implementing proper lagoon
loading rates and management practices when combined with aeration
and chemical treatments prior to wastes removal.
-------
8. Feed additives alter the characteristics of volatiles evolving from
hog and cattle wastes; however, these changes, for the most part,
are above the olfactory threshold for detection.
9. Chemical and biochemical agents added to the wastes provide limited
success for odorant control in most cases. The agents which
provide the greatest degree of success are, with few exceptions,
the most cost intensive. Chemical and biochemical control, there-
fore, is considered an emergency measure to be used only until the
cause of the problem is corrected.
10. The control of in-building odors has not been totally successful
without the use of ventilation systems. The technology exists to
control the release of odorants to the environment through such
ventilation systems.
11. Dust has been shown to be a source of odors within confined areas
and is suspect along with aerosols in the atmosphere surrounding
outdoor facilities and lagoons. The mechanisms and interactions
between odorants and dust and aerosols has not been demonstrated.
12. The interactions between two or more odorants upon mixing have not
been adequately researched.
13. The interactions between odorants and other environmental factors
and human responses to such interactions have not been adequately
researched.
14. The technology to objectively evaluate the intensity and quality
of odors does not exist. Current evaluation methodologies either
utilize a totally subjective sensory approach or a combination of
objective instrumentation correlated with subjective organoleptic
techniques.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Total suppression or control of odors from animal production facilities
is not achieveable with current technology and economic constraints. The
following principles, however, may be utilized to reduce the probability of
complaints and odorant production potentials.
1. Select a site which is remote from neighbors and other potential
sources of complaint, such as municipalities, schools, churches,
and recreation areas. Sites with vegetative shelter can be used
advantageously to hide the facility from the view of potential
complainants and to disperse odors through wind turbulence caused
by the existing vegetation.
2. Select a site on which orderly drainage can be established, thus
reducing the moisture content of the wastes below that required
for anaerobic microbial activity.
3. Utilize engineering design considerations which minimize the
amount of moisture in the manure, manure storage system, and
runoff collection facilities.
4. Remove and dispose of manure at regular intervals and dewater
runoff retention facilities as rapidly following a runoff event as
possible.
5. Practice good housekeeping principles avoiding excessive feed and
waterer spillage; overcrowding animals causing muddy wet pens and
animals; excessively large .manure storage piles; unattended dead
animal carcasses; and manure or mud-blocked alleyways and access
roads.
6. Avoid lagoon overloading or unnecessary agitation of anaerobic
lagoons. Utilize aeration techniques when problems occur and
prior to sludge removal.
7. Consider chemical treatment of the manure pack and lagoons during
periods of excessive odor production and prior to manure handling
and disposal.
-------
8. Judiciously select manure field spreading times to coincide with
favorable weather conditions and periods when neighbors or recreat-
ing people are not likely to be near the area.
9. Install odor control equipment on building ventilation systems if
persistent problems arise.
10. Establish a positive rapport with neighbors and community leaders.
Show that you are interested in their view of your operation and
that you desire to keep odors under control.
The current state of knowledge concerning the control of animal pro-
duction odors evolves around a few basic common sense management principles
which provide at best only remedial control. The results of most of the
investigative research into the specific causes of odors, identification and
interactions of various odorants, and physical and chemical control of
odorants has been, for the most part, inconclusive or negative and frus-
trating. However, there have been some promising preliminary results which
may lead to viable controls. Additionally, there are some research areas
which have not been adequately explored by the animal production research
community. Areas for future research in these categories include:
1. The development of a compendium of all existing odor control
technology for all sources is essential to a well organized problem
solving research approach. Few animal waste odor control research
efforts have been based on technology developed and in use for
odor sources other than animal production. This compendium should
be world-wide in scope and include an evaluation of the potential
of all existing and developmental processes for direct or adaptive
use by the animal production industry.
2. A systematic comparison of sensory measurement methodologies
should be carried out to develop a preferred or standard interim
method for the measurement of odor intensity and quality in ambient
air and at the source. This standard should minimize the current
margin for variation in measurement of odor strength and vari-
ability caused by the use of current organoleptic techniques.
3. An organized comprehensive search for objective odor evaluation
techniques for both source and ambient air should be initiated.
Methodologies developed should eliminate the need for subjective
sensory correlations with analytical instrumentation results.
4. There is evidence that animal production odors are related to
dust and aerosols within enclosed animal production facilities and
indications of similar relationships for open feeding situations.
The mechanism and extent of this phenomenon is an important area
for future research.
-------
5. Alteration of the constituents in animal feed rations has in some
preliminary studies shown promise. Further research is needed to
determine the practicability of this approach; the scope of facility
and species application; and the extent of control and/or volatile
constituent alteration.
6. The interactions which occur upon mixing two or more odorants
and the effect of interactions on the quality and strength of
resulting odors should be investigated in an effort to locate and
eliminate those volatiles which cause the objectionable and persis-
tent qualities of odors.
7. Interactions between odor producing biological activity, odor
perception, odor transport, and environmental variables such as,
humidity, temperature, pH, and atmospheric pressure should be
explored.
8. Psychological and annoyance reactions should be evaluated in
feedlot exposure areas. These evaluations should include both
positive and negative physiochemical and sensory responses.
9. Psychological interactions between animal waste odor perception
and other environmental annoyances, such as, noise, dust, visual
insult, irritants, and vibration should be evaluated.
10. The social and economic consequences of odor exposure should be
identified and quantified. This should include studies of the
impact of odor exposure on population shifts, property values,
recreational activities in resort areas, and tourism.
11. The economics of odor prevention and abatement should be evaluated
and documented. This should include appraisal of the costs of
control versus the economics of impacts to arrive at cost-effective
pollution control strategies.
12. The extent and transport of toxic substances in animal production
odorants should be investigated.
-------
SECTION 4
THE AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM
Air pollutants originating from animal production facilities may be
divided into several classes according to their source. These include
noxious, toxic, and explosive gases; nutrients; dust; and malodorous gases.
NOXIOUS, TOXIC, AND EXPLOSIVE GASES
The processes of anaerobic decomposition of highly organic manure
wastes stored in lagoons, in pits beneath the floor of certain types of
animal confinement facilities, and in covered or enclosed storage tanks
produce gases which are often noxious or toxic to animals and humans or
under enclosed conditions are explosive. Methane, carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide are gases evolved in the greatest
concentrations from organic wastes (8) and considered to pose the greatest
potential hazard to humans and animals (9, 10).
Under controlled conditions Drummond et al. (11) exposed lambs to
gaseous ammonia at concentrations which are typically accumulated in
totally enclosed slotted floor facilities over manure pits. The exposed
lambs showed lower growth rates and exhibited profuse lacrimation, severe
coughing and sneezing, and profuse nasal discharge which in some instances
was bloody. Strombaugh, league, and Roller (12) reported similar effects of
gaseous ammonia on pigs. Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide have been
considered hazardous to animals (9, 10). Carbon dioxide is not toxic;
however, it can contribute to oxygen deficiency in improperly ventilated
confinement facilities (13). Methane is not generally considered as toxic;
however, large concentrations in poorly ventilated confinement areas can
contribute to animal suffocation and create hazardous explosive conditions
(9, 14).
Hydrogen sulfide is the most toxic of these potentially dangerous
gases. Lillie (15) reports severe eye and respiratory tract irritation to
humans exposed to concentrations of 20-150 ppm and adverse affects upon the
nervous system with exposures of 500 ppm for 30 minutes. On several occa-
sions swine were killed when manure stored in under floor pits was agitated
or mixed before removal (15). This agitation released lethal concentrations
of hydrogen sulfide into the swine buildings above. Since hydrogen sulfide
does not collect in open feeding areas because of air dilution and oxidation
to sulphur dioxide, potential acute toxicity of hydrogen sulfide is impor-
tant only in confined feeding operations during agitation of anaerobic
underhouse waste collection pits where house ventilation is poor (16).
-------
A long list of incidents in which commercial livestock were injured or
killed by gases which accumulate in animal confinement facilities has been
compiled by Merkel (10). Gases accumulated in slotted floor hog barns with
under slat manure pits caused workers to suffer from headache, shortness of
breath, phlegm, congested nasal passages, dizziness, vomiting, and, in some
instances, human deaths have been reported (9).
The production of these gases presents a real threat to animal and
human health and property when permitted to accumulate to dangerous concen-
trations in confined areas. These areas include enclosed confinement
facilities which are poorly ventilated and covered manure storage tanks.
Even though these gases are generated in nearly every instance where manure
is decomposing, they do not pose a threat in open or properly ventilated
areas or in the exhaust air from ventilation systems as they are dispersed
at concentrations well below those considered dangerous. This threat to
health and safety affects only the animals and those who contact these gases
during the course of routine work. The effects of this type of contact are
considered as occupational diseases and therefore the concern of industrial
hygiene and occupational medicine (17) and not an environmental issue.
NUTRIENT TRANSPORT
Ammonia nitrogen is the primary nutrient volatilized to the atmosphere
from animal production facilities (18, 19). Hutchinson and Viets (20)
reported that nitrogen enrichment of surface waters in the vicinity of
animal feedlots and resulting algae and aquatic vegetative growths were due
to ammonia volatization, atmospheric transport and subsequent rainout to and
direct adsorption by surface waters.
Nutrient transport is an environmental problem which may be of great
concern in localized areas. The control of odors will at the same time
control most of the occurrences of nutrient transport because both problems
are concerned with the evolution of gaseous ammonia. Therefore, odor control
principles may be used to lessen the problem of nutrient transport.
DUST
Sweeten (21) reported that dust from cattle feedlot can constitute a
localized nuisance during prolonged dry periods. Additionally, dust can
pose a sanitation problem to neighbors, create traffic hazards, and in
sufficient concentrations can also impair cattle growth performance and
constitute an irritant to feedlot employees (21). Eby and Wilson (22) have
implied that dust generated in poultry houses may be an odor transport
mechanism. According to Burnett (23), dust in high intensity poultry houses
transports odor and odorous compounds. Current odor transport research
efforts at Iowa State University indicate that swine odors may be transported
on dust or aerosols and that lagoon odors may be absorbed to and transported
by ambient dust and aerosols (24).
The control of dust relates closely to the need for odor control in
some instances and as a result of odor control practices in other situations.
10
-------
Therefore, dust control will be discussed as appropriate with respect to
those affected odor control practices.
MALODOROUS GASES
Emissions of malodorous gases from animal feeding enterprises can be
inimical to the aesthetics and economics of a community. Personal dis-
comfort, allergic responses, impaired respiration, loss of appetite, de-
creased liquid consumption, loss of sleep, mental stress, and nausea and
vomiting have been incited by exposure to aesthetically unpleasant odors
even though there is no apparent relationship between odors and a specific
organic disease or toxicity of a gas (16). Court orders and the costs of
litigation have forced some farmers out of business (25). Odor is the
leading cause of pollution complaints in the State of Texas (26) and the
thirteen major western feeding states (27, 28). Table 2 is a compilation of
the percentage of feedlots receiving complaints by pollution type in the 13
major western feeding states during 1973 (27). A total of fifteen percent
of the feedlots within the study area received pollution complaints. Seven
percent of these were threatened with legal action and three percent actu-
ally experienced legal actions taken against them for permitting an odor
nuisance (27). These statistics do not account for innumerable odor com-
plaints received by city or county health departments. The numbers of
complaints, legal suits, and unfavorable court decisions received because of
odors by animal feeding operations in the humid high rainfall areas of the
midwestern and southeastern states have not adequately been documented. The
substantiality of this problem within these wet regions is predictable due
to the wet climatic conditions and dense though dispersed human population.
For these same reasons the problem also includes the smallest of production
units in the midwest and southeast rather than just the one and two thousand
head and larger units as in the western states where dryer climatic condi-
tions and greater facility isolation from areas of human habitation prevail.
The persistence of the odorants emitted and the trend toward seeking
legal relief from the effects of these odors by downwind neighbors and
residents in all regions of the country isolate odors as the single most
complained about, uncontrollable, and controversial air pollution problem
associated with animal production.
TABLE 2. PERCENT OF FEEDLOTS IN 13 MAJOR WESTERN FEEDING
STATES RECEIVING POLLUTION COMPLAINTS DURING 1973 (27)
Complaints of Pollution due to; % of Feedlots
Surface water runoff 2.6
Contamination of groundwater 1.4
Feedlot odors 9.1
Dust 6.4
Insects 5.9
Noise 0.9
11
-------
SECTION 5
INSTITUTIONAL AND SOCIETAL CONSTRAINTS
Odors emanating from animal production facilities have been labeled as
a nuisance as early as 1611 (29), when an English court affirmed the grant-
ing of an injunction and damages to the plantiff upon a showing that the
defendant had erected a "hogstye so near the house of the plaintiff that the
air thereof was corrupted." More recently, increased public awareness and
concern for environmental matters tend to promote the generally accepted
assumption that corrective action must be taken whenever there is an objec-
tionable smell. This has been over-magnified in the rural setting sur-
rounding animal production facilities with the current population shifts of
urbanites from the cities and suburbs into rural areas.
Specific human health hazards associated with gases which evolve from
animal wastes are limited to situations in which persons encounter large
concentrations of such gases (30). In addition to proven or suspected
health hazards, attention must be paid to the annoyance reaction produced by
air pollution. From the medical point of view, the term "annoyance" implies
an effect which is not demonstrably pathogenic but involves a negative
effect on the individual comfort and well being (31). However, the demar-
cation between pathogenic and annoying is not always distinct since the line
between health and disease is partly established by current attitudes in the
community. The World Health Organization (32) has defined health as "a
state of complete physical, mental, and social well being and not merely the
absence of disease or infirmity." Therefore, the presence of odors which
interfere with the right of enjoyment of properties, homes, or established
places of work or recreation may induce negative psychophysiological effects
on exposed individuals. A person or persons subjected to objectionable
odors have the right of complaint and in some instances may seek injunctive
relief from such odors.
Technology does not exist which will allow for the quantitative determi-
nation of either the intensity of or an objective qualitative measurement
of the "foulness" of an odor. The subjectivity of current odor evaluation
technology makes the application of laws or regulations specifying numerical
air quality standards for odorants impossible (33). Therefore, the legal
constraints that are available to those who wish to be free from the annoy-,
ance of malodorous livestock enterprises are based primarily on the concept
of nuisance.
Many state agencies (see Appendix) have based odor control regulations
on the doctrine of nuisance. Some of these agencies have specified ambient
12
-------
odor concentrations based on the use of vapor dilution methodologies that
determine the dilutions to threshold on a numerical standard. The desir-
ability of the odor in these cases is still dependent upon individual pref-
erence and not an enforceable standard. Detailed discussions of Federal,
state, and local regulations and the doctrine of nuisances as they apply to
animal production odors have been presented by Recker (33), Prokop (34),
Leonardos (35), and Sweeten and Lev! (36). Whetstone et al. (37) have
included a state by state summary of air pollution regulation pertinent to
livestock odors in their discussion of the effects of pollution control
legislation on the confined livestock production industry.
The following trends in odor nuisance lawsuits were summarized from
Sweeten and Levi (38). The importance of good management was demonstrated
in a 1972 County Circuit court decision in Michigan which declined to issue
an injunction and grant substantial pecuniary damages against a swine opera-
tion. The judge indicated that the decision was based upon the facts that
"the producer was using reasonable, commercially-accepted production methods;
that no negligence was involved; and that, practically speaking, hogs can-
not be produced in a completely odorless manner." Prior use was established
by a 1972 Arizona Supreme Court decision and a 1973 Granbery, Texas jury
decision. The Arizona case involved an urban development which was located
near an existing feedlot. The feedlot owner openly admitted that his opera-
tion had an odor problem and that the odor was very evident in the vicinity
of the urban development, but that the feedlot was in operation prior to
the initiation of the development. The court ordered that the feedlot be
moved for the rights and interest of the public and the developer was ordered
to pay for the move since he had profited largely from bringing people to
the nuisance.
A similar case in Texas was brought before a jury which ruled against
an injunction and substantial monetary damages as the "social utilitarian
value of feedlots outweighed the temporary inconvenience and annoyance of
the newly-arrived residents." In another court case, odor intensity measured
with a Barneby-Cheney Scentometer was used to close a feedlot which had
operated for 15 years within the city limits of El Paso, Texas. The lot
was closed as a permanent public nuisance by District Court Decree. A
significant feature of the final judgement was the stipulation of a maximum
permissible odor intensity of seven dilutions to threshold at the property
line, as measured using the Barneby-Cheney Scentometer. Additional important
court decisions both for public and private livestock odor nuisance actions
have been briefed by Recker (33).
Totally avoiding nuisance complaints is for all practical purposes
impossible due to the potential combinations of social and physiological
background and the psychological interactions and individual preferences of
those people which may live or recreate in areas which are affected by
odors. The most important consideration may be the interaction of learning
or experience and odor perception. Psychologists have repeatedly stressed
the extent to which prior bias, either for or against an alleged odor
source, can influence the emotional responses to an odor dosage (39). Thus,
additional aesthetic insult from the odor source, whether in the form of
13
-------
other pollutants, or such factors as disorderliness or distasteful archi-
tecture may negate any positive community response from odor abatement at-
tempts. Eugene (40) observed that the presence of visual cues, such as a
smoke, in the case of an industrial setting, increases the frequency of
reports of the perception of odor. It is not clear whether such results can
be explained as evidence of biased responding or a keener odor perception
because of sensory input from another modality and thus increased attention
and awareness (41).
An actual feedlot odor complaint which was investigated by authorities
in the State of Kansas supports the theory that a visible emission or source,
because it is viewed as an odor contributor, does evoke negative emotional
responses (42). During the final construction phases the feedlot operator
and state authorities were receiving complaints of malodors. The feedlot
had not been stocked with animals and therefore did not have any manure
wastes to produce odors. The culprit was a truck stop washrack where cattle
trucks had been washed down without odor complaint for a long period prior
to the construction of the new lot. The knowledge that a new feedlot was
being constructed and public fear of odor from the lot obviously increased
awareness for and brought attention to that specific odor. Too many indi-
viduals think that the fact that something should smell bad or even looks
like it should smell bad makes it so and therefore they smell foul odors.
For these reasons, Giblin (29) states that courts must look at the entire
picture on a case by case basis and cannot apply a strict standard to their
decision. Additionally, it is important that the courts distinguish between
"grudge-type" complaints and those which are legitimate.
George, Fulhage, and Mathews (43) lists several measures which can
minimize legal troubles even though complaints cannot be completely avoided.
These are summarized as follows:
1. Implement and use the best possible odor reducing management
concepts and practices;
2. Respond promptly to complaints explaining your efforts to reduce
odors and soliciting the complainants suggestions. Never give
the impression that you do not care about their feelings or that
you are not making every effort to abate odor pollution;
3. In selecting a site for a facility, avoid areas where odor poten-
tials may be high and areas where there is good potential for
urban development;
4. Maintain a clean neat appearing facility. Psychologically
speaking if it looks clean it probably smells good also;
5. Locate manure runoff collection lagoons, manure treatment or
storage lagoons, and solid manure storage areas out of the view
of the general public. This is based on the premise that if you
cannot see it there is nothing to smell;
14
-------
6. Follow proper lagoon engineering designs and lagoon management
practices; and
7. Empty and dispose of lagooned and solid wastes during optimal
weather periods or periods of least neighborhood activity.
In summary, the problem of co-existence between the animal producer and
society is exemplified by testimony for and against proposed odor regulations
under consideration by the State of Iowa Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) in 1976 (44). Proponents argued that they needed protection from
objectionable odors while those who would be controlled by the regulation
took the obvious stand against the control. One of the largest hog pro-
ducers in the state, who was also a member of the DEQ, testified that odors
were related to management and stated that he lived within 500 feet of his
operation and lagoons and the he "didn't have any odor problems." Other
proponents testified that it was impossible to operate a hog operation with
lagoons without odors. Some of the blame for the problem rests on the
overselling of odorless lagoons by producers to their neighbors. The pro-
ducers, in all honesty, believe the odor level is acceptable. It probably
is to them; however, to neighbors who live nearby the odor may be untenable.
Byrkett, Miller, and Taiganides (45) speculate that changes in cattle
feeding technology, which may well be reflected throughout the animal pro-
duction industry, may allow cattle and people to live in harmony and thus
reduce the importance of the land use conflict consideration. Feedlots of
the future may be a multi-story building that is completely enclosed and
odor free with a total wastes recycling and/or composting operation. This
type of facility may be no more obnoxious than a typical midwestern manu-
facturing plant and thus fit better with the structure of society in the
population centers.
15
-------
SECTION 6
ODOR EVALUATION
The evaluation of odors depends on the individual observers criteria
for defining malodors and individual responses and sensitivity to odors.
The sensations of sight or sound can be exactly defined because they can be
measured, but this in the study of olfaction has, at present, not been
accomplished (46). The chemical and physical characteristics of a compound
responsible for an odor can be measured by standard or specially developed
techniques, but this does not mean that these characteristics can be cor-
related with an organoleptic interpretation. The mental background of the
person experiencing an odor determines their individual interpretation of
the odor. A person with a pleasant memory of a particular smell, will
classify this odor as pleasing, while another person with a different
background, may take a conflicting view (46). Therefore, one may conclude
that the effect of any specific odor on a population will be dependent upon
the individuals within that population and their personal experiences.
Thus, community reaction to an odor will vary and not be one which is
readily predictable. The characteristics of odors also influence olfactory
and psychophysiological responses and the processes of this evaluation.
The primary characteristics of concern are composition, quality, strength
and occurrence.
ODOR COMPOSITION
The chemical composition of the gases emitted by the decomposition of
animal wastes have been evaluated for a variety of feeding situations.
Over seventy chemical compounds have been identified, many of which con-
tribute to the malodorous characteristics of the wastes (16, 30, 47, 48).
Table 3, adapated from Hosier, Morrison, and Elmund (16), is a compilation
of citations of chemicals identified as volatiles from cattle, poultry, and
swine wastes by major chemical groupings.
The compounds which are most often considered as objectionable malodors
are amines, mercaptans, sulfides, and disulfides (10, 16, 49). Elliott,
Doran, and Travis (50) reported that trace amounts of organic acids, car-
bonyls, amines, indoles, skatoles, mercaptans, and alkyl sulfides can cause
odors that are detectable for long distances. They further reported that
at any given time, different intermediate odorous compounds may occur;
thus, the perceived odor may be due to any combination of the compounds
that are present. Approximately 40 percent of the volatiles on Table 3 are
toxic substances listed for limitation in working environments by the
16
-------
TABLE 3. CITATION OF CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED AS VOLATILES
FROM CATTLE, POULTRY, AND SWINE WASTES
Chemical
Species
Cattle Poultry Swine
Alcohols
Methanol*
Ethanol*
Hexanol
n-Propanol
Isopropanol*
n-Butanol
Isopentanol
2-Butanol
Sec-Butanol
Phenol
Et-phenol
P-cresol*
2-ethoxy-l-propanol
Carbonyl-containing
Acetic Acid*
Benzoic Acid
Propionic Acid
n-Butyric Acid
Isobutyric Acid
n-Valeric Acid
Isovaleric Acid
Enanthic Acid
Caproic Acid
Benzaldehyde
Acetaldehyde*
Propionaldehyde
n-Butryaldehyde
Isobutryaldehyde
n-Valeraldehyde
n-Hexaldehyde
n-Octaldehyde
n-Decaldehyde
Ethylformate*
Methylacetate*
Isopropylacetate*
Isopropylpropioate
Isobutylacetate*
Acetone*
2-Butanone*
3-Pentanone*
2,3-Butanedione
3-Hydroxy-2-Butanone
-Bibliographic Reference-
52
52
55
52
58
52,55
52
52
52
52
52
52
58
56,57
56,57
56,57
57
57
57
53
53
54
53
53
53,54
53
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
54
59,53
59,53
59
53
53
59
53
53
59,54
59
59
54
(continued)
17
-------
TABLE 3 (continued).
Chemical
Cattle
Species
Poultry
Swine
-Bibliographic Reference-
Nitrogen-containing
Methylamine*
Dimethylamine*
Trimethylamine*
Ethylamine*
Triethylamine*
n-Propylamine
Isopropylamine*
n-Butylamine*
n-Amylamine
3-Aminopy r id ine*
Ammonia*
Indole
Skatole
Sulfur-containing
Hydrogen sulfide*
Carbonyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide
Carbon disulfide*
Dimethyl disulfide
Methanethiol*
Ethanethiol*
Propanethiol
60
60
55
60,55
-
60
60
60
60
-
60,62
52
52
63,52,64,
63,64
63,55
63
63
63,65
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
57
57
57
63,57
-
63,57
-
63
63,57
57
57
-
—
54
61
61
-
—
—
-
54
59,53,
54,18
-
-
53,18
-
-
-
54
-
—
—
Dimethyl trisulfide
Ketones
54
Acetopnenone
2-Octanone
Aromatic organics
Toluene*
Xylene*
Aklyl benzene
Indane
Ringed organics
Me-naphthalene
Simple organics
C02*
Methane
- - 54
54
54
54
- - 54
- - 54
54
64 53 58
64 53 58
* Listed for limitation in working Environment by Occupational Safety
and Health Standards (51) .
18
-------
Occupational Safety and Health Standards of the National Institution of
Occupational Safety and Health (51).
ODOR QUALITY AND STRENGTH
The quality of an odor is a subjective determination of the pleasant-
ness of that odor to an individual or may be determined by comparing the
odor to a similar odorant such as peppermint, rotten eggs, etc. Odor
strength, on the other hand, is an objective determination of the number
of dilutions with odor free air required to reduce a given amount of the
odorous air to the concentration at which the odor is just detectable by
the human olfactory systems or the threshold concentration. This is called
the odor threshold number (OTN). Another measure of the odor intensity is
the odor intensity index (Oil), which is the number of times an odorant
must be diluted by half with an odorfree medium to reach the odor threshold.
Table 4, adapted from Hosier, Morrison, and Elmund (16), is a summary of
the odor threshold and quality description of chemicals considered to be
important to organic waste odors.
Changes in the intensity of an odorant may create a disagreement in
observed odor quality. According to Lauren (46), hydrogen sulfide at
concentrations sufficient to produce harmful physiological effects loses
its smell of rotten eggs and produces a pleasant odorous sensation.
Indole appears to be, at least psychophysiologically if not chemically, a
combination of two odors (46). In low concentration it has the smell of
jasmine and has a low threshold for perception. At high concentrations it
has a strong odor of faeces and a-naphthylamine and a much higher threshold
of perception. Observations of this type may be caused by changes in the
receptor mechanisms of the human olfactory system with changes in intensity
and duration of odorants. A comprehensive discussion of the human and
animal olfactory system which may affect these changes has been presented
by Miner (30).
OCCURRENCE OF ODORS
The occurrence of odors is defined as the duration or frequency that
an odor exists and is expressed as having occurred at intervals for a given
length of time with a given frequency during a known period of time (66).
This concept is most useful in establishing guidelines for enforcement
activities (36, 37).
MEASUREMENT OF ODOR AND STRENGTH
Current odor measurement techniques do not permit an accurate quanti-
tative assessment of odor quality or odor intensity since the extremely
sensitive human olfactory senses can detect and identify odors at levels
far below the levels of sensitivity of the currently available instrumen-
tation (30, 33, 34, 49). Recker (33) has listed the following five basic
approaches to odor measurement:
1. Identification of odorous gases (chromatographic).
19
-------
TABLE 4. ODOR THRESHOLD AND QUALITY DESCRIPTION OF CHEMICALS
CONSIDERED TO BE IMPORTANT TO ORGANIC WASTE ODORS
Chemical
Odor Threshold
Odor Description
Acetaldehyde
Propionaldehyde
3-Hydroxy-2-butanone
Acetic acid
Propionic acid
2-Methylpropionic acid
Butyric acid
Methylamine
Dimethylamine
Trimethylamine
Ethylamine
Skatole
Ammonia
Methanethiol
Ethanethiol
Propanethiol
ppm
Carbonyl-containing
0.21 (67)
0.0095 (68)
*
1.0 (67)
20.0 (68)
8.1 (68)
0.001 (67)
Nitrogen-containing
0.021 (67)
0.047 (67)
0.00021 (67)
*
0.019 (68)
46.8 (67)
Sulfur-containing
0.0021 (67)
0.001 (67)
0.00074 (69)
Green sweet (67)
Butterlike (57)
Vinegarlike (57),
Sour (67)
Pickle-like (57)
Sweat-like (57)
Sour (67),
Rancid (57)
Fishy (67),
Airanoniacal (57)
Fishy (67)
Fishy (67)
Fishy (67)
*
Airanoniacal (57, 68)
Skunk (69), Foul (65)
Onion-like (57),
Skunk (69)
Onion-like (57),
Skunk (69)
t-Butylthiol
Dimethyl sulfide
Diethyl sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide
0.00009 (69)
0.001 (67)
0.003 (69)
0.00047 (67)
0.0072 (69)
0.072 (69)
*
Rotten cabbage (69)
Rotten cabbage (69)
Eggy sulfide (67),
Foul (65)
* No data available
20
-------
2. Measurement of odorant concentration (wet chemistry and cor-
relation) .
3. Measurement of odor intensity by vapor dilution (scentometer).
4. Measurement of odor intensity by liquid dilution (laboratory
procedures).
5. Ranking of odor intensities by arbitrary offensiveness scales.
A summation of the methods of collecting chemicals volatilized from
animal wastes and measuring odors and volatiles by gas chromatography and
other analytical methods are presented in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.
The use of chemical-trapping solutions are advantageous for the simplicity
of operation and minimization of costs. Elliot, Doran, and Travis (50)
reported that the limitations of such procedures for collecting odorous
compounds include difficulties in achieving quantitative recoveries and
problems associated with chemical alteration of the original odorous com-
pounds. Gas chromatography is extremely useful for identifying odorous
compounds; however, the method must be used with organoleptic techniques to
characterize odor quality and intensity. Miner (18) has described a method
of collecting gases volatilized from manure and other surfaces. His method
utilizes a specially designed trap containing gas impinger tubes filled
with absorption materials coupled with gas-liquid chromatography-mass
spectral combination analysis. Recker (33) indicates that the main dis-
advantage of the gas chromatography and wet chemistry trapping methods is
that they "merely identify the presence of odor-producing gases and measure
their concentrations, but do not measure the intensity or quality of the
odor."
Vapor dilution and liquid dilution are the two most popular methods of
odor measurement (33). These methods are both organoleptic in nature and
use the human nose as a detector. Prokop (34) presents a comparison of
three vapor dilution methods of odor evaluation. These are the American
Society for Testing Materials Syringe Method (78, 79), the Barneby-Cheney
Scentometer (80), and the Dravnieks and Prokop Dynamic Forced-Choice
Triangle Olfactometer (81). Results of these comparisons showed that the
latter two methods were superior over the ASTM method but that the differ-
ences between the latter two methods were inconclusive. The advantage of
the forced-choice over the scentometer method was the ability to determine
a greater number of dilution ratios within the testing range. The scen-
tometer method is selected for use most frequently in studies reported in
the literature and is used as a standard odor measuring device on which
odor limits are based in some states (35, 37). Detailed discussions of the
instrument and its use in animal production situations have been presented
by Miner (30, 48), Sweeten et al. (82), and Reddell and Sweeten (49). The
liquid dilution method involves the use of odor panels to determine the
dilutions to threshold and is the same method described for the determina-
tion of odor intensities in water supplies (83).
21
-------
TABLE 5. METHODS USED TO COLLECT CHEMICALS VOLATILIZED
FROM ANIMAL WASTES (16)
Chemical Group
Collection Method
Reference
Acids
Cryogenic collection in GLC column
Manure extract
57
53
Alcohols
Propylene glycol trap
Cryogenic collection
52,53
55
Aldehydes, esters,
and ketones Propylene glycol trap extracted
with CC14
Silica gel impregnated with
dinitrophenyl-hydrazine
Cryogenic collection
52,53
59
55,57
Amines
1.2N HC1 trap
0.01N H2S04 trap
5% acetic acid trap
52,53
60
61
Mercaptan and
sulfides
HgCl2 + Hg(CN)2 traps
Equilibrium vapor method
52,53
65
Nitrogen
heterocyclics
Extraction and steam distillation
of manure
57
All groups
Cryogenic collection
Equilibrium vapor method
55,57
65
22
-------
TABLE 6. GAS CHROMATOGRAPHIC AND OTHER METHODS OF ANALYSIS OF ODORS AND VOLATILES (16)
N3
CO
Chemical group for
which analysis designed
Acids
Alcohols
Amines
Mercaptans and sulfides
Nitrogen heterocyclics
Multigroup analysis
Column
AW Chromosorb W + 10% SP-1200 + 1% H3P04
AW Chromosorb W + 10% Carbowax 20M
Graphitized carbon + 0.5% ^PO^ + 3% PEG 20M
Porapak Q
Chromosorb 103 (injection port packed with Ascarite)
Gaschrom R + 28% Penwait 223 + 4% KOH
Anakrom SD + 10% Igepal CO 880
Graphitized carbon +0.8% KOH + 5% PEG-20M
Chromosorb W + 10% amine 220 + 10% KOH
Graphon + 0.5% H3P04 + 0.3% Dexsil
Chromosorb T + 12% Polyphenyl ether +0.5% H_PO,
Chromosorb G + 10% Triton X 305 + 0.5% H_PO.
3 4
AW DMCS Chromosorb W + 5% SW-30
Chromosorb P + 10% Carbowax 20M AW-DMCS
Porasil S, C + Durapak-Carbowax 400
Detector
FID
FID
FID
FID
FID
FID
EC
FID
FID
FPD
FPD
FPD
FID
FID
FID
Reference
70
57
71
53
60,72
60,72
60
71
73
74
63
75
57
65
55
Hydrogen sulfide
Other Analytical Methods
AgNO~ impregnated filter paper, analyzed
fluorometrically
Pb(0 Ac)2 + 5% acetic acid impregnated filter
paper analyzed spectrophotometrically
76
77
-------
Limitations to and the disadvantages of the use of organoleptic odor
evaluation techniques reported by Summer (84); Ludington, Sobel, and Gormel
(85); Smith (86); Elliot, Doran, and Travis (50); and Miner (30) include:
1. Rapid saturation of the olfactory senses by some odor compounds.
2. Variation in sensitivity to different odors and previous experi-
ences of individuals.
3. Variation in sensitivity of an individual to odors at various
times of day or under various conditions of physical health.
4. Variation in sensitivity of an individual under varying conditions
of mental attitude, stress, or momentary disposition.
5. Adaptation or adjustment of the observer to the stimulus.
6. Fatigue of the observer to a particular group of odors as a result
of adaptation.
7. Admixing of odorants in which synergistic or antagonistic effects
create changes in odor quality and/or strength.
8. Olfactory diseases such as anosmia (odor blindness) or parosmia
(odor perversion).
9. Pungent odors causing irritation of the nerves in the nasal system.
10. Sample temperature.
11. Observer's age (sense of smell develops to about the age of 20 and
begins to deteriorate after the age of 50).
12. Observer's sex (women are normally more sensitive than men to
odors).
13. Habits of the observers such as smoking, wearing perfume or
cologne, etc.
14. Climatic variables such as temperature, humidity, and wind
velocities.
Considering the total spectra of disadvantages to organoleptic tech-
niques, the currently available odor evaluation techniques are only cursory.
The subjective nature of the data collected renders the establishment of
equitable and enforceable odor limiting regulations and laws at best a very
difficult task. Until objective technology is developed such that a large
percentage of human bias can be eliminated from odor evaluation methodology,
each odor problem will have to be evaluated on a case by case basis by both
the animal producer and the enforcement agencies responsible for control.
24
-------
SECTION 7
CONTROL OF NUISANCE ODORS
There are two basic approaches to reduce or control animal production
odors. These are the prevention of odors from forming and the conditions
which stimulate odor complaints at the source and treating the odor or the
cause for complaint after they are established. A basic understanding of the
causes of odors which ultimately lead to complaints is, however, essential to
the accomplishment of these two basic approaches to the problem.
CAUSES OF ODORS
Anaerobic decomposition of animal wastes is the primary cause of odors.
This occurs when the moisture content and/or degree of compaction are great
enough to preclude atmospheric oxygen from the bacteriologically decomposing
wastes. Moisture content of manure is related to porosity and other unknown
factors. Above a 50 to 55 percent moisture content (wet basis) feedlot
manure becomes anaerobic (87). White (88) indicates that anaerobic conditions
persist in manures with sufficient moisture content which are stored for time
periods greater than two or three days. Under these conditions, odorous
volatile compounds are formed. However, if aerobic conditions exist, the
volatile compounds produced do not have offensive odors (88).
Mielke and Mazurak (89) reported on the effects of manure compaction.
The soil-manure interfacial layer reaches its maximum compacted density at 18
to 20 percent moisture content (wet basis). Temperature influences the rate
of decomposition thus also exerts a significant influence on odor production
(90). There is a ten-fold increase in anaerobic activity in the range of 5°
to 35° C. Therefore, odor control efforts must be maximized during warm
seasons. Miner (91) associated ammonia evolution rates from manure surfaces
with temperature and humidity. The amount of ammonia evolved from an ini-
tially dry surface tripled following a rainy day.
The pH of animal wastes has an effect on the emission of volatile chemi-
cals according to Mosier, Morrison, and Elmund (16). Odors produced from a
solution of basic volatile compounds like amines, for example, will increase
as the pH of the solution increases until a solution/atmosphere equilibrium
is reached. Hashimoto and Ludington (92) developed equations to predict the
rate of ammonia desorption from chicken manure slurries which demonstrate the
effect of pH on ammonia volatility. Odor development in stored manure was
studied by Gerrish (47). During anaerobic decomposition at a pH of 8, the pH
25
-------
of freshly excreted manure, the acetate, bicarbonate, and bisulfide ions
remain in solution and do not contribute to odor. However, ammonia is
evolved and wastes stored under these conditions will give off a distinctive
odor of ammonia. Hydroxyl groups are used up as the reaction moves forward
and the manure does not remain basic. As the manure becomes more acid,
sulfides and acetic acid are given off in gaseous form creating an obnoxious
odor. Odorless carbon dioxide is also evolved. Ammonia, under acid con-
ditions, is in the ammonium ion form and tends to remain in solution. Other
causes of animal production odors include spoilage of spilled feed; manure
caked on animals; unattended or improperly disposed dead and decaying ani-
mals; and open silage storage and transport to the feed bunks (93, 94).
METHODS OF CONTROL
The control of odors and emissions from the large volumes of animal
wastes and large scale manure storage and treatment facilities typical of the
industry is according to Hosier, Morrison, and Elmund (16) "neither a simple
nor a direct task." No economically and technically feasible solution has
been found which is totally satisfactory (16). There are, however, several
precautions, management practices, and artificial measures which may be
applied to most feeding situations which could result in the reduction of
malodors and potentials for odor complaints. For the purposes of this
presentation, these will be grouped arbitrarily as follows:
Site Selection and Facility Design
Good "Housekeeping" Practices
Solid Manure Storage
Liquid Manure Storage and Runoff Retention Facilities
Manure Removal, Hauling, and Field Spreading
Altering the Ingredients of Feed Rations
Chemical and Biochemical Control Agents
Building Ventilation Systems
Dust Suppression
Ancillary Precautions
Site Selection and Facility Design Considerations
Site selection and facility design considerations can be used to reduce
odor and potential odor complaints. Feeding facilities should be located
remote from residential and commercial development (43, 95). Barth and Hill
(96) suggest that the distance from residences should be a minimum of one-
half mile and one mile from communities, schools, institutions, or places of
employment and recreation. Locations should be selected which are downwind
from such places considering prevailing warm weather winds. Preliminary
results of a study to determine the separation distance required to adequately
reduce feedlot odors to an acceptable level in Texas indicate that this
distance may be as little as 0.4 km (0.25 mile) (97).
A buffer zone approximately the shape of an egg (Figure 1) has been
suggested (98) to provide neighbors and communities protection from feeding
facility odors. The orientation of the long axis is dependent upon the
direction of the prevailing wind with the narrow end pointing toward the
26
-------
to
Figure 1. Relationship of feeding site to population centers, wind direction, and odor buffer zone.
-------
direction of the prevailing wind. The size of the buffer zone, usually from
4 to 20 miles along its long axis, is dependent on the size of the feeding
operation and type of manure management employed. Obviously, good house-
keeping practices will significantly reduce the intensity of odors and thus
reduce the size of the buffer zone. In mountainous areas, updrafts and
downdrafts should be considered in the prediction of possible odor complaints
(98).
Prevailing wind direction is a significant factor in determining probable
sources of odor complaint in any location. The prevailing wind direction and
the least probable wind direction can be determined from climatic data avail-
able from the National Climatic Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.
A separate publication entitled "Summary of Hourly Observations: Decennial
Census of United States Climate" has been prepared for each station.
Surface "wind rose" diagrams may be used to determine wind direction
frequencies (99). Figures 2 and 3 are annual surface wind roses and July
surface wind roses, respectively, which have been developed by the U.S.
Department of Commerce for the major cities within the United States (100).
The probability of wind from a given direction is proportional to the cor-
responding length of the "spike" on the wind rose diagram. The numbers in
the center of the wind rose are the percent of time calm conditions prevail.
According to Sweeten (99) directional probabilities vary widely with
season. The most critical period insofar as minimizing odor transport to
downwind receptors is during periods when temperature and rainfall are high-
est. Throughout most of the country the month of July would be represent-
ative of these conditions, and Figure 3 would be helpful in determining the
appropriate location of a feeding facility. Wind roses are available for all
months of the year and in some locations, with special climatic variations,
other months would be more helpful.
Facility drainage and orientation are important site selection consider-
ations. Locations should be selected where there is adequate drainage for
runoff with slopes between four and six percent for open unsurfaced and two
to four percent for concrete surface feedlots (96). The use of concrete
feeding surfaces provides improved drainage and more convenient and efficient
manure removal. Mud, odor, and fly problems are, therefore, significantly
reduced.
Butchbaker and Paine (101) suggest uniform pen slopes of from one per-
cent for dry areas to six percent for humid areas. Building orientation
should protect animals from sunlight and permit use of natural vegetation to
disperse odors (96). Southern slopes provide maximum exposure to sunlight
which assists in drying open manure surfaces.
Zoning is also an important site selection consideration. State and
county land use patterns and regulations should be reviewed before selecting
the final location of a feeding facility. Zoning can help alleviate poten-
tial problems with nuisance complaints. If an area is zoned for agricultural
purposes, presumably, animal feeding would be well within the limits of
28
-------
K>
PORTLAND
JjQ JACKSONVILLE
'/ ' LEGEND: TAMPA
/ WIND ROSES SHOW PERCENTAGE
BROWNSVILLE OF TIME WIND BLEW FROM THE
16 COMPASS POINTS OR WAS CALM.
* INDICATES LESS THAN O.5%CALM
25HOURLY PERCENTAGES 25
Figure 2. Surface wind roses, annual.
-------
Co
O
NORFOLK
LEGEND:
WIND ROSES SHOW PERCENTAGE
OF TIME WIND BLEW FROM THE x
16 COMPASS POINTS OR WAS CALM
* INDICATES LESS THAN 0.5% CALM
25 HOURLY PERCENTAQES 25
MIAMI
Figure 3. Surface wind roses, July.
-------
approved land uses for that area. However, in many areas, communities and
cities have control of agriculturally zoned lands which fall within a spec-
ified distance of their perimeter. Additionally, an animal producer does not
have the right to cause damage to or degrade values of neighboring agri-
cultural properties. In some areas, feeders are applying for zoning restric-
tions which will specify a strict agricultural type of use to discourage
residential development or at least reduce the probability of legal actions
from those who do establish residences in these zones (94). Thus, the
primary use of zoning in this sense is to keep the number of neighbors at a
minimum and to reduce the probability of having the facility declared a
public nuisance. Advice offered to livestock feeders who can see suburbia
approaching is to seek the restriction of land to agricultural uses by
zoning and then watch eternally for the granting of exceptions and variances
(25). George (43) recommends avoiding any site where there exists even a
remote possibility of urban development or encroachment.
"Good housekeeping" practices can minimize odors and let neighbors know
that concern exists about conserving a desirable environment (95). Frequent
and thorough manure removal reduces odor production which, as stated pre-
viously, requires moisture and time (43, 96). Sweeten (28) recommends the
following principles of good housekeeping for odor control. First, keep the
manure relatively dry as much of the time as possible by adjusting animal
stocking rates, maintaining good drainage, keeping manure solids out of
runoff channels, settling basins, and retention ponds, and preventing over-
flow and leakage in animal watering and dust sprinkling systems. Secondly,
keep a minimum quantity of manure and wastewater on hand. This may be ac-
complished by frequently collecting loose surface manure which absorbs
precipitation and delays manure recovery efforts during wet periods; maintain
an undisturbed manure pack approximately two inches thick just above the soil
surface to seal off infiltration and promote rapid surface runoff; promptly
clean drainage channels and settling basins; rapidly dewater runoff retention
ponds; and backfill holes and low spots in the feedlot surface.
Bethea and Narayan (52) have demonstrated the effect of good house-
keeping practices in a beef cattle confinement chamber. Organic volatiles
were identified from the atmosphere in a chamber under three different manure
management programs, Table 7. The value of daily manure removal and daily
floor washing was clearly demonstrated by the reduction in the number of
odorous gases.
The intensity of odors emanating from 17 Texas cattle feedlots as mea-
sured utilizing a scentometer instrument was reported by Sweeten and Reddell
(87). These measurements suggested that moisture was the chief cause of
elevated odor levels, Table 8.
These data indicate the necessity for maintaining good drainage in feed
pens and the rapid dewatering of holding ponds. The lowest attainable odor
intensity under dry lot conditions in Texas is seven dilutions to threshold
permissible in most states with odor threshold standards (37). An additional
advantage to dry manure conditions is the promotion of clean animals. The
body heat of animals will accelerate bacterial decomposition of wet manure
caked on animals and ultimately produce malodorous conditions (96).
31
-------
TABLE 7. ODOROUS COMPOUNDS IDENTIFIED FROM THE ATMOSPHERE IN A BEEF
CATTLE CONFINEMENT CHAMBER UNDER THREE MANURE HANDLING PROGRAMS (52)
Clean and Wash Daily Shovel Out Daily No Cleaning
Methanol Methanol Methanol
Acetaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acetaldehyde
Ethanol Ethanol Ethanol
Iso-Butyraldehyde Ethyl formate Ethyl formate
Ethyl formate 2-propanol 2-propanol
Skatole Skatole
Indole Indole
Iso-butyl acetate Iso-butyl acetate
Prop ionaldehyde
Methyl acetate
Iso-propyl acetate
Iso-propyl propionate
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF ODOR INTENSITIES AT 17
TEXAS CATTLE FEEDLOTS, 1973-75 (87)
Location of Dilutions to
Measurement Condition Threshold
Feedlot surface dry 7
Feedlot surface well-drained, moist 7-31
Feedlot surface poorly drained, damp 31
Feedlot surface wet, ponded 31-170
Runoff retention pond — 31-170
Manure stockpile — 7-170
Solid Manure Storage
Solid manure storage should be maintained aerobic so that the odorous
gases of anaerobic decomposition are not produced. Manure stockpiles should
be kept small as large piles of manure become anaerobic and odor problems
exist when the manure is disturbed for removal and disposal (98). Aeration,
as in composting, pH control, temperature control, and drying are expensive
but usually effective (96).
Undercage drying and storage of poultry wastes can be accomplished at a
cost of 0.6 cents and 0.007 cents per dozen eggs for forced air and fan
drying, respectively (102). These methods do not, however, provide as ef-
ficient odor control as the more expensive aerated liquid undercage storage
(102).
Sweeten and Reddell (87) suggest that the volume and duration of storage
of stockpiled manure be limited and that the work "face" or surface of the
pile be limited to as small an area as possible. This reduces the area of
32
-------
disturbance and the amount of surface from which odorous volatiles can escape
to the atmospheres. Additional recommendations for stockpiling manure (103)
include maintenance of moisture between 10 and 30 percent in the top six
inches of the pile, locate the stockpile on a well drained area to assume
rapid dewatering and utilize aerobic composting procedures. These include
long manure windrows four to five feet in height and turn twice weekly for
the first 30 days. Most feedlot operators, however, regard the extra han-
dling required as too expensive.
Animals should be kept away from manure storage areas (96). Trampling of
manure piles breaks the outer dried crust which forms and retains the vola-
tile gases permitting them to escape to the atmosphere.
Liquid Wastes Storage and Runoff Rentention Facilities
Liquid wastes storage and runoff retention facilities include lagoons or
ponds designed to provide some treatment and storage of animal wastes; manure
storage pits and tanks; and runoff settling basins and retention ponds.
Anaerobic decomposition of wastes in these facilities under a variety of
circumstances can be a source of very undesirable odors. The control of
odorants emitted from runoff retention and solids settling structures are a
matter of good housekeeping of facility management and are discussed under
that topic beginning on page 43.
Manure storage pits and tanks are usually covered with fixed or floating
covers to prevent the escape of malodorous gases which were produced during
storage. Manure is also stored in open pits, tanks, or anaerobic lagoons
which, if undisturbed, scum over which effectively acts as a cover. In this
situation odors are low level and localized in a small area and usually are
not a problem (104). These wastes, in many instances, must be agitated
before removal for land spreading and the disturbance of removal alone often
releases odorous gases in such quantities as to cause odor complaints.
Ritter, Collins, and Eastburn (104) suggest the use of certain chemicals
during agitation which can deodorize the wastes before it is removed from the
facility and disposed of by application to the land. These chemicals and
their application are discussed under chemical control of odors beginning on
page 55.
Jongebreur (105) suggests that odors from storage facilities may be
prevented by aeration of the wastes before removal. Minimum suggested lagoon
volumes for aeration are 500 liters per fattening pig, 1,000 liters per brood
sow, and 30 liters per laying hen. Power requirements for floating surface
aerators are 6 watts per fattening pig, 12 watts per brood sow, and 0.5 watt
per laying hen. Good odor control results have been reported by utilizing
aeration followed by direct injection into fallow and crop land.
Anaerobic lagoons provide an economical and convenient means of storing
animal wastes. However, odors associated with this method of storage are by
the nature of the anaerobic state a significant problem. Most of the prob-
lems associated with anaerobic lagoons are a result of overloading and
33
-------
improper management techniques. Overcash et al. (106) determined the treat-
ment efficiencies and odor levels of simulated lagoons sized from 0.25 to 32
times the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) design standard of 0.8 cubic foot
per pound of hog live weight. The overloaded lagoon gave poor pollutant
removal efficiencies and highest odor levels. All other lagoon loadings gave
91 to 99 percent treatment efficiency in terms of chemical oxygen demand,
organic carbon, and phosphorous removal.
Odor levels, as judged by panelists, decreased as lagoon capacity
increased. Lagoons sized at two and four times the SCS standard loading rate
produced lower odor levels than the lagoon loaded at the standard design
rate. The odor threshold for anaerobic swine lagoons was determined to exist
at approximately 3.3 to 6.6 cubic feet per pound of live weight served.
George, Fulhage, and Mathews (43) indicate that natural sun, wind, and
wave action mix oxygen into the top few centimeters of water in a properly
sized lagoon cutting off odors produced in the lower unoxygenated area.
Thus, overloading lagoons precludes this phenomenon and odors are prevalent.
Some additional recommendations for the management of an anaerobic lagoon to
control odors include (43):
1. pump the lagoon half full of water before adding wastes;
2. start new lagoons during or before mid-summer as fall and winter
starts do not permit adequate bacterial growth and overloading
results due to manure accumulation;
3. lower salts and heavy metals by removing one fourth of lagoon
volume and replacing with fresh water annually; and
4. feed the lagoon daily; never randomly slug load the lagoon.
Odor panels were used by Welsh et al. (107) to determine the effects of
anaerobic digestion on the odor of swine manure. They concluded that anaer-
obic digestion brought about significant reduction in odor from swine manure
digested 1) beyond 12 days solids retention time, 2) at 35° C, 3) with
increased agitation of solids retention times less than 12 days, and 4) then
stored for two to three months. The odor panel concluded: "although odors
from anaerobically digested swine manure were considerably reduced in per-
sistence and offensiveness, they were still identifiable as manure odors
having negative qualities."
Roll, Day, and Jones (108) investigated the inoculation of anaerobic
liquid swine manure with non-lagooned municipal digester sludge. Inoculation
ratios of 2:1 and 1:1 manure to digester sludge exhibited the best chemical
oxygen demand and volatile solids reduction. A panel of observers indicated
the least offensive odor resulted from a dilution of 1:5 manure to digester
sludge. The digester sludge established increased anaerobic activity in
manure resulting in rapid degradation and odor control. However, the great-
est degradation occurred in the digester with the most odor; therefore, it
was concluded that "some odor may have to be tolerated in order to achieve
optimal pollutant reduction."
34
-------
Problems resulting from attempts to use anaerobic systems to store
manure in a low odor manner stimulated researchers to evaluate methods of
transferring oxygen into lagooned wastes to maintain aerobic conditions.
Wastes treated under aerobic conditions are free of objectionable odors
(95). Aerobic treatment systems include oxidation ditches, mechanically
aerated lagoons, and oxidation ponds. Odors in lagoons can be reduced by
mechanical aeration even in amounts well below those found necessary for
wastes stabilization (109).
Oxidation ditches evaluated by Day and Jensen (110) and Converse and
Day (111) provided adequate swine wastes odor control. Odors could be kept
at a minimum if aeration was reduced so that no residual dissolved oxygen
remained. This was achieved by maintaining the oxidation-reduction potential
in the range of -300 to -400 MV and the pH in the range of 7.7 to 8.5.
Power requirements of the mechanical aerators was reported as a major dis-
advantage of the methods. Parsons (112) suggests the use of sprinklers or
floating aerators for odor control in overloaded poultry wastes storage
ponds. An aerator that puts 50 to 90 pounds of 0« daily into the pond is
recommended for the waste from 10,000 hens. Dissolved oxygen levels must be
maintained between one and two milligrams per liter to achieve adequate odor
control (113). The costs of operating an oxidation ditch are approximately
89 cents per hog marketed or about 37 dollars per month (114). The possi-
bility exists that this method may be adaptable to poultry wastes, but
reservations are expressed for its value with beef cattle wastes (114).
A comparison of undercage oxidation ditches and diffused aeration,
which is a forced air addition to a tank containing manure covered with
water, of poultry wastes revealed a similar relative offensiveness of odors
between the two systems (102). However, the offensiveness of the odors was
approximately one-fourth that of undercage drying using forced air and fans.
The costs per dozen of eggs for the oxidation ditch was 2 to 4 cents and 27
and 34 cents for the diffused aeration method. These were approximately 5
and 500 times the costs of forced air and fan drying, respectively.
An inexpensive apparatus for maintaining an aerobic, "nonsmelling
layer" on top of lagoons or ponds which seals off odors produced in the
anaerobic layer below has been described by George (115). The system is
two-inch diameter pipe cross mounted on wooden and styrofoam floats. For a
lagoon with a diameter of 100 feet a 50 foot pipe is used in each direction
connected by a four-way pipe connector in the center. A series of 0.25 inch
holes are drilled on either the right or left side of each arm to force the
apparatus in one direction. The outer ends of three arms are capped. The
fourth is attached to a hose through which lagoon water is pumped at a
maintained delivery pressure of 14 psi which is adequate to prevent blocking
of the holes by debris or bacteria. Total cost of the apparatus, including
the pump, is approximately 300 dollars, with an operating cost of about 8
dollars per month for a 300-head hog farm.
Bell (116) in an evaluation of aeration of liquid poultry manure as a
process for wastes stabilization and odor control concluded that "aeration
must be considered as an odor control measure and not as a wastes stabliza-
tion process."
35
-------
Manure Removal, Hauling and Field Spreading
Manure removal, hauling and field spreading should be scheduled when
climatic and soil conditions favor dispersion and dilution of odors. This
usually is a matter of exercising good judgement. Odors from feedlot manures
emitted during these activities are temporary and diminish with time (28).
The following considerations which may reduce odors or lessen the
probability of odor complaint during manure handling and field spreading
activities have been summarized from recommendations of Barth and Hill (96),
Sweeten (28), and Sweeten and Reddell (87).
1. Avoid spreading manure near residences, highways or other places
where people gather at times when they tend to congregate. Schedule
spreading during periods when the wind will blow odors away from
such areas.
2. Spread early in the day when air is warming and raising. Later
in the day air is trapped and held lower to the ground by inver-
sions. Additionally, most people who live in the cities arrive
home between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. and odors from manures spread
during mid-day or late afternoon have not had adequate time to
disperse.
3. Avoid spreading just prior to weekends and holidays when travelers
are more likely to visit places that are unpopulated.
4. Soil absorbs and adsorbs odorous compounds. Incorporate spread
manure by plowing or discing as soon after spreading as possible.
Utilize injection methods to apply liquids to minimize odors and
maximize nutrient conservation.
5. Spread only composted or surface scraped aerobic manures.
6. Use light-to-moderate application rates (10-30 tons/acre).
7. Consider the use of odor control chemicals to reduce odors in
lagooned manures and wet feedlots manures before removal and
disposal.
8. Spread on days when predicted wind speeds exceed five miles per
hour. Utilize available weather information.
Huey et al. (66) reported on meterological effects on odor nuisance
occurrence from a midwestern rendering plant. Odors were most persistent
during the warmer summer months. Eighty-six percent of the complaints were
filed during June, July, August, and September. The days of the week re-
ceiving the most complaints were Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, with
Saturday receiving the most frequent complaints. The afternoon and evening
hours were the worst hours of the day. Complaints increased as temperatures
increased over 65° F and lessened above 90° F.
36
-------
Very few complaints were received below the barometeric pressure of
28.84 inches of mercury; however, between 28.95 and 29.94 inches of mercury
the number of complaints were 10-fold the complaints at 28.84 inches of
mercury. Relative humdities below 70 percent caused more complaints than
those over that percentage. Wind velocity, reportedly, had no significance.
These data were gathered so that parallels could be drawn. By watching
meterological factors odor nuisance occurrences can be forecast with some
degree of accuracy. The reseachers point out, however, that these results
were obtained specifically for one meat rendering plant operation in one
climatic/geographical area of the country, with specific sociological pat-
terns; thus, care must be taken when drawing parallels with other types of
industries.
Altering the Ingredients of Feed Rations
Altering the ingredients of feed rations can effect the quality of
manure generated by livestock and subsequently the odors emitted by such
wastes (48). An odor reduction in feedlot manure was reported in a Colorado
study (117) as a result of the addition of sagebrush to the feed ration.
Kellums (118) evaluated sagebrush and peppermint oil as feed ingredients to
control odors. Addition of sagebrush to the ration at one percent and 1.5
percent levels had no detectable effect upon the subsequent olfactory
evaluation of the fresh manure obtained from the treatments. The addition
of peppermint oil at a rate of 0.25 percent of the ration significantly
reduced the relative offensiveness that was associated with the fresh wastes.
This modification was thought to be a masking effect directly related to
compounds that were excreted in the urine and not associated with the feces.
These results did not agree with those obtained with sagebrush in a Colorado
study. However, these results may have been in agreement had the latter
study carried the determination of effects on out from freshly excreted
manure to the processes of putrefaction of these wastes.
The use of five percent charcoal by weight in a swine ration was found
to significantly reduce manure odors (119). In the same study the following
ration additives were less effective in controlling swine manure odors:
lyophilized yeast, sagebrush, whole milk, "dry lacto" (Lactobacillus
acidophilus culture), and wet lacto. A mixture of charcoal and wet lacto
provided the best odor control. The additions of yeast and "dry lacto"
dramatically reduced emissions of two important odorous gases, indole and
skatole; however, odor panelists were unable to detect significant decreases
in odor intensities.
Sweeten et al. (97) evaluated the use of calcium bentonite as an odor
suppressant in feedlot rations. A two percent force feed bentonite ration,
free choice bentonite, and a normal bentonite free ration was fed three
groups of heifers. The force fed treatment gave lower odor levels compared
to the other two diets evaluated. These researchers concluded that "calcium
bentonite as a ration ingredient may have some benefit in reducing odors
from a cattle feedlot and enhancing cattle performance during the first 21
days of feeding."
37
-------
The effect of variation of the ratio of roughage to grain supplement in
cattle was investigated by Kellems (118). Ammonia release rates were found
to be three orders of magnitude greater than the rates of release of hydrogen
sulfides in rations containing 25 percent roughage and 75 percent grain
supplement. The rate of ammonia over hydrogen sulfide release increased an
order of magnitude when the grain supplement was reduced to 50 percent of
the ration. The changes in relative release rates of these odorants was
thought to be due to changes in pH.
Another approach to the alteration of feed ingredients to control
poultry waste odors has been suggested by Zindel (120). This approach is
based on total recycle of poultry wastes back through the birds or to cattle.
The manure wastes are dried to a product called DPW (dried poultry wastes).
Rations containing 12.5 percent and 25 percent DPW have indicated that the
practice is safe. The odor control theory is based on the hypothesis that
where there are no wet wastes there are no odors; however, the elevated
temperature drying unit may have to have an afterburner to eliminate the
odors produced in drying.
Chemical and Biochemical Odor Controls
Chemical and biochemical odor controls may be categorized as the treat-
ment of atmospheric odorants and the treatment of wastes to reduce odorant
production. Treatment of atmospheric odorants emitted from animal produc-
tion facilities are based in part on the following interactions which occur
upon mixing two or more odorants.
1. Odor magnification where the odor intensity of the mixture is
perceptually stronger than that of any component.
2. Odor cancellation where the intensity or negative qualities of one
or both odorants are reduced.
3. Odor masking where one odor masks the others so that its odor
dominates.
4. Odor synergism where one odor is made stronger in intensity or
quality than it is by itself.
Paine (121) lists four main types of odor control agents which are
based on these interactions in order of decreasing effectiveness.
1. Masking agents which usually are mixtures of aromatic oils which
cover but do not reduce the odor.
2. Counteractants which neutralize the odor with aromatic oils leaving
no overriding odor similar to the effects of odor cancellation.
3. Deodorants which are a mixture of chemicals that chemically destroy
odors.
38
-------
4. Digestive deodorants which are combinations of digestive enzymes
and aerobic and anaerobic bacteria that eliminate odors through
bio-chemical digestive processes.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of atmospheric odor control agents is ac-
complished using the matching standards technique as described by Paine
(121).
Burnett and Dondero (122) evaluated these four agents and determined
that masking agents and counteractants were the most effective. Young (123)
found counteractants more successful than masking agents. The success of
masking agents is limited, as the characteristic odor of the agents are
considered malodorous by some people. Deodorization of three primary manure
odorants methylamine, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide with ozone was effec-
tively demonstrated by Hill (124). However, the reaction rate was slower
than reported by previous researchers.
Most evaluation results indicate that most of these agents are not
effective to control odors and those that are effective are very costly
(125, 126). Methods of controlling odors by preventing the production of
odors should be exhausted before atmospheric odorant control is considered.
In emergencies, however, Wilmore (126) indicates that "some products may
prove to be worth what they cost."
The treatment of wastes to reduce or eliminate odorant production is
based on the addition of chemicals or biochemical agents to the wastes which
facilitate more orderly decomposition, reduce or inhibit decomposition,
oxidize or otherwise alter the chemical composition of the volatiles, retain
the volatiles in the manure pack, or absorb moisture required for anaerobic
activity.,
The evaluation of chlorine, lime, and paraformaldehyde as biological
inhibitors; hydrated lime and sodium hydroxide for pH control; and potassium
permanganate, hydrogen peroxide, and paraformaldehyde as oxidizing agents
has been discussed in detail by Miner (30). The effectiveness of several
odor control agents for controlling liquid dairy and swine manure was eval-
uated by Cole et al. (127, 128). Sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide,
chlorine dioxide and potassium permanganate all of which are oxidants and
powdered activated carbon which is an adsorbant were tested for short-term
effectiveness. Dried bacteria, orthodichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, and
sodium nitrate were tested for their long term effectiveness. None of the
materials tested for either long or short term effectiveness were successful
at controlling odors in liquid dairy manure. The materials tested for long
term odor control in liquid swine manure were not effective in controlling
odors or reducing hydrogen sulfide production. However, hydrogen peroxide,
sodium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, and potassium permanganate dosed at
500 ppm greatly reduced sulfide and odor levels in liquid swine manure
during the short term tests. Additionally, sodium nitrate was found to
change the odor, reduce sulfide levels, and cause suspended solids to float
for both swine and dairy manure.
39
-------
Ritter, Collins, and Eastburn (104) determined the minimum amount of
hydrogen peroxide required to deodorize liquid dairy wastes for removal and
land spreading and evaluated 516 commercial chemical agents for control of
'odors in liquid swine and dairy manure. The results of the hydrogen per-
ioxide are presented in Table 9. The hydrogen peroxide was effective to
eliminate hydrogen sulfide in liquid dairy manure for a short period of
time; however, other malodors associated with the wastes remained.
TABLE 9. MAXIMUM TIME OF TOTAL HYDROGEN SULFIDE REDUCTION
IN LIQUID DAIRY WASTES TREATED WITH HYDROGEN PEROXIDE
Maximum Time of Total Hydrogen
Hydrogen Peroxide Sulfide Reduction
(ppm) (minutes)
6.5 Not effective
12.5 60
25 90
50 90
100 120
Of the six additional chemicals evaluated, five are proprietary and of
unreported content and the sixth was sodium hypochlorite. The proprietary
chemicals with the trade names of Alamask 518B and 151A, Cairox and Agri-
Gest appeared to be most effective in reducing total odorants. Cairox was
found to be effective for approximately 72 hours. The treatment costs of
all of the chemicals evaluated in this study are compared with costs of
operating an oxidation ditch, Table 10.
TABLE 10. THE COST OF TREATING LIQUID MANURE
FOR ODOR CONTROL (104)
Treatment
Hydrogen peroxide
Alamask 520A
Alamask 518B
Alamask 151A
Sodium hypochlorite
Cairox
Agri-Gest
Oxidation Ditch
Level
(ppm)
12.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
240.0
24.0
~
Cost per 10 cubic
meters of wastes
(dollars)
0.06
5.07
3.30
12.12
0.40
3.33
3.04
13.98
The estimated costs of a single chemical treatment is less than that of
the oxidation ditch. The costs of treating liquid manure with hydrogen
perioxide at the 12.5 ppm level which is sufficient to control sulfides
during waste removal and land spreading is less than treatment with any of
the other chemical agents tested.
40
-------
The cost of treating liquid swine manure with chlorine is very expen-
sive according to Day and Jensen (110) even though it does effectively
reduce odors. Their studies showed that pH adjustment with lime treatments
effectively lowers sulfide emissions from liquid wastes. However, as may be
anticipated, raising the pH increases ammonia release. In additional re-
search, commercial odor control chemicals did not give satisfactory odor
control when used in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Spray-
ing enzymatic materials containing amylolytic, eclylolytic, proteolytic, and
lypolytic enzymes on the surface of anaerobic lagoons was also unsuccessful.
Ulich and Ford (129) evaluated six chemicals for testing on beef cattle
feedlot manure packs. The chemicals, selected on prior research and pre-
liminary testing, were potassium permanganate, potassium nitrate, para-
formaldehyde, a formulation of ortho-chlorobenzene marketed under a brand
name as Ozene, hydrogen peroxide and a proprietary formulation known as
Formula-2. The application rates and comparative costs of treatment for
suppressing odors from feedlot surfaces and totally suppressing odors in
beef cattle manure slurries is presented in Table 11. Potassium perman-
ganate proved to be more effective in reducing odors than the other chem-
ical/bio-chemical agents tested. The application rate of potassium perman-
ganate to the feedlot manure surface was 20 pounds per acre sprayed on in a
one percent solution in water. The order of presentation of the chemicals
in Table 11 is in descending order of effectiveness of the compounds (130).
TABLE 11. QUANTITY AND COMPARATIVE COSTS OF ODOR CONTROL CHEMICALS
EVALUATED BY ULICH AND FORD (129)
Total Odorant
Chemical
Potassium permanganate
Potassium nitrate
Ozene
Paraformaldehyde
Hydrogen peroxide
Formula-2
Feedlot
Quantity
per acre
20.0 Ib
20.0 Ib
6.0 gal.
2178.0 Ib
12.4 gal.
5.9 gal.
Surface
Cost
per acre
($)
30.80
30.80
20.24
1078.11
30.84
35.10
Reduction
Quantity
per ton of
slurry
56 Ib
ft**
28.8 gal
197.0 Ib
19.3 gal
92.5 gal
in Slurry
Cost
per ton
($)
86.24
***
97.00
97.71
.** 97.46
550.38
* Three percent concentration of hydrogen peroxide
** Ten percent concentration of hydrogen peroxide
*** Data not presented but relative expense indicated as much greater
than for potassium permanganate
41
-------
Miner (91) and Miner and Stroh (131) reported on the evaluation of the
use of the odor control chemicals potassium permanganate; sodium bentonite;
clinoptilolite and erionite zeolites; and five proprietary odor control
products INK (The Nose Knows), AGCO, Odor Control Plus, Micro-AlD (LSSIO),
and SANZYME on beef feedlot manure. The sodium bentonite, Odor Control
Plus, and the two zeolites were found to consistently reduce the rate of
ammonia release from the treated areas. Odor intensity measurements con-
firmed the effectiveness of sodium bentonite only. The Odor Control Plus
treated pens had measurably less odors five days following treatment, but
not ten. The cost of the effective materials ranged from 300 to 600 dollars
per acre for treatment during the odor production season.
The costs of treatment with most of the materials and the effectiveness
of each chemical control agent will vary with each individual set of cir-
cumstances. Therefore, careful evaluation of these circumstances should be
considered before making the final decision to use chemical odor control
agents, and then only after every possible management or good housekeeping
alternative has been deployed unsuccessfully.
Building Ventilation Systems
Building ventilation systems should be controlled to prevent the ex-
haust of odorants to the atmosphere. Adequate ventilation is a major item
in reducing the toxic and odorous gas and dust levels inside enclosed live-
stock shelters (95). Inside the facilities these gases and odorants are
occupational hazards; however, when vented to the outside atmosphere, they
become air pollutants and are a potential source of complaint.
The relationship between odors and particulate matter (dust) has been
reported by Burnett (23). The odors carried in the air-stream of a swine
facility located in Canada were removed by filtration (132). Dust particles
collected in the filters were odorous. The particle size reported as re-
sponsible for transporting obnoxious odor qualities were the fraction
between five and 20 microns. The odor removal effectiveness of the fol-
lowing four filtration systems were reported in order of descending effi-
ciency.
1. Viscous impingement filter plus electrostatic preciptator plus
activated carbon;
2. Viscous impingement filter;
3. Dry filter plus electrostatic precipitator; and
4. Dry filter.
-Eby and Wilson (22) report that the removal of dust and odors from
exhaust air is mechanically feasible by means of filtration. However,
filter cleaning is impractical and one-time use of the filter is too ex-
pensive.
42
-------
Noren (133) suggests that ventilation air be chemically treated before
release. This can be done by adsorption, absorption, direct and catalytic
combustion or by chemical destruction. Adsorption methods utilize beds or
columns of activated carbon, silicagel, pethium chloride, or active alumi-
num. Dust clogging is the major problem with this approach. Absorption
equipment consists of a tower through which air to be treated is drawn
countercurrent to a stream of water which acts as a cleaning fluid. Good
results have been obtained with the upper part of the tower filled with
cellulose impregnated with phenol formaldehyde.
Combustion rapidly oxidizes the odorants in an open flame or by cata-
lytic combustion at lower temperatures. Chemical oxidation can be accom-
plished by oxidizing the odorants by ozonation. All of these methods require
considerable investment and/or operating costs. The most promising method
according to Noren (133) is that of absorption.
Combustion of poultry manure drying odors has been proven effective in
Great Britain (134). Jongebreur (105) has reported on the successful con-
trol of ventilation exhaust odors in the Netherlands through the application
of biological air washers. Two types of air washers were described. These
were air-water countercurrent and cross current scrubber designs. Water in
the washers is recirculated until saturated with the odorant or aerosol.
Efficiency of the scrubbers was increased by the addition of filler material
with a surface area of 200 nr/m . Then wash water was innoculated with
activated sludge to promote bacterial growth on the filler material which
then acted as a trickling filter in stabilizing the dissolved organic
components of the exhaust air. Characteristic odorants in air were reduced
by 60 to 80 percent. The costs of these scrubbers were relatively expen-
sive. In swine feedlots the initial investment was equivalent to 22.72
dollars per pig capacity and operating costs were 2.28 dollars per finished
pig. In poultry houses the initial investment was 1.81 dollars per laying
hen capacity and the operating costs were 40 cents per hen per year.
The use of the oxidant ozone for removal of the odorants ammonia and
methylamine from atmospheres in animal production facilities was investi-
gated by Hill and Earth (135). Ozone was found to be an effective oxidant
for both compounds; however, the long contact required raised questions as
to the value of the use of the method inside production facilities. The
atmosphere in such facilities contain many chemically active compounds which
compete with the odorants for the ozone. The ozone would have to be present
in the facility for an extended period. Physiological effects of ozone on
the animals would prohibit such extended exposure. The ozone, however,
could be used in the ventilation system to reduce the odorant quantities
released to the outside atmosphere.
Dust Suppression
Dust suppression techniques utilized in- open feedlot areas have not
been adequately evaluated as to their effectiveness for reducing feedlot
odors. In California research (136), peak dust generation occurred between
7:00 and 8:00 p.m. which coincides with experiences in Texas (21). Heavily
43
-------
concentrated dust laden air can then flow with little turbulent dispersion to
nearby homes and communities. Carroll et al. (137) measured the effective-
ness of sprinkling to control dust and the resultant effects on temperature
and relative humidity. Sprinkling at a rate which reduces the dust charac-
teristics of the atmosphere above the lot by 50 percent reduced the maximum
temperature reached for the day by 10° F and raised the ambient relative
humidity by not more than 10 percent. No deleterious effects on animal
performance, morbidity or mortality were noted and no increase in fly or odor
problems traceable to the sprinkling were observed. Chemical agents with
demonstrated potential for dust control have shown little effectiveness in
feedlots (136).
Ancillary Precautions
Ancillary precautions which may aid in reducing odors from or odor
complaints against animal production facilities include:
1. Maintain an adequate cover crop of grass on cow-calf and back-
grounding pastures (96). Manure will be distributed randomly and
assimilated into the soil without turning anaerobic, thus minimiz-
ing odors.
2. Utilize existing and provide additional vegetative plantings for
visual screening of facilities from neighbors and the general
public (88, 96).
3. Practice rapid and proper disposal of dead animals (95, 96).
4. Collect wastewater from continuous overflow watering systems
separately from rainfall runoff collection facilities. This
overflow water is essentially unpolluted and creates wet conditions
in runoff retention structures which stimulate odors (28).
5. Maintain an open line of communication with your neighbors and the
public. Invite their comments and present your plans for odor
abatement and significant future construction changes.
44
-------
SECTION 8
SUMMARY
There are many site selection and facility design considerations; manure
handling and storage options; facility, animal, and manure management prac-
tices; chemical control procedures; and ancillary precautions, which may be
utilized to control and abate odors from animal production. Complete control
may not be affordable or possible but odor reduction to acceptable levels is
attainable and costly in most cases. Chemical controls are effective and
usually very expensive and therefore should be considered as an emergency
measure to permit adequate time to implement less costly and possibly more
extensive long range changes in facility designs or management practices.
The State of Texas' Air Pollution Control Board has, as a requirement
for obtaining construction and operating permits for feedlots, swine oper-
ations, and dairies, a list of primary special provisions which, for the most
part, summarizes the best available odor control methodologies. These are
stated as follows (138, 139, 140):
1. This permit allows for the construction of a
having a total capacity of head of
2. All dead animals must be disposed of properly within 48 hours
after death.
3. Runoff water in the holding ponds must not become a source of
obnoxious odors. It must be chemically or biologically treated
or aerated, if necessary, to prevent nuisance conditions.
4. Excess moisture must be drained from pen areas to prevent
ponding. Good pen drainage must be maintained at all times
either by uniform slopes of 2-4 percent or by mounding of
manure in flat pens.
5. When it becomes necessary to stockpile manure outside the pen
area, the moisture content must be maintained between 10 and
30 percent (wet basis) in the top six inches of the pile, or
it must be successfully demonstrated by the . . . [facility]
operator that the stockpile is not a source of odors. The
stockpile must be crowned with sloping sides and must be
located in a well drained area to assure rapid dewatering.
45
-------
6. Solid set sprinklers or portable spray equipment must be
available and used as necessary to control dust.
7. Cleaning or scraping of pens and removal of manure from
the stockpiles must be performed under favorable atmospheric
conditions (wind direction must not be out of the ,
, or ) .
8. The operation of the must be such as to prevent
dust and odors from becoming a nuisance as determined by
the Executive Director of the Texas Air Control Board.
Federal agencies have not established regulatory authority which is
applicable to the control of odors emanating from animal production facil-
ities. Additionally, the development, demonstration, and implementation of
odor control technology has not been assigned an adequate level of priority
by Federal agencies which fund research in this area. This situation exists
in spite of the fact that odors are the number one environmental reason for
complaint against animal feeding operations leading to litigation and court
orders which ultimately lead to the closure of many facilities.
This attitude is reflected by Peters and Blackwood (141) in their
source assessment of fugitive dust and atmospheric emissions of gases from
beef cattle feedlots who concluded: "From the literature surveyed it is
obvious that particulate, gaseous and odoriferous emissions from beef cattle
feedlots can be controlled by conventional methods now available. These
simple methods and procedures require an expenditure of managerial dedication
and expertise as well as the monetary investment to purchase, install and
maintain such systems." This conclusion is in direct conflict with the
conclusions that this author can extract from the current literature. While
it is true that animal production odor generation potentials can, in many
cases, be reduced significantly by careful implementation of conventional
methods now available, there are not any control technologies or combina-
tion of technologies which will guarantee that offensive odors will not be
emitted by any open-air animal feeding operation. Those technologies which
effectively limit the evolution of odorous gases from animal wastes are
extremely costly and therefore not a feasible means of control. These con-
siderations are concurrent with the conclusions of Hosier, Morrison, and
Elmund (16) who state: "Unfortunately, the control of odors and emissions
from large concentrations of organic waste is not simple and direct. No
totally satisfactory solution has yet been found that is both economically
and technologically feasible."
46
-------
REFERENCES
1. Overcash, M. R. and F. J. Humenik. State-of-the-Art: Swine Waste
Production and Pretreatment Processes. EPA-600/2-76-290, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma, 1976. 171 pp.
2. Anonymous. Agricultural Statistics, 1976. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1976. 614 pp.
3. Anonymous. Agricultural Statistics, 1972. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 1972. 759 pp.
4. Anonymous. Waste Problems of Agriculture and Forestry. Environ-
mental Science Technology, 2:498, 1968.
5. Loehr, R. C. Pollution Implications of Animal Wastes—A Forward
Oriented Review. 13040—07/68, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. Reprinted June 1973. 148 pp.
6. Knapp, C. E. Agriculture Poses Waste Problems. Environmental
Science Technology, 4:1098, 1970.
7. Faith, W. L. Odor Control in Cattle Feedyards. Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association, 14(11):459-460, November 1964.
8. Taiganides, E. P. and R. K. White. The Menace of Noxious Gases in
Animal Units. Transactions of the ASAE 12(3):359-367, 1969.
9. Anonymous. Hog Confinement Gases Cause Medical Problems. Prairie
Farmer, 149(7):50, April 2, 1977.
10. Merkel, J. A. Atmospheric Composition in an Enclosed Swine Produc-
tion Building. Ph.D. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa,
1968. 115 pp.
11. Drummond, J. G., S. E. Curtis, J. M. Lewis, F. C. Hinds, and J.
Simon. Exposure of Lambs to Atmospheric Ammonia. Journal of Animal
Science, 42(5):1343, 1976.
12. Strombaugh, D. P., H. S. Teague, and W. L. Roller. Effects of
Atmospheric Ammonia on the Pig. Journal of Animal Science, 28:
844-847, 1969.
47
-------
13. Muehling, A. J. Gases and Odors from Stored Swine Wastes. Journal
of Animal Science, 30(4):526-531, 1970.
14. McAllister, J. S. V. and J. B. McQuitty. Release of Gases from
Slurry. Record of Agricultural Research, XIV(2):73, 1965.
15. Lillie, R. J. Air Pollutants Affecting the Performance of Domestic
Animals. Agricultural Handbook 380. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C., 1969- pp. 1-7.
16. Hosier, A. R., S. M. Morrison, and G. K. Elmund. Odors and Emissions
from Organic Wastes. Soils for Management of Organic Wastes and
Waste Waters. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, 677 South Segoe Road, Madison, Wisconsin,
1977. pp. 531-571.
17. Chanlett, E. T. Environmental Protection. McGraw Hill, New York,
New York, 1973. 569 pp.
18. Miner, J. R. Production and Transport of Gaseous HNg and ^S Associ-
ated with Livestock Production. EPA-600/2-76-239. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma, 1976. 67 pp.
19- Luebs, R. E., A. E. Laag, and K. R. Davis. Ammonia and Related Gases
Emanating from a Large Dairy Area. California Agriculture, 27(2):
10-12, 1973.
20. Hutchinson, G. L. and F. G. Viets, Jr. Nitrogen Enrichment of Surface
Water by Absorption of Ammonia Volatilized from Cattle Feedlots.
Science, 166:515, October 24, 1969.
21. Sweeten, J. M. Control of Dust from Cattle Feedlots. GPE-7851.
Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas, 1974. 11 pp.
22. Eby, H. J. and G. B. Willson. Poultry House Dust, Odor, and Their
Mechanical Removal. In: Proceedings Agricultural Waste Management
Conference, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1969. pp. 303-309.
v
23. Burnett, W. E. Odor Transport by Particulate Matter in High Density
Poultry Houses. Poultry Science, 48(1):182-184, 1969.
24. Smith, R. Animal Waste Management in the 1980's. In: Report of
Progress of Ongoing Research at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa,
October 1977. 3 pp.
25. Russel, J. Manure Odors Can Land You in Court. Farm Journal, 89(19):
36-37, August 1965.
26. Sweeten, J. M. Agricultural Odors: How Bad? Agricultural Engineer-
ing Newsletter, 3(3):l-3, 1977.
48
-------
27. Gee, K. Waste Management Practices of Western Cattle Feedlots.
Publication AE-2, Conmodity Economics Division, Economic Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado,
1977. 45 pp.
28. Sweeten, J. M. Feedlot Odor Control Relies on Dry Manure and Rapid
Removal. Feedlot Management, 9(6):7-9, June 1977.
29. Giblin, P. M. Legal Aspects of Odor Pollution Control. Managing
Livestock Wastes. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International
Symposium on Livestock Wastes, University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign, Illinois, April 21-24, 1975. pp. 64-65.
30. Miner, J. R. Odors from Confined Livestock Production. EPA-660/
2-74-023, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma, 1974.
125 pp.
31. Anonymous. Methods of Measuring and Evaluating Odorous Air Pollutants
at the Source and in the Ambient Air. In: Proceedings of the Third
Karolinska Institute Symposium on Environmental Health, Stokholm,
Sweden, June 1-5, 1970. 77 pp.
32. Anonymous. Yearbook of International Organizations. World Health
Organization, Union International Association, Brussels, Germany,
1968-69. p. 1080.
33. Recker, P. M. Animal Feeding Factories and the Environment: A
Summary of Feedlot Pollution, Federal Controls, and Oklahoma Law.
Southwestern Law Journal, 30:556-584, 1976.
34. Prokop, W. H. Status of Regulations for Source Emission and Ambient
Odors. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 237(1-439):288-
308, 1974.
35. Leonardos, G. A Critical Review of Regulations for the Control of
Odors. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 24:456-
468, May 1974.
36. Sweeten, J. M. and D. R. Levi. Odor Regulation by Nuisance Laws.
Fact Sheet L-1449. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1976. 4 pp.
37. Whetstone, G. A., B. A. Kramer, D. M. Wells, W. J. Huffman, R. H.
Ramsey, and W. Grub. Analysis of State Laws and Regulations
Impacting Animal Waste Management. In preparation for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma (in preparation),
1977.
38. Sweeten, J. M. and D. R. Levi. Recent Trends in Odor Nuisance Law-
Suits. Memeograph. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1976. 4 pp.
49
-------
39. Anonymous. Evaluation of Community Odor Exposure. In: Report of
a Symposium sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
at Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 26-29,
1971. 38 pp.
40. Eugene, T. The Effect of Expectation on Judgements of Odors. U.S.
Public Health Service, Washington, D.C., 1971. 20 pp.
41. Waller, R. A. Environmental Quality, Its Measurement and Control,
Regional Studies, 4:177-191, 1970.
42. Anonymous. Animal Production Wastes Research Program. Unpublished
program document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma,
1974.
43. George, B., C. Fulhage, and S. Mathews. Odors: The Next Big Pollu-
tion Battle. Beef, 12(8):26, April 1976.
44. Anderson, V. The Stink over Odor Regulations. Des Moines Sunday
Register, September 26, 1976. p. 3.
45. Byrkett, D. L, R. A. Miller, and E. P. Taiganides. Modeling the
Optimal Location of the Cattle Feeding Industry. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics, May 1976. pp. 236-244.
46. Lauren, 0. B. Odor Modification. In: Proceedings of the llth
Annual Conference on Air Pollution Control, Purdue University,
West LaFayette, Indiana, November 1, 1972. 9 pp.
47. Gerrish, J. B. Composition of Waste as Excreted, Changes During
Storage, and Odor Development. In: Proceedings of Agricultural
Waste Conference - Emphasis - Animal Waste. Kellog Center, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan, May 22-23, 1974. pp. 21-
24.
48. Miner, J. R. Management of Odors Associated with Livestock Produc-
tion. In: Managing Livestock Wastes, Proceedings of the 3rd Inter-
national Symposium on Livestock Wastes, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, April 21-24, 1975. pp. 378-380-
49. Reddell, D. L. and J. M. Sweeten. Evaluation of Odor Intensities
at Livestock Feeding Operations in Texas. In: Managing Livestock
Wastes, Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Livestock
Wastes, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, April
21-24, 1975. pp. 358-361.
50. Elliot, L. F., J. W. Doran, and T. A. Travis. Detecting and
Measuring Malodors from Animal Wastes. Scientific Paper Number
4713, Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station, Lincoln, Nebraska,
1975. 21 pp.
50
-------
51. Christensen, H. E., E. J. Fairchild, B. S. Carroll, and R. J. Lewis,
Sr. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances. National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, CDC, PHS, U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare, June 1976. 1245 pp.
52. Bethea, R. M. and R. S. Narayan. Identification of Beef Cattle
Feedlot Odors. Transactions of the ASAE 15:1135-1137, 1972.
53. Merkel, J. A., T. E. Hazen, and J. R. Miner. Identification of
Gases in a Confinement Swine Building Atmosphere. Transactions
of the ASAE, 12(3):310-315, 1969.
54. Miner, J. R., M. D. Kelly, and A. W. Anderson. Identification and
Measurement of Ammonia Evolution Rates from Manure-Covered Surfaces.
Technical Paper Number 3972, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1976. 11 pp.
55. Warden, T. H. Volatile Pollutants from Feedlots. M.S. Thesis.
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1972. 55 pp.
56. Bell, R. G. Fatty Acid Content as a Measure of the Odor Potential
of Stored Liquid Poultry Manure. Poultry Science, 49(4):1126-1129,
1970.
57. Burnett, W. E. Air Pollution from Animal Wastes, Determination of
Malodors by Gas Chromatographic and Organoleptic Techniques. Environ-
mental Science and Technology, 3(8):744-749, 1969.
58. Rains, B. A., M. J. DePrimo, and I. L. Groseclose. Odors Emitted
from Raw and Digested Sewage Sludge. EPA-670/2-73-098. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1973. 74 pp.
59. Hartung, L. D., E. G. Hammond, and J. R. Miner. Identification of
Carbonyl Compounds in a Swine-building Atmosphere. In: Livestock
Waste Management and Pollution Abatement. Proceedings of the Inter-
national Symposium on Livestock Wastes, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, April 19-21, 1971. pp. 105-106.
60. Mosier, A. R., C. E. Andre, and F. G. Viets, Jr. Identification of
Aliphatic Amines Volatilized from Cattle Feedyards. Environmental
Science and Technology, 7:642-644, 1973.
61. Miner, J. R. and T. E. Hazen. Ammonia and Amines: Components of
the Swine Building Odor. Transactions of the ASAE, 12(6):772-774,
1969.
62. Elliot, L. F., G. E. Schuman, and F. G. Viets, Jr. Volatilization
of Nitrogen-containing Compounds from Beef Cattle Areas, Soil Science
Society of America, Proceedings, 35:752-755, 1971.
51
-------
63. Banwert, W. L. and J. M. Bremner. Identification of Sulfur Gases
Evolved from Animal Manures. American Society Agronomy Abstracts,
1974. p. 27.
64. Elliot, L. F. and T. A. Travis. Detection of Carbonyl Sulfide and
Other Gases Emanating from Beef Cattle Manure. Soil Science Society
of America, Proceedings, 37(5):700-702, 1973.
65. White, R. K., E. P. Taiganides, and G. D. Cole. Chromatographic
Identification of Malodors from Dairy Animal Wastes. In: Livestock
Waste Management and Pollution Abatement. Proceedings of Inter-
national Symposium on Livestock Wastes, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, April 19-22, 1971. pp. 110-113.
66. Huey, N. A., L. C. Broering, G. A. Jutze, and C. W. Gruber. Objec-
tive Odor Pollution Control Investigations. Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association, 10(6):441-446, 1960.
67. Leonardos, G., D. Kendall, and N. Bernard. Odor Threshold Determina-
tions of 53 Odorant Chemicals. Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, 19(1):91-100, 1969.
68. Stahl, W. H., editor. Compilation of Odor and Taste Threshold Values
Data. ASTM Data Series D 348. American Society Testing Materials,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1973. 249 pp.
69. Sullivan, R. J. Air Pollution Aspects of Odorous Compounds. PH-22-
68-25. National Air Pollution Control Administration. Consumer
Products and Environmental Health Service. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C., 1969. 130 pp.
70. Ottenstein, D. M. and D. A. Bartley. Separation of Free Acids C^-C-
in Dilute Aqueous Solution Column Technology. Journal Chromatograpny
Science, 9:673-681, 1971.
71. DiCorcia, A. and R. Samperi. Determination of Trace Amounts of C?-C,.
Acids in Aqueous Solutions by Gas Chromatography. Analytical Chemis-
try, 46:140-143, 1974.
72. Andre, C. E. and A. R. Mosier. Precolumn Inlet System for the Gas
Chromatographic Analysis of Trace Quantities of Short-chain Aliphatic
Amines. Analytical Chemistry, 45:1971-1973, 1973.
73. Umbreit, G. R., R. E. Nygren, and A. J. Testa. Determination of
Traces of Amine Salts in Water by Gas Chromatography. Journal
Chromatography, 43:25-32, 1969.
74. Bruner, F., A. Liberti, M. Possanzini, and I. Allegrini. Improved
Gas Chromatographic Method for the Determination of Sulfur Compounds
at the ppb Level in Air. Analytical Chemistry, 44:2070-2074, 1972.
52
-------
75. Ronkainen, P., J. Denslow, and 0. Leppanen. The Chromatographic
Analysis of Some Volatile Sulfur Compounds. Journal of Chromatography,
11:384-390, 1973.
76. Natusch, D. F. S., J. R. Sewell, and R. C. Tanner. Determination of
Hydrogen Sulfide in Air—An Assessment of Impregnated Paper Type
Method. Analytical Chemistry, 46:410-415, 1974.
77. Okita, J., J. P. Lodge, Jr., and H. D. Axelrod. Filter Method for
the Measurement of Atmospheric Hydrogen Sulfide. Environmental
Science and Technology, 5:532-534, 1971.
78. Anonymous. Standard Method for Measurement of Odor in Atmospheres
(dilution method). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 26, American
Society of Testing Materials, 1916 Race Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, 1976. pp. 460-463.
79. Fox, E. A. and V. E. Gex. Procedure for Measuring Odor Concentra-
tion in Air and Gases. Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, 7(1):60-61, 1957.
80. Barneby-Cheney Co. Scentometer: An Instrument for Field Odor
Measurement. Instruction Sheet 9-68. 835 N. Cassidy Avenue,
Columbus, Ohio, 1968.
81. Dravnieks, A. and W. H. Prokop. Source Emission Odor Measurement
by a Dynamic Forced-choice Triangle Olfactometer. Paper 73-276 of
the Air Pollution Control Association Annual Meeting, Chicago,
Illinois, June 1973. 15 pp.
82. Sweeten, J. M., D. L. Reddell, L. M. Schake, and B. Garner. Odor
Intensities at Cattle Feedlots. In: Proceedings 1st Annual
Symposium on Air Pollution Control in the Southwest, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas, November 5-7, 1973. 22 pp.
83. Anonymous. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
water. 14th Edition. American Public Health Association, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1976. 1193 pp.
84. Summer, W. Odor Pollution of Air—Causes and Control. The Chemical
Rubber Company Press. Cleveland, Ohio, 1971. 310 pp.
85. Ludington, D. C., A. T. Sobel, and B. Gormel. Control of Odors
Through Manure Management. Transactions of the ASAE, 14(4):771-
774, 780, 1971.
86. Smith, M. editor. Recommended Guide for the Prediction of the
Dispersion of Airborne Effluents. Association of Mechanical
Engineering, New York, New York, 1968. 85 pp.
53
-------
87. Sweeten, J. M. and D. L. Reddell. Managing Feedlots for Odor
Control. Paper No. 76-4016, 1976 Annual Meeting ASAE, Lincoln,
Nebraska, 1976. 24 pp.
88. White, R. K. Ohio Livestock Waste Management Guide. Bulletin 604,
Cooperative Extension Service, The Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio, 1975. pp. 25-26.
89. Mielke, L. N. and A. P. Mazurak. Infiltration of Water on a Cattle
Feedlot. Transactions of the ASAE, 19(2):341-344, 1976.
90. Sawyer, C. N. and P. L. McCarty. Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers.
Second Edition. McGrawHill, New York, New York, 1967. 518 pp.
91. Miner, J. R. Evaluation of Alternative Approaches to Control Odors
from Animal Feedlots. ESR 74-23211. National Science Foundation,
Washington, D.C., December 1975. 83 pp.
92. Hashimoto, A. G. and D. C. Ludington. Ammonia Desorption from
Concentrated Chicken Manure Slurries. In: Proceedings Inter-
national Symposium on Livestock Wastes, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, 1971. pp. 117-121.
93. Moorman, R., Jr. Controlling Odors from Cattle Feedlots and Manure
Dehydration Operations. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Associ-
ation, 15(1):34-35, January 1965.
94. Shuyler, L. R., D. M. Farmer, R. D. Kreis, and M. E. Hula. Environ-
ment Protecting Concepts of Beef Cattle Feedlot Waste Management.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma, 1973, pp. VII
5-10.
95. Muehling, A. J. Good Animal Waste Management Reduces Odors and
Complaints. Paper No. 74-11-110. VIII International Congress of
Agricultural Engineering, Flevohof, The Netherlands, September 23-
29, 1974. 5 pp.
96. Barth, C. L. and D. T. Hill. Methods of Treating Odors—Problems
and Consequences. Paper No. 76-4015, 1976 Annual Meeting ASAE,
Lincoln, Nebraska, 1976. 13 pp.
97. Sweeten, J. M., D. L. Reddell, L. Schake, and B. Garner. Odor
Intensities at Cattle Feedlots. Transactions of the ASAE, 20(3):
502-508, May-June 1977.
98. Kreis, R. D. and L. R. Shuyler. Beef Cattle Feedlot Site Selection
for Environmental Protection. EPA-R2-72-129- U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma, November 1972. 39 pp.
54
-------
99. Sweeten, J. M. Consider Prevailing Winds in Feedlot Site Selection.
L-1198, Great Plains Beef Cattle Feeding Handbook, GPE-5100,
Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
Oklahoma, 1973. 4 pp.
1QO. Anonymous. Climatic Atlas of the United States. U.S. Department
of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration,
Environmental Data Service. Available thru: National Climatic
Center, Asheville, North Carolina, June 1968. pp. 76, 78.
101. Butchbaker, A. F. and M. D. Paine. Principles of Feedlot Runoff
Control. L-1367, Great Plains Beef Cattle Feeding Handbook, Texas
Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas, 1975. 4 pp.
102. Ludington, D. C., A. T. Sobel, R. C. Loehr, and A. G. Hashimoto.
Pilot Plant Comparison of Liquid and Dry Waste Management Systems
for Poultry Manure. In: Proceedings Cornell Agricultural Waste
Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, 1972. pp. 569-580.
103. Sweeten, J. M. Feedlot Pollution Control Guidelines. MP-1155,
Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, 1974. 6 pp.
104. Ritter, W. F., N. E. Collins, Jr., and R. P. Eastburn. Chemical
Treatment of Liquid Dairy Manure to Reduce Malodors. In: Managing
Livestock Wastes. Proceedings Third International Symposium on
Livestock Wastes, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
April 21-24, 1975. pp. 381-384.
105. Jongebreur, A. A. Animal Waste Management in the Netherlands. In:
Animal Waste, Applied Science Publishers, London, England, 1977.
pp. 401-406.
106. Overcash, M. R., F. J. Humenik, P. W. Westerman, and J. C. Barber.
Management of Lagoons for Odor Control. Paper No. 76-4017.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan,
June 1976. 18 pp.
107. Welsh, F. W., D. D. Schulte, E. J. Kroeker, and H. M. Lapp. The
Effect of Anaerobic Digestion Upon Swine Manure Odors. Paper No.
76-206, Annual Meeting Canadian Society of Agricultural Engineering,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, July 4-8, 1976. 16 pp.
108. Roll, J. L., D. L. Day, and B. A. Jones, Jr. Municipal Sludge in
Swine Manure Helps Control Odors. Illinois Research, 16(2):14,
1974.
109. Cooper, G. S., J. W. Ketcheson, and L. R. Webber. Agriculture as
a Contributor to Pollution. AIC Review, 24(3):9-15, 1969-
55
-------
110. Day, D. L. and A. H. Jensen. Livestock Odor Control Research at
the University of Illinois. Paper No. 74-11-103, Section 1,
Theme 1, VIII International Congress of Agricultural Engineering,
Flevohof, The Netherlands, September 23-29, 1974. 6 pp.
111. Converse, J. C. and D. L. Day. Minimum Aeration for Control of
Odors from Swine Wastes. Illinois Research, 14(1):12-13, 1972.
112. Parsons, R. A. Manure Holding Pond Odor Control. Poultry Digest,
31(2):386, 1972.
113. Hashimoto, A. G. Aeration of Poultry Wastes for Odor and Nitrogen
Control. Transactions of the ASAE, 17(5):978-982, September-
October 1974.
114. Anonymous. Oxidation Wheel Eliminates Odors, Manure Handling and
Pollution. Compost Science, 13(1):28, January-February 1972.
115. George, R. Cheap Effective Cure for a Smelly Lagoon. Beef, 12(8):
28, April 1976.
116. Bell, R. G. Aeration of Liquid Poultry Manure: A Stabilization
Process or an Odor Control Measure? Poultry Science, 50(1):155-
158, 1971.
117. Anonymous. Sagebrush for Odor Control: In the Feed or in the Manure?
Feedlot Management, 14(5):74, 1972.
118. Kellums, R. 0. The Effect of Ration Formulation on the Subsequent
Generation of Volatile Gases and Odors from Bovine Wastes. Ph.D.
Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, June 1976.
59 pp.
119. Ingram, S. H., R. C. Albin, C. D. Jones, A. M. Lennon, L. F. Tribble,
L. B. Porter, and C. T. Gaskins. Swine Fecal Odor as Affected by
Feed Additives. Annual Meeting American Society of Animal Science,
Southern Section, Atlanta, Georgia, February 4-7, 1973. 5 pp.
120. Zindel, H. C. DPW Recycling Facts Updated. Poultry Digest, 31(1):
125-126, 1972.
121. Paine, M. D. Chemical Control of Manure Odor. Regional Extension
Specialist, Feedlot Waste Management, Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, Oklahoma. Unpublished paper. 4 pp.
122. Burnett, W. E. and N. C. Dondero. Control of Odors from Animal
Wastes. Transactions of the ASAE, 13(2):221-224, March 1970.
56
-------
123. Young, J. Dust and Odor Problems of the Feedlot. In: Proceedings
of Control of Agriculture-related Pollution in the Great Plains
Seminar. Lincoln, Nebraska, July 24-25, 1972, pp. 81-87.
124. Hill, D. T. Odor Intensity Prediction and Odor Control with Ozone
for Three Important Agricultural Waste Odorants. Ph.D. Thesis,
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, 1975.
125. Anonymous. Remove Manure Odors. Hoards Dairyman, 12(3):161,
February 10, 1976.
126. Wilmore, R. Manure Deodorants—How Well do They Work? Farm
Journal, 96:22, 28, June 1972.
127. Cole, C. A., H. D. Bartlett, D. H. Buckner, and D. E. Yonkin.
Odor Control of Liquid Dairy and Swine Manure Using Chemical and
Biological Treatments. In: Managing Livestock Wastes, Proceedings
Third International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, April 21-24, 1975. pp. 374-377.
128. Cole, C. A., H. D. Bartlett, D. H. Buckner, and D. E. Yonkin.
Efficacy of Certain Chemical and Biological Compounds for Control
of Odor from Anaerobic Liquid Swine Manure. Journal of Animal
Science, 42(1):l-7, January 1976.
129. Ulich, W. L. and J. P. Ford. Malodor Reduction in Beef Cattle
Feedlots. In: Managing Livestock Wastes, Proceedings Third
International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, University of Illi-
nois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, April 21-24, 1975. pp. 369-371.
130. Ford, J. P. and W. L. Ulich. Odor Control for Confined Beef
Cattle Feedlots. In: Proceedings First Annual Symposium on Air
Pollution Control in the Southwest, Texas A&M Univeristy, College
Station, Texas, November 5-7, 1973. pp. 189-204.
131. Miner, J. R. and R. C. Stroh. Controlling Feedlot Surface Odor
Emission Rates by Application of Commerical Products. Paper No.
75-4566, Winter Meeting ASAE, Chicago, Illinois, December 15-18,
1975. 15 pp.
132. Abercrombie, J. C. An Investigation of Odor Control for Swine
Buildings. M.S. Thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario,
Canada, 1971. 78 pp.
133. Noren, 0. Noxious Gases and Odors. In: Animal Wastes. Applied
Science Publishers, London, England, 1977. pp. 111-129.
134. Anonymous. Removing the Smell from Manure. Water and Wastewater
Treatment, 15(1):43, March 1972.
57
-------
135. Hill, D. T. and C. L. Barth. Removal of Gaseous Ammonia and
Methylamine Using Ozone. Transactions of the ASAE, 19(5):935-
938, 944, September-October 1976.
136. Simpson, F. M. How to Control Feedlot Pollution: Bulletin C,
Measurement and Control of Feedlot Particulate Matter. California
Cattle Feeders Association, Bakersfield, California, January 12,
1971. 31 pp.
137. Carroll, J. J., J. R. Dunbar, R. L. Givens, and W. B. Goddard.
Sprinkling for Dust Suppression in a Cattle Feedlot. Sprinkler
Irrigation Newsletter, IV(10):12-14, March 1974.
138. Sweeten, J. M. Feedlot Pollution Control Guidelines. MP-1155,
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, 1974. 4 pp.
139. Sweeten, J. M. Environmental Protection Guidelines for Dairies.
MP-1196, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, 1975. 4 pp.
140. Sweeten, J. M. Environmental Protection Requirements for Swine
Operations. L-1302, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1975. 4 pp.
141. Peters,, J. A. and T. R. Blackwood. Source Assessment: Beef Cattle
Feedlots. EPA-600/2-77-107. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1977.
58
-------
APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF STATE AIR POLLUTION AND NUISANCE LAWS WHICH PERTAIN
TO ANIMAL PRODUCTION ODOR CONTROL AND REGULATION (29)
ALABAMA
Key to Legal Citation
Ala. Code , .
(Title # - Section #)
(22-310)
AIR
The Air Pollution Control Commission (APCC) is the state agency
responsible for implementing the state air pollution program [22-310(5)].
Air pollution is defined to include odors which do, or tend to, interfere
with the enjoyment of life or property [22-310(3)]. The APCC can review
all plans for new sources of air contaminants and deny permits if they
are not in accord with the APCC's rules and regulations [22-310(8)].
There are no specific odor regulations in force. Odor problems are
handled on a case-by-case basis after complaints have been received from
the public.
ADDRESS: Air Pollution Control Commission
645 South McDonough Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
205/834-6770
NUISANCE
Public nuisances are broadly defined by statute to include such
things as unsanitary premises, conducting a lawful business or trade in
such a manner that it is likely to be a menace to the public health, and
conducting an inherently unsanitary trade or business without complying
with the regulations of the State Board of Health (22-75). Public
nuisances are abated by county boards of health (22-76). The State
Board also has inspection authority over all dairies and slaughter pens
or houses (22-7). County boards are authorized to exercise special
supervision over dairies and slaughterhouses (22-8).
59
-------
ALASKA
Key to Legal Citation
Alaska Stat. §
(Section #)
(46.03.020)
AIR
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is the
regulatory body charged with the responsibility for controlling air
pollution (46.03.020). It may enact regulations which can prevent,
abate, or control air pollution (46.03.140). Air contaminants are
defined to include odorous substances (46.03.900). Any municipality
with a population in excess of 1,000 can establish and administer its
own air pollution control program on an area-wide basis if the program
is consistent with the state regulations (46.03.210). Each such program
must be approved by DEC (46.03.210). If a local program is not being
enforced properly, DEC may, after public hearing, step in and enforce
the provisions of the local air pollution program (46.03.220). All
emissions which are injurious to health or welfare are prohibited
(46.03.140, 46.03.710, Reg. 18AAL50.110).
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, Alaska 99801
907/586-6721
NUISANCE
DEC is primarily responsible for the control of water, air and
land nuisances (46.03.800-810). An air or land nuisance is defined as
the placement upon any lot, street or premises of any garbage, offal,
dead animals or any other matter which would be obnoxious (46.03.810).
ARIZONA
Key to Legal Citation
Arizona Rev. Stat. §
(Section #)
(36-1706)
AIR
The Department of Health Services (DHS), Bureau of Air Quality
is the state agency responsible for implementing the state's air pollu-
tion program (36-1706). The definition of an air contaminant includes
odor (36-1701). DHS has opted to delegate its responsibility over
feedlot odor problems to the Livestock Sanitary Board.
60
-------
ADDRESS: Department of Health Services
Bureau of Air Quality
1740 West Adams
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
602/271-5306
NUISANCE
DHS has primary authority to enforce, investigate and abate all
public nuisances (36-601). City and county boards of health are also
empowered to abate such nuisances (36-602). Local boards of health can
also enact sanitary regulations and can regulate feedlots (36-167) (Op.
At-Gen 65-4). DHS also has the authority to investigate water, solid
waste and air pollution that rises to the level of a nuisance (Reg. 9-
8-432).
ARKANSAS
Key to Legal Citation
Ark. Stat. Ann. §
(Title //-Section #)
(5-908)
AIR
The Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (DPCE) is the
state agency responsible for implementing the state air pollution program
(5-908). Air contaminants are broadly defined but do not specifically
include odors (82-1933). Agricultural operations, including the growing
or harvesting of crops, the raising of fowls or animals, and the use of
equipment for agricultural purposes are specifically exempted from the
air pollution control laws (82-1934).
ADDRESS: Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
Air Pollution Division
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
501/371-1136
NUISANCE
The State Board of Health is given the authority to examine,
investigate and abate nuisances (82-112). All cities and towns can
cause any nuisance in their jurisdiction to be abated, and they may
delegate that responsibility to the local Board of Health (19-2303).
CALIFORNIA
Key to Legal Citation
Cal. Code § (West)
[(Subject) Code §]
(Health & Safety §39013)
61
-------
AIR
The State Air Resources Board (ARB) shares the responsibility
for implementing an air pollution control program with county and regional
Air Pollution Control Districts (APCD's). Air contaminant is so defined
as to include odors (Health & Safety §39013). There is a general pro-
hibition against the emission of any air contaminant which may cause
injury or annoyance to persons or property (H & S §41700). This prohibi-
tion is not applicable, however, to odors emanating from agricultural
operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or
animals (H & S §41705).
ADDRESS: Air Resources Board
1709 llth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
914/322-6022
NUISANCE
The State Board of Health has general nuisance abatement powers
(Health & Safety Code §203, 206). Nuisances and public nuisances are
very broadly defined (Civil Code §3479). As noted above, these general
nuisance statutes have been utilized to seek abatement of alleged noisome
conditions arising from feedlot operation. City and County Boards of
Health also have nuisance abatement authority (H & SC §41509).
COLORADO
Key to Legal Citation
Colo. Rev. Stat. §
(§ )
(25-7-103)
AIR
The Department of Health (DOH), Air Pollution Control Commission
(APCC) is the state agency reponsible for implementing the state's air
pollution program (25-7-103). The definition of air contaminant does
not specifically include odors but is broad enough to encompass odor
problems (25-7-103). Regulations have been promulgated that deal with
the odor pollution problem. The APCC uses the Barneby-Cheney scentometer
to measure odor pollution. The dilution rate is set at 7 for residential
and commercial areas and at 15 for all others. Agricultural sources are
exempt, up to a dilution ratio of 127:1, if the best practicable treatment
is being utilized to minimize emissions. Two odor measurements must be
taken within one hour before enforcement is possible.
ADDRESS: Department of Health
Air Pollution Control Commission
4210 East llth Street
Denver, Colorado 80220
303/388-6111
62
-------
NUISANCE
DOH has the authority to abate nuisances (25-1-108). Pollution
is classified as a Class 3 public nuisance (16-13-305). All local
governments may prohibit nuisance type businesses up to one mile from
their boundaries. They may also require sanitary standards to be main-
tained in any stable or pigsty. Finally, they can regulate livery
stables within'their borders (31-15-501).
CONNECTICUT
Key to Legal Citation
Conn. Gen. Stat. §
(§ )
(19-507)
AIR
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the agency
responsible for implementing the state's air polluion program (19-507).
Air pollution is broadly defined by statute but odor is not specifically
mentioned as an air pollutant (19-505). Odor is, however, included
within the definition of an air pollutant in the regulations. Odor is
not considered a serious problem at present. The basic regulatory
scheme is that all new sources of air contaminants must obtain permits
issued by the DEP (19-519a). Compliance with the statute and regula-
tions is not a defense to a nuisance action.
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
203/566-3654
NUISANCE
All towns, cities or boroughs have the authority to abate public
nuisances (7-148). Cities, towns or boroughs are also given the author-
ity to define, within their limits, all nuisances and to provide for the
abatement of such nuisances at the expense of the owner [7-194(29)].
They may also regulate and prohibit the keeping of swine, cattle or poul-
try within the city limits as well as prevent the construction of poultry
pens and houses.
DELAWARE
Key to Legal Citation
Del. Code Title #, §
(Title , § )
(7-6002)
63
-------
AIR
The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC) is the state agency responsible for implementing the air pollution
program (7-6002). Air contaminants are defined to include fumes or vapor,
but not odor (7-6002). There are no fugitive dust or odor regulations
applicable to the feedlot operator.
ADDRESS: Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
Division of Environmental Control
Edward Tatnall Building
Dover, Delaware 19901
302/678-4791
NUISANCE
The State Board may investigate and abate all nuisances in the
absence of a local board of health (16-126). Local boards of health may
also abate all nuisances (16-310). They may order the removal of all
hog pens if deemed necessary for protection of the public health (16-301).
FLORIDA
Key to Legal Citation
Fla. Stat. §
(§ )
(403.031)
AIR
The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), Air Quality
Management Program is the agency responsible for implementing the state's
air pollution program (403.031-2). Odors are not specifically included
within the statutory definition of a "contaminant," but the definition
is clearly broad enough to include them (403.301). The regulations
define odors and objectionable odors utilizing a nuisance-type approach.
No person may discharge emissions which contribute to an objectionable
odor.
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Regulation
2562 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
904/488-6221
NUISANCE
The Department of Health, Division of Public Health and local
public health agencies have the authority to regulate public health
nuisances and sanitary practices relating to the disposal of excreta
(381.031). The Division has no present regulatory scheme directly
affecting feedlot disposal problems. Clearly, the Division of Public
64
-------
Health has the ability on a case-by-case basis to abate nuisance-type
conditions caused by unsanitary feedlot operations (386.01-02). In-
cluded within the statutory definition of nuisances injurious to health
are odors of fly breeding conditions (386-401).
GEORGIA
Key to Legal Citation
Ga. Code §
(§ )
(88-903)
AIR
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the agency respon-
sible for implementing the state's air pollution program (88-903). Odor
is not listed as an air contaminant, but the definition of air pollution
is broad enough to include it (88-902). In exercising authority under
this section, DNR must consider the economic effect of the regulation as
well as the amount of interference with the enjoyment of life (88-906).
There are no regulations dealing with fugitive dust or odor problems.
ADDRESS: Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
270 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
404/656-4998
NUISANCE
The Department of Human Resources and county Boards of Health
are empowered to exercise responsibility in matters pertaining to health
not already exercised by another agency (88-204; 88-108). This would
include nuisance abatement authority. Nuisances are broadly defined by
statute (72-101).
HAWAII
Key to Legal Citation
Haw. Rev. Stat. §
(§ )
(342-22)
AIR
The Department of Health (DOH) is the agency responsible for
implementing the state's air pollution program (342-22). Air pollution
is defined to include both odors and dust (342-21). Odors are defined
by regulation to include smells which are "unpleasant to persons," which
"interfere with sleep," or are otherwise detrimental to health. Any
new source of air pollution must receive a permit prior to construction
and operation. There are no specific odor regulations.
65
-------
ADDRESS: Department of Health
Environmental Health Division
P. 0. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
NUISANCE
The DOH also has general nuisance and sanitation regulatory
powers. DOH and county health departments have the affirmative duty to
enforce all DOH regulations; this includes the power to regulate nuisances,
adulterated food, pig and duck ranches, and any place where a noxious
business may take place (322-1). Counties have licensing authority to
regulate the location of any building in which a noisome trade is carried
on (322-42). This is under the aegis of the county board of health
(322-42). All licensees must maintain the premises in a sanitary condi-
tion (322-42). DOH has enacted regulations dealing with livestock and
poultry raising operations. The regulations require all manure to be
promptly removed (within 24 hours) in order to avoid fly and rodent
infestation and odor problems. Manure may be placed in licensed sanitary
landfills. The regulations also deal with the construction, location,
and maintenance of feedlot operations, including a general requirement
that the enclosures must be kept free from accumulations of excreta.
IDAHO
Key to Legal Citation
Idaho Code §
(§ )
(39-105)
AIR
The Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) is the agency respon-
sible for implementing the state's air pollution program (39-105). Air
contaminants are defined to include dust, fumes, vapors and other gaseous
fluids, but there is no mention of odors (39-103). The DHW regulations,
however, include odor as an air contaminant. The regulations require
that odor emissions be minimized so as to not cause air pollution. In
practice DHW has handled odor complaints on a case-by-case basis, while
encouraging local governments to zone and plan effectively to avoid the
problem.
ADDRESS: Department of Health and Welfare
Environmental Protection Division
State House
Boise, Idaho 83720
208/384-2390
NUISANCE
Nuisances include anything which is injurious to health or
offensive to the senses (52-101). Nuisances can be abated by either
a private or public legal action (52-302-3). District boards of health
66
-------
have the authority to preserve and protect the public health (39-414).
Cities may also establish boards of health to operate within the city
and up to five miles outside the city boundaries (50-304). Cities may
define nuisances and abate them within an area extending three miles
beyond the municipal boundaries (5-334).
ILLINOIS
Key to Legal Citation
111. Rev. Stat. (Ch , § )
(Ch -§ )
(111 1/2-1004)
AIR
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) is charged
with the duty of collecting and disseminating all pollution control in-
formation and of monitoring and ascertaining the quantity, quality, and
nature of all discharges from any contaminant source (air, water, and
land) (111 1/2-1004). It also administers the permit system and reviews
all plans and specifications for construction (111 1/2-1004). The
Pollution Control Board (PCB) has two primary functions: rule-making
and enforcement (111 1/2-1005). Before it can exercise any rule-making
authority, however, the third branch of the environmental organization
must prepare a complete economic impact analysis of the proposed rules
(111 1/2-1006). This organization is called the Institute for Environ-
mental Quality (IEQ).
The PCB, IEPA, and IEQ are all responsible for the air pollution
program (111 1/2-1004). The definitions of air pollution and air contami-
nants include odors (111 1/2-1003). As seen earlier, the IEPA recognizes
the air pollution in terms of both dust and odor as a feedlot problem.
The IEPA, which handles these problems on a case-by-case citizen complaint
basis, has brought two suits to enjoin and seek penalties from poultry
operations which were causing odor problems.
ADDRESS: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
217/782-3397
NUISANCE
All municipalities have the authority to define, prevent and
abate nuisances (11-60-2). There is no express county authority to
abate nuisances, but counties may regulate air contamination which would
include odors (34-421.2).
67
-------
INDIANA
Key to Legal Citation
Ind. Code §
(§ )
(13-7-2-9)
AIR
The Environmental Management Board (EMB) and the Air Pollution
Control Board (APCB) are jointly responsible for implementing the state's
air pollution program (13-7-2-9). Air pollutants are defined by one
statute to include odors (13-7-1-2), but in the statute creating the APCB,
the definition of air contaminants makes no mention of odors (13-1-1-2).
EMB is encouraged to aid local bodies in developing programs to provide
odor pollution control (13-7-3-1). In preparing abatement orders, the
APCB must take into consideration the social and economic value of the
activity causing the emissions and the feasibility of installing a control
device (13-1-1-4). Otherwise, the basic regulatory device is a permit
requirement for all air pollution sources (13-7-10-1). In addition to
the APCB, certain urban counties and all large cities have the authority
to regulate sources of air pollution, including odor sources, within
their jurisdiction (18-4-21-2, 18-1-1.5-12). The APCB-promulgated
regulations define air pollutants without mentioning odors, although
odor is contained in one of the two relevant state statutes.
ADDRESS: Air Pollution Control Board
1330 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
317/633-4273
NUISANCE
Nuisances are broadly defined by statute (34-1-52-1). Nuisances
can be abated or enjoined by anyone (34-1-52-3). The keeping of any
animal which may lead to noisome smells is a public nuisance (35-1-102-2).
IOWA
Key to Legal Citation
Iowa Code (§ )
(455B.12)
AIR
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Air Quality
Commission are the agencies responsible for implementing the state's air
pollution program (455B.12). Air contaminants are defined to include
dust and odorous substances (455B.10). Existing regulations define an
objectionable odor as one which is believed to be objectionable by 30%
or more of a random sample of people. DEQ has recently amended its odor
regulations. The definition of objectionable odor has been replaced by
68
-------
the use of three new terms: odor, odorous substance and odorous substance
source. No attempt is made to quantify odor. These definitions become
effective January 1, 1978. Special requirements are made for users of
anaerobic lagoons. They must seek DEQ permits and provide on the appli-
cation forms the animal capacity, type of animal, method of feeding and
methods of waste collection and disposal. Equipment used on farms or
ranches for agricultural purposes, except for anaerobic lagoons, is
exempt from the permit requirements. These regulations are also to be-
come effective on January 1, 1978. The following regulations, governing
specific odorous substances, will not become effective until January 1,
1979. There is a general proscription against the emission of an odorous
substance so as to create a nuisance. An exception is made for the
periodic spreading of animal manure on farmland if reasonable care is
taken to minimize odor problems. Recommended practices include immediate
soil incorporation, proper site location, and proper climatic conditions.
Reference is given to the land application guidelines of the Water
Quality Division. Odor complaints may be filed with either the local
board of health or DEQ. The complaint must be filed by 3 or more citi-
zens, from different occupied premises within 5 miles of the source, who
allege that the odor has occurred on at least 10 days of any 30-day
period. DEQ must investigate the complaint; if it finds the complaint
valid and if negotiations fail, DEQ must issue a notice of violation.
New feedlots large enough to require a water permit must also seek a
permit from the Air Quality Commission after submitting to DEQ the plans
and specifications for the proposed facility.
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Management Division
3920 Delaware Avenue
P. 0. Box 3326
Des Moines, Iowa 50316
515/265-8134
NUISANCE
State, county and municipal boards of health have the primary
responsibility over public health matters including the right to issue
permits for the collection and disposal of solid wastes (137.7). Local
boards are involved in the air pollution regulatory scheme dealing with
odor complaints. They also have the power to abate nuisances which are
broadly defined by statute (657.1).
MISCELLANEOUS
An important new law was enacted by the Iowa legislature in 1976
with an avowed purpose of protecting the feedlot operator. Compliance
with the statutory requirements by a feedlot operator is an absolute
defense to a nuisance action if the person complaining did not own the
affected realty prior to the "established date of operation" of the
feedlot (172D.2). Compliance with applicable DEQ and U.S. EPA rules is
mandatory if the rules were promulgated prior to July 1, 1975 (172D.3).
DEQ rules affecting air quality adopted prior to November 1, 1976, apply
69
-------
to every feedlot regardless of its established date of operation. All
air quality rules relating to feedlot management standards adopted after
November 1, 1976, do not apply to pre-existing feedlots for a period of
one year after the effective date of the rule. Rules relating to feed-
lot design standards adopted after November 1, 1976, do not apply to a
pre-existing feedlot for a period of 10 years from the established date
of operation of the feedlot or of two years from the effective date of
the rule, whichever is greater (172D.3). All other DEQ rules in effect
prior to November 1, 1976, also apply to all pre-existing feedlot opera-
tions. Rules adopted after November 1, 1976, do not apply to feedlots
with existing DEQ permits for a period of 10 years from the established
date of operation or 5 years from the effective date of the rule, which-
ever is greater (172D.3). A rule adopted after November 1, 1976, that
affects a feedlot which previously was not required to get a DEQ permit
has a similar grace period (172D.3). Zoning ordinances apply to feed-
lots where the ordinance predates the feedlot. Zoning ordinances, other
than municipal, adopted after the established date of operation do not
apply for a period of 10 years from enactment. A city zoning ordinance
enacted prior to November 1, 1976, applies to all feedlots. A city zoning
ordinance does not apply to a feedlot which has been annexed or incor-
porated into the city after November 1, 1976, for a period of 10 years
from the acquisition of jurisdiction by the city (172D.4).
KANSAS
Key to Legal Citation
Kan. Stat. §
(§ )
(65-3002)
AIR
The Department of Health and Environment (DHE) is the agency
responsible for implementing the state's air pollution control program
(65-3002). Air contaminants are defined to include odorous substances
and dust (65-3002). Although there have been numerous odor-related
complaints from residents living near feedlots, DHE has not adopted odor
control regulations. The Air Quality Division usually refers odor com-
plaints to the Bureau of Water Quality.
ADDRESS: Department of Health and Environment
Forbes AFB Bldg. No. 740
Topeka, Kansas 66620
913/296-3821
NUISANCE
DHE has the primary responsibility for abating nuisances (65-159).
That power may be delegated to local boards of health as well (65-159).
By regulation, the collection or accumulation of animal excrement or offal
that can become a breeding place for insects is a nuisance (Reg. 28-5-4).
DHE solid waste regulations broadly define nuisance in terms of the
storage, handling and disposal of solid waste.
70
-------
KENTUCKY
Key to Legal Citation
Ky. Rev. Stat. §
(§ )
(224.005)
AIR
The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
(DNREP) is responsible for implementing the air pollution program (224.
005). The Division of Air Pollution Control within DNREP has primary
authority. Air contaminant is defined to include odors. There are two
regulations that are generally applicable to feedlot operations, one
being an odor regulation and the other a fugitive dust emissions limita-
tion. The odor regulation requires that the odor not be detectable at
equal to or greater than 7 dilutions on a Barnebey-Cheney Scentometer at
the property line (401 KAR 8:020). It is to be enforced if a homestead
nuisance situation is proven. DNREP may exercise concurrent abatement
powers with local air pollution control districts if it certifies that
their program meets the minimum standards created by the state (224.450).
The program may be operated by either cities or counties. The statute
specifies an opacity limitation (77.155), but exempts equipment used
for agricultural operations in the growing of crops or the raising of
fowl or animals (77.160). Likewise, the local permitting requirements
are waived for equipment used in agricultural operations (77.195).
ADDRESS: Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
Division of Air Pollution Control
275 East Main Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
502/564-3382
NUISANCE
The Department of Human Resources has the authority to abate all
nuisances within the state (211.210). Every property owner in cities has
a duty not to allow his property to become a public nuisance (381.770).
Both city and county health boards also have the power to abate nuisances
(212.245). Large cities may also prohibit, remove or regulate the erec-
tion or maintenance of any stockyard, slaughterhouse, pigpen, cow stable,
or dairies within city limits and up to two miles outside of city limits
(84.220). Smaller cities have only one mile extraterritorial jurisdiction
for nuisance abatement (85.180).
LOUISIANA
Key to Legal Citation
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § (West)
(§ )
(40:2202)
71
-------
AIR
The Air Control Commission (ACC) is the agency responsible for
implementing the state's air pollution program (40:2202). Odors are not
specifically mentioned in the definition of an air contaminant (40:2202).
There appears to be a conflict between the authority of Health and Human
Resources Administration (HHRA) to promulgate odor regulations and the
statutory exclusion of all regulation of air contaminants other than by
the ACC with the sole exception of private actions to abate nuisances
(40:2216). HHRA handles odor complaints on a case-by-case basis, regard-
less of the apparent conflict with the ACC's authority over air contami-
nants (40.2216). ACC has not enacted any odor-related regulations.
ADDRESS: Air Control Commission
P. 0. Box 60630
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
504/568-5521
NUISANCE
HHRA is given authority to control and abate nuisances within
the state (40:11). Both parish (county) and local boards of health may
administer to all matters of local sanitation, including nuisance abate-
ment (40:35). Cities and towns may also abate nuisances which are de-
fined to include hog pens, slaughterhouses or stockyards (33:401). The
local boards of health may also prescribe regulations for cleaning these
facilities and for their location within the town (33:401).
MAINE
Key to Legal Citation
Me. Rev. Stat. Tit. , §
(Tit. -§ )
(38-582)
AIR
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is responsible
for administering the state's air pollution program (38-582). Odor is
not specifically mentioned in the definition of air contaminant (38-582).
Animal wastes are defined as a type 4 waste (38-582). There are no
specific regulations applicable to feedlots, but there is a general
prohibition against the discharge of air contaminants, which would apply
to the feedlot operator (38-591). Local governments may adopt more
stringent air pollution regulations (38-597). Air pollution and air
contaminant are defined broadly enough to include odors and fugitive
dust (38-582). Animal excreta are included within the definition of
waste for air pollution purposes (38-582).
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Quality Control
State House
Augusta, Maine 04333
207/289-2431
72
-------
NUISANCE
Nuisances are defined very broadly, and include the causing of
a noisome substance to collect to the detriment of another (17-2802).
The Department of Human Services is given the responsibility of abating
nuisances (22-1)„ Placing of manure in a local dump without permission
of the city health officer is specifically prohibited (30-4102).
MARYLAND
Key to Legal Citation
Md. Ann. Code Art. , §
(Art. -§ )
(43-690)
AIR
The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) has sole
jurisdiction over the air pollution program (43-690). The definition
of air pollution includes the emission of odors (43-691). The primary
regulatory tool is a permit system for all sources of emissions (43-
706). Cities and counties have the authority to adopt more stringent
standards (43-705). No odor or fugitive dust regulations have been
enacted by DHMH.
ADDRESS: Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Bureau of Air Quality Control
610 North Howard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
301/383-2779
NUISANCE
DHMH has the primary authority to set regulations dealing with
nuisance-type activities (43-IF). City boards of health may abate
nuisances within city limits (43-47). Local boards are given special
abatement powers over privy pits, pigpens and other installations that
occur within city limits (43-49). Towns or villages, even if without
local health departments, may make rules and regulations dealing with
pigpens or other noxious places that may create a nuisance (43-103).
MASSACHUSETTS
Key to Legal Citation
Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch , § (West)
(Ch -§ )
(111-2)
AIR
There appears to be a dual system of regulation of air pollution
at the state level: one by the Department of Public Health (DPH) and
the other by the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE)
73
-------
(111-2). Air pollutants are defined to include odor (111-2B). DEQE may
adopt regulations dealing with atmospheric pollution (11-142A). By
regulation, all emissions of air contaminants causing air pollution are
prohibited. No person, including agricultural operations, may permit
emissions which cause or contribute to air pollution by allowing odors
or fugitive dust to escape. This regulation is enforceable by local
police, fire departments, local boards of health, or building inspectors.
Local and metropolitan air pollution control districts may also be cre-
ated (111-142C-D). Local boards of health also have air pollution
jurisdiction, including odor abatement powers (111-31C).
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Bureau of Air Use Management
600 Washington Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02111
617/727-5194
NUISANCE
The state DPH is the major agency responsible for nuisance-type
activities (111-5). Departmental investigators must report to the Direc-
tor of Animal Health all barns, stables or other enclosures which are
not kept in a sanitary condition (111-16). Boards of health in any city
or town, provided they hold a public hearing, may regulate the location
of noisome trades, including those that are attended by injurious odors
(111-143). DEQE may act as an appeal board from a local determination
(111-143). Local boards of health have the power to license stables and
regulate their location in cities of over 5,000 (111-155). Local boards
of health have both inspection and regulation power as to nuisances (111-
122). Private suits to enjoin nuisances are specifically provided for
(111-134).
MICHIGAN
Key to Legal Citation
Mich. Comp. Laws §
(§ )
(336.13)
AIR
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Air Pollution
Control Commission (APCC) are the agencies responsible for implementing
the state's air pollution program (336.13). Air pollution is specifically
defined to exclude the -"usual and ordinary animal odors associated with
agricultural pursuits and located in a zoned agricultural area if the
numbers of animals and methods of operation are in keeping with normal
and traditional animal husbandry practices for the area" (336.12). Some
feedlots may not qualify for the exemption and, therefore, would be sub-
ject to the general nuisance definition of air pollution contained in the
regulations (Reg. 336.46). There are no fugitive dust or odor regulations.
74
-------
ADDRESS: Department of Natural Resources
Air Quality Division
Stevens T. Mason Bldg.
Lansing, Michigan 48926
517/373-8630
NUISANCE
County boards of health have the primary responsibility to abate
nuisances (14.166).
MINNESOTA
Key to Legal Citation
Minn. Stat. Ann. § (West)
(i )
(116.02)
AIR
The air pollution program is operated by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (PCA) (116.02). Air contaminants are defined to include
dust and gases; there is no explicit mention of odors (116.06). The
PCA has enacted odor control rules (APCA). No person may permit the
emission of odorous air pollution in excess of the given standards. No
odor source of less than 50 feet in elevation may emit more than 25 odor
concentration units (OCU). An OCU is defined to be the number of stand-
ard cubic meters of odor-free air needed to dilute each cubic meter of
contaminated air so that at least 50% of the test panel does not detect
any odor. Emissions beyond the property line are limited to 1 OCU in a
residential or recreational zone, 2 OCU's in light industrial zones,
and 4 OCU's in all other districts. The odor of growing vegetation is
not considered to be odorous air pollution. The use of fertilizer is
odorous air pollution. Compliance with the provisions of this regulation
does not exempt the landowner from a public or private nuisance action.
ADDRESS: Pollution Control Agency
Division of Air Quality
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
612/296-7331
NUISANCE
The State Board of Health establishes and enforces health
standards and identifies environmental health hazards (144.05). Public
nuisances are broadly defined by statute (609.74). Any person is given
the right to file a civil action for damages, injunctive relief or both
to abate a nuisance (561.01). State or county boards of health also
have the power to abate nuisances, including premises where noisome
odors may arise (145.17).
75
-------
MISCELLANEOUS
Minnesota allows all individuals to seek legal relief for
environmental injuries (116B.01). However, there is an exemption for
family farms, family farm corporations and bona fide farmer corpora-
tions (116B.02). Pollution for which civil action may be filed is
defined so as to exclude injury caused solely by the presence of odors
in the air (116.02). State Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) are
required for all state activities, including the issuance of water
pollution, air pollution and solid waste permits (116D.04).
MISSISSIPPI
Key to Legal Citation
Miss. Code Ann §
(§ )
(49-17-3)
AIR
The Air and Water Pollution Control Commission (AWPCC) is the
agency responsible for implementing the state's air pollution program
(49-17-3). Dust, but not odor, is listed as an air contaminant (49-17-
5). Odor and dust arising from buildings or equipment are also pro-
hibited if they would cause a nuisance.
ADDRESS: Air and Water Pollution Control Commission
Division of Air Pollution Control
P. 0. Box 827
Robert E. Lee Building
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
601/354-6783
NUISANCE
The State Board of Health and local boards are delegated general
authority to abate nuisances caused by unsanitary conditions (41-3-15).
Local governments are also given the power to make regulations to prevent,
remove and abate nuisances (21-19-1). Hogpens, slaughterhouses, stock-
yards, stables and other places where offensive matter can be accumulated
are specifically singled out for local control (21-19-1).
MISSOURI
Key to Legal Citation
Mo. Ann. Stat. § (Vernon)
(§ )
(203.040)
AIR
The Air Conservation Commission (ACC) and the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) are responsible for implementing the state's air
76
-------
pollution program (203.040). The statute, in defining air contaminant
and air pollution, does not mention odors (203.020). The ACC has enacted
a regulation, applicable in most Missouri counties, which restricts the
emission of odors so as not to exceed 7 dilutions on a scentometer, con-
ducted in two separate tests within a 1-hour period (Reg. S-IX). The
regulation is considered to be a nuisance-type regulation and is enforced
only upon the receipt of citizen complaints.
ADDRESS: Department of Natural Resources
Air Quality Program
117 Commerce Drive
P. 0. Box 1368
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
314/751-3252
NUISANCE
All public nuisances may be abated by court action, even though
the use is not specifically listed in the statute as being a nuisance
(564.080). Cities have the power to abate nuisances by legislative actions
and to impose the cost of abatement on the property owner (71.780).
Smaller cities may by ordinance regulate or abate stockyards, pigpens,
cow stables, dairies and the like (77.560, 79.370).
MONTANA
Key to Legal Citation
Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. §
(§ )
(69-3906)
AIR
The Department of Health and Environmental Sciences (DHES), Air
Quality Bureau regulates the state's air pollution program (69-3906).
The definitions of air contaminants and air pollution specifically include
odorous substances (69-3906). The guidelines for new feedlots specifi-
cally recommend that potential odor problems be considered in site selec-
tion. As a rule of thumb, feedlots should be located at least two miles
from residences and 5-6 miles from municipalities. Odor control by
minimum handling of the manure and by keeping it dry is recommended.
Spreading should be done when atmospheric conditions are best suited for
minimal air pollution effects. The regulations prohibit the emission of
odors which would create a public nuisance beyond one's property line.
Odor producing materials should be stored and handled so as not to create
a public nuisance.
ADDRESS: Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Air Quality Bureau
Cogswell Building
Helena, Montana 59601
406/449-3454
77
-------
NUISANCE
DHES is given general responsibility to control nuisances (69-
4110). It may also delegate that authority to local boards of health
(69-4509). Cities and towns also have nuisance abatement authority (11-
935). Nuisances are broadly defined by statute (57-101). Nuisances may
be publicly or privately abated (93-6101, 94-8-107).
NEBRASKA
Key to Legal Citation
Neb. Rev. Stat. §
(§ .)
(81-1502)
AIR
The Department of Environmental Control (DEC) and the Environ-
mental Control Council (ECC) have regulatory authority|over the air
pollution program. Although the definition of air pollution is broad
enough to include odors, air contaminant is defined to include ,dust or
gas but not odor (81-1502). The ECC requires the operator to drain
waste runoff to a holding pond as soon as possible to insure that the
lot surface remains aerobic. Where solids are separated from the liquid,
adequate time for settling must be provided before draining the runoff
water to a holding pond (Rule 20). The Extension Service recommends
good management practices for manure and moisture to minimize feedlot-
created odors.
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Control
Air Pollution Control Division
Box 94653
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
402/471-2186
NUISANCE
All counties, cities, towns and villages have a primary responsi-
bility to abate nuisances (18-1720).
NEVADA
Key to Legal Citation
Nev- Rev. Stat. §
(§ )
(445.421)
AIR
The State Environmental Commission (SEC) and the Department of
Human Resources (DHR) are responsible for the air pollution program (445.
421). Air contaminant is so defined as to include any substance except
78
-------
water discharged into the atmosphere (445.411). The basic regulatory
system is a permit system (445.473). Local air pollution control programs
may be established (445.546). Odor is so defined in the regulations as to
include a characteristic of an air contaminant which makes it perceptible
to the sense of smell (Reg. 1.43). Agricultural land use is exempted from
the registration certificate and operating permit requirement for sources
of air contaminants (Reg. 3.1.8). The odor regulation provides that the
SEC shall investigate an odor when 30% or more of a sample of people
exposed to it believe it to be objectionable. The source is in violation
if two measurements taken 15 minutes apart, but within one hour, are such
that the odor is still detectable after dilution with 8 or more volumes
of odor-free air (Reg. 10.1).
ADDRESS: Department of Human Resources
Air Quality Office
1209 Johnson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
702/885-4670
NUISANCE
Private actions for nuisance abatement and damages are specifi-
cally allowed by statute (40.140). Private citizens may also sue to
enforce the environmental statutes of the state (41.540). The State Board
of Health division of DHR has authority to regulate and prevent nuisances
(439.200). Local boards of health also have nuisance abatement authority
(439.360). Counties may enact sanitary ordinances if they are not in con-
flict with state laws (244.357). Counties must hold public hearings when
a nuisance complaint is filed in the county clerk's office (244.360).
County boards and city councils may also regulate air pollution, including
odor problems (244.361, 268.410). City councils may regulate nuisances
and provide that the abatement costs be recaptured from the nuisance owner
(266.335).
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Key to Legal Citation
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §
(§ )
(125:80)
AIR
The Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) and the Air Pollution
Control Agency (APCA) are responsible for implementing the state's air
pollution program (125:80). Air contaminant is so defined as to specifi-
cally include odors (125:79). There are no odor of fugitive dust regu-
lations.
ADDRESS: Air Pollution Control Agency
State Laboratory Building
Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
603/271-2281
79
-------
NUISANCE
DHW has overall state responsibility for public health and
sanitation (125:9). City health officers may make regulations preventing
and abating nuisances (147:1). No pigsty or pen may be erected in such
a place or under such conditions that, in the judgement of the local
health officer, it would be a nuisance (147:10). City and town councils
may regulate nuisances, including the location and construction of
slaughterhouses, stables, barns and other unwholesome buildings or
places (47: 17).
NEW JERSEY
Key to Legal Citation
N.J. Stat. Ann. § (West)
(§
(
AIR
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), in conjunction
with the Clean Air Council, is responsible for implementing the air pollu-
tion program (13:lD-7). While the definitions of air pollution and air
contaminant do not refer to odors, in a court opinion odor was deemed to
be an air contaminant within the purview of the definition of air pollu-
tion [Department of Health v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 242 A.2d 21,
aff'd 250 A.2d 11 (1968)]. DEP has overall authority to enforce its own
rules and regulations dealing with air pollution. It has deferred its
rule-making authority over agricultural operations to the Department of
Agriculture. There are no odor or fugitive dust regulations except in
the context of incinerator emission standards.
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Air Pollution Control
P. 0. Box 2807
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
609/292-6704
NUISANCE
All buildings or places where the law (including the sanitary
code) is violated are considered to be nuisances (2A:130-2). A nuisance
may be abated immediately (2A:130-4). Cities of the 4th class have the
power to abate nuisances and charge the cost to the owner (40:173-8).
Local boards may also define nuisances (26:3-45) and ordor abatement
(26:3-46). Cities may regulate or prohibit the keeping of cattle, goats
or swine in any part of the municipality (40:48-1).
NEW MEXICO
Key to Legal Citation
N.M. Stat. Ann. §
(§ )
(12-14-3)
80
-------
AIR
The Environmental Improvement Agency (EIA) and the Environmental
Improvement Board (EIB) are jointly responsible for implementing the
state's air pollution program (12-14-3). The definitions of air contami-
nant and air pollution do not specifically include odors (12-14-2).
The EIB has not enacted any odor or fugitive dust regulations.
ADDRESS: Environmental Improvement Agency
Air Quality Division
P. 0. Box 2348
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503
505/827-2813
NUISANCE
The Department of Health and Social Services has primary respon-
sibility to abate nuisances (12-34-3). Municipalities may by ordinance
define and abate all nuisances (14-17-14).
NEW YORK
Key to Legal Citation
N.Y. [Subject] Law § (McKinney)
(Subject Law § )
(Environmental Conservation Law 3-0301)
AIR
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is the agency
responsible for implementing the state air pollution abatement program
(ECL 3-0301). Air contaminanat is defined to include dust and odor (ECL
19-0107). The Guidelines suggest that ventilating systems in buildings
used to house animals, manure storage systems, manure dehydration systems,
fields where manure is spread and incinerators of dead animals would all
be sources of air contaminants required to obtain permits under the stat-
ute (ECL 19-0107). In the regulations there is no exemption for any of
these agriculturally-related operations from the permit requirement (Part
201). Under Part 211, no person shall allow air pollution as defined by
the statute. This could include agricultural sources. Manure dehydrating
systems come under Part 212, which requires a permit to construct and a
certificate to operate an exhaust or ventilation system. Qualified air
pollution control facilities are exempt from real property tax to the
extent of the increase in the value of the operation. There are no odor-
related regulations except those concerning the operation of incinerators.
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Air Resources
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
518/457-7231
81
-------
NUISANCE
The Commissioner of Public Health, on the state level, is pos-
sessed with all of the necessary powers to investigate and abate nuisances
(Public Health 1300). Local boards of health also have the authority to
investigate and abate nuisances (Public Health 1303). Cities have general
nuisance abatement powers, including the ability to license certain busi-
nesses (General City 20). Towns may regulate unnecessary emissions of
smoke or noxious gas and may regulate the keeping of livestock (Town 130).
NORTH CAROLINA
Key to Legal Citation
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §
(§ )
(143-215)
AIR
The Department of Natural and Economic Resources (DNER) and the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) are responsible for implement-
ing the state's air pollution program (143-215.106). Air contaminant is
defined so as to include dust but does not specifically mention odors
(143-213). The regulatory system is basically a permitting operation
(143-215.108). EMC has promulgated regulations dealing with odorous
emissions. Although one part of the regulation states that the regula-
tion applies to all sources of odorous emissions, the other section deals
only with controlling odorous emissions from a plant engaged in the
processing of animal matter. EMC has the power to transfer to counties
or cities responsibility for local air pollution control programs (143-
215.112).
ADDRESS: Department of Natural and Economic Resources
Division of Environmental Management
Air Quality Section
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
919/829-4740
NUISANCE
Local boards of health are given the primary responsibility to
abate nuisances (130-20). Cities may also abate nuisances both within
city limits and up to one mile outside of the city (160S-193).
NORTH DAKOTA
Key to Legal Citation
N.D. Cont. Code %
(§ )
(23-25-03)
82
-------
AIR
The Department of Health (DOH) is responsible for implementing
the air pollution abatement program (23-25-03). There is, in addition,
a State Air Pollution Control Agency which is an advisory council; there
are no agricultural representatives on it (23-25-02). By a recent amend-
ment to the law, air contaminants are defined to include odorous sub-
stances (23-25-01). The basic regulatory scheme is a permit system with
the right of on-site inspection (23-25-05). The regulations prohibit the
emission of any air contaminant that may cause a public nuisance. Odor
regulations are being drafted for review in September 1977. At the pres-
ent time DOH uses informal and formal hearings to prevent odor problems
on a case-by-case basis.
ADDRESS: Department of Health
Division of Environmental Engineering
1200 Missouri Blvd.
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
701/224-2374
NUISANCE
Both city and county boards of health have the authority to
inquire into all nuisances and to seek abatement if, in fact, a nuisance
is found (23-05-01, 23-05-04). Nuisances are broadly defined by statute
(42-01-01).
OHIO
Key to Legal Citation
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § (Page)
(§ )
(3704.03)
AIR
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) is responsible
for implementing the air pollution program (3704.03). Air contaminants
are broadly defined to include dust and odorous substances (3704.01).
The regulations prohibit the emission of fugitive dust or odors that
would constitute a nuisance.
ADDRESS: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P. 0. Box 1049
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
614/466-8565
NUISANCE
City and county boards of health may abate all public nuisances
(3707.01). They may also regulate the location, construction and repair
of yards, pens and stables (3707.01).
83
-------
OKLAHOMA
Key to Legal Citation
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit , § (West)
(tit , § )
(63-2002)
AIR
The Department of Health (DOH) and an advisory Air Quality
Council (AQC) are jointly responsible for implementing the state's air
pollution program (63-2002). The definition of air contaminants does
not include odors (63-2002). Cities and towns are not precluded from
enacting ordinances with respect to air pollution that are not in con-
flict with the state law, or from enacting ordinances dealing with
public nuisances (63-2004). The Oklahoma Clean Air Act does not
authorize DOH to limit, modify or in any way affect the powers, duties
or functions of the State Board of Agriculture.
ADDRESS: Department of Health
Air Quality Service
Northeast 10th & Stonewall Streets
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
405/271-5220
NUISANCE
Nuisances are broadly defined by statute to include anything
that annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety
of others (50-1). Nothing which is done under the express authority of
a statute may be deemed to be a nuisance (50-4). Therefore, feedlots
which operate under a State Board permit may not be declared to be
nuisances if they meet the requirements of operation contained in the
regulations (50-4). All nuisances may be abated or, in the case of a
public nuisance, there may be a criminal prosecution(50-8).
OREGON
Key to Legal Citation
Ore. Rev. Stat. §
(§ )
(468.275)
AIR
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is responsible
for implementing the air pollution program (468.275). Air contaminants
and air pollution are defined to include both fugitive dust and odors
(468.275).
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
1234 S.W. Morrison Street
Portland, Oregon 97205
503/229-5749
84
-------
NUISANCE
Both the State Board of Health and local boards have the author-
ity to abate nuisances which are threats to the public health (431.140).
PENNSYLVANIA
Key to Legal Citation
Pa. Stat. Ann. tit , § (Purdon)
(tit § )
(35-4003)
AIR
The Department of Environmental Resources (DER) and the Environ-
mental Quality Board (EQB) are the agencies responsible for implementing
the state's air pollution program (35-4003). Air contaminant is defined
to specifically include odors (35-4003). All new sources of air pollu-
tion are required to obtain permits (35-4006.1). DER has not enacted
any odor regulations. The DER, however, is not authorized to interfere
if a local air pollution control agency has been approved. In addition,
local governments may enact their own ordinances dealing with air pollu-
tion as long as they are not less stringent than the state rules (35-4012).
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Air Quality Control
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
717/787-9702
NUISANCE
On the state level the DER has the power to declare unsanitary
conditions to be public nuisances (71-510-17). Counties have relatively
significant nuisance abatement powers through the County Health Depart-
ment (16-12026). Counties have powers only in the unincorporated and
non-township areas (16-12013). Township sanitary boards also have the
authority to inspect for and abate nuisances, including hog pens, stables
and stableyards (53-66958). First-class townships may regulate manure
pits, slaughterhouses and pigpens to prohibit or to remove any noxious
business (53-56526). Boroughs have the authority to regulate the accumu-
lation of manure, compost and the like, as well as to prohibit the keeping
of hogs or other livestock within their boundaries (53-46202). Boroughs
may also abate nuisances (53-10608). First-class cities may regulate
stables for all stock but cattle, including the transportation and storage
of manure (53-14451-14452).
RHODE ISLAND
Key to Legal Citation
R.I. Gen. Laws §
(§ )
(23-25-5)
85
-------
AIR
The Department of Health (DOH) is responsible for implementing
the state's air pollution program (23-25-5). There is also a State Air
Pollution Advisory Board (23-25-4). Air contaminant is defined to in-
clude odors (23-25-3). There are no odor emission regulations.
ADDRESS: Department of Health
Division of Air Pollution Control
75 Davis Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
401/277-2808
NUISANCE
The attorney general or any citizen of the state may file an
action in the name of the state seeking to abate any nuisance conditions
(10-1-1). Cities and towns may regulate the location and maintenance of
all places for keeping animals and may enact rules and regulations deal-
ing with the time and manner of removing manure therefrom (23-19-1).
SOUTH CAROLINA
Key to Legal Citation
S.C. Code §
(§ )
(63-195.7)
AIR
The Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC),
Pollution Control Authority (PCA) is given primary responsibility for
implementing the air pollution control program (63-195.7). Although
the regulatory system is primarily a permitting system, there have been
no attempts to promulgate regulations dealing with the feedlot type
operation (63-195.14). Air contaminants are defined to include fugitive
dust, but odors are not directly mentioned. There are no odor or fugi-
tive dust regulations.
ADDRESS: Department of Health and Environmental Control
Bureau of Air Quality Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
803/758-5496
NUISANCE
The State Board of Health has the primary responsibility for
controlling and regulating nuisances (32-2). Local boards of health are
supervised by the state (32-12). The State Board's activities do not,
however, limit the right of any individual to bring an action to abate
a nuisance (32-10). The State Board has promulgated regulations defining
nuisances to include the feedlot type operation where excessive flies,
rodents or other vectors are produced.
86
-------
SOUTH DAKOTA
Key to Legal Citation
SiD. Compiled Laws Ann. §_
(§ )
(34-16A-2)
AIR
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the agency
responsible for implementing the air pollution program (34-16A-2). Air
contaminants are specifically defined to include odorous substances and
particulate matter (34-16A-2). A permit system is created for new
sources (34-16A-21). Regulatory powers are delegable to municipal and
county agencies (34-16A-41). DEP regulations prescribe the procedure
to be followed for abating odorous emissions. If five or more complaints
are received, DEP must investigate. The odor is deemed to be objection-
able only if a majority of the members of a five-person panel determine
that the odor tends to be unreasonably injurious to human health or
welfare. The emitter must take all reasonable steps, as required by
DEP, to control the objectionable odor.
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Protection
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
605/224-3351
NUISANCE
The State Public Health Advisory Committee has authority to
control public nuisances and sewage disposal (34-1-17). This power is
shared with municipalities(9-29-13). Cities may abate nuisances up
to one mile outside the city limits (9-29-1).
TENNESSEE
Key to Legal Citation
Tenn. Code Ann. §
(§ )
(53-4309)
AIR
The Department of Public Health (DPH) is responsible for imple-
menting the state's air pollution program (53-4309). The definition of
air contaminants does not specifically include odors (53-4309).
ADDRESS: Department of Public Health
Division of Air Pollution Control
Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
615/741-3931
87
-------
NUISANCE
Nuisances are broadly defined by statute (39-2903). Nuisances
may be abated by court action (39-2902).
TEXAS
Key to Legal Citation
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art
(art )
(4477-5)
AIR
The Texas Air Control Board (TACB) is the agency responsible for
implementing the air pollution program (4477-5). Air contaminant is de-
fined by statute to include both particulate matter and odor (4477-5).
The TACB grants construction and operating permits for new sources of air
contaminants (4477-5). The regulations provide that no person shall dis-
charge from any source one or more air contaminants that may tend to be
injurious to, or adversely affect human health or welfare, animal life,
vegetation or property (Rule 5). Under TACB Regulation VI, all new
facilities that may emit air contaminants must submit their plans for
approval and permit receipt. TACB also requires the facility to utilize
best available control technology, giving consideration to economic and
technical factors to reduce or eliminate the emissions, including odor,
resulting from the facility (Rule 603.16).
ADDRESS: Texas Air Control Board
8520 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, Texas 78758
512/451-5711
NUISANCE
In counties with a population in excess of 525,000, the main-
tenance of feedlots or slaughterhouses within 500 feet of an established
cemetery is declared to be a nuisance (930a-l). The state sets minimum
standards for sanitation and health protection and broadly defines
"nuisance" (4477-1). Local health officials may abate nuisances (4477-
1). No waste product or offal may be stored so as to cause either land
or water pollution (4477-1). Cities may regulate the depositing of
offensive substances within their jurisdiction and may compel the owner
of a stable, slaughterhouse or other unwholesome establishment to clean,
remove or abate the same (1015).
UTAH
Key to Legal Citation
Utah Code Ann. §
(§ )
(26-24-5)
88
-------
AIR
The Division of Health (DOH) and the Air Conservation Committee
(ACC) are responsible for implementing the state's air pollution program
(26-24-5). Membership on the ACC is earmarked for representatives of
various industries including one representative from the agricultural
area (26-24-4). Odor is not included in the definition of an air pollu-
tant (26-24-2). There are no odor or fugitive dust regulations.
ADDRESS: Department of Social Services
Division of Health
Bureau of Air Quality
44 Medical Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84113
801/328-6108
NUISANCE
Nuisances are broadly defined by statute (78-38-1). Odors may
cause a nuisance situation to occur, as was declared in a case dealing
with an animal rendering plant. The abatement of nuisances is entrusted
to local boards of health (26-5-5). They are under the aegis of the
State Division of Health (26-15-4).
VERMONT
Key to Legal Citation
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit , §
(tit , § )
(10-552)
AIR
The Agency for Environmental Conservation (AEC) is responsible for
implementing the state's air pollution program (10-552). The definition
of air contaminant includes odorous substances (10-552). The AEC has
promulgated regulations dealing with the prohibition of nuisances and
odor (Reg. 5-241). There is a blanket prohibition against the discharge
of any emission of objectionable odors beyond one's property line (Reg.
5-241). No technique is specified for the measurement of the odors.
The odor regulations are enforced solely on a citizen complaint basis.
ADDRESS: Agency for Environmental Conservation
Air Pollution Control Section
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
NUISANCE
Local health officials have the power to abate nuisances (9-610)
89
-------
VIRGINIA
Key to Legal Citation
Va. Code §
(§ )
(10-17.11)
AIR
The Air Pollution Control Board (APCB) is responsible for imple-
menting the state's air pollution program (10-17.11). Although the
statutory definition of air pollution does not specifically mention odor
(10-17.10), there are regulations which prohibit the discharging of an
odor which is objectionable to individuals of ordinary sensibility (Reg.
4.61). No measuring technique is mentioned; an odor panel survey is,
however, one recommended method for determining whether the regulation
has been violated. The APCB, in formulating relief from odor pollution
facilities, must consider economic and technological feasibility (Reg.
4.62).
ADDRESS: Air Pollution Control Board
Room 1106
9th Street State Office Bldg.
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804/786-2378
NUISANCE
Cities and counties have the primary responsibility for abating
nuisances. Counties may regulate the keeping of animals and fowl within
a certain distance of residences (15.1-517). Cities have general author-
ity to compel the abatement or removal of all nuisances (15.1-867). All
nuisance actions must be brought before a special grand jury before abate-
ment is possible (48-1).
WASHINGTON
Key to Legal Citation
Wash. Rev. Code §
(§ )
(43.21A.060)
AIR
The Department of Ecology (DOE), Air Resource Division, is
responsible for implementing the state's air pollution program (43.21A.
060). Air pollution control authority may be delegated to local agencies
consisting of one ore more cities and/or counties (70.94.053). Air
contaminant is specifically defined to include any odorous substances
(70.94.030). Under DOE regulations, every feedlot handling more than
1,000 animal units, and in some cases fewer, must register with DOE as
an air contaminant source (WAG 18-04-040, WAG 18-04-100). The regula-
tions call for registration of all cattle feedlots, but by administrative
90
-------
policy only the larger ones are required to seek permits. Local agencies
have the option of imposing higher standards but may not fall below the
minimum set by the state. The regulations call merely for the feedlot
operator to observe good housekeeping and management practices to control
the emission of dust and/or odor (WAG 18-04-040).
ADDRESS: Department of Ecology
Air Resource Division
Olympia, Washington 98504
206/753-2800
NUISANCE
Nuisances are broadly defined by statute (7.48.101). Several
cases have found that odors are sufficiently injurious to neighboring
landowners to become actionable nuisances.
WEST VIRGINIA
Key to Legal Citation
W. Va. Code §
(§ )
(16-20-4)
AIR
The Air Pollution Control Commission (APCC), which includes the
Commissioner of Agriculture as an ex officio member, is the ageny respon-
sible for implementing the air pollution program (16-20-4). The defini-
tion of air pollutants does not specifically include odors (16-20-2).
The water pollution regulations do, however, have an odor limit, which
is defined to be a threshold odor number of 8 at 40 degrees centigrade
(Reg. 7.01). The powers of the APCC do not diminish the powers of local
or state health officials to reduce or abate air pollution. APCC regu-
lations prohibit the emission of objectionable odors, which is to be
defined by a representative of the APCC. The regulations recommend
using the Barnabey-Cheney Scentometer or other recognized systems. An
exception is made for the "normal and necessary" operations associated
with the production of agricultural products or livestock or poultry
raised on the premises.
ADDRESS: Air Pollution Control Commission
1558 Washington Street, East
Charleston, West Virginia 25311
304/348-3286
NUISANCE
All municipalities have the authority to prevent injury to their
residents from anything that is offensive ot unwholesome and to regulate
or prohibit the keeping of animals or fowls within the city limits (8-
12-5). The State Board of Health has general authority concurrent with
local boards to abate nuisances (16-2A-1, 16-1-3).
91
-------
WISCONSIN
Key to Legal Citation
Wis. Stat. Ann. § (West)
(§ )
(144.30)
AIR
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for
implementing the state's air pollution program. Air contaminants are
defined to specifically include odorous substances (144.30). The regu-
lations provide that no person shall cause or allow an emission that
results in an objectionable odor unless preventive measures satisfactory
to DNR are taken to control such an emission (Reg. NR 154.18). An objec-
tionable odor is determined by either of two methods. The first is
merely an investigation with findings made as to intensity, frequency
and duration of odor, as well as to the type of area involved. The
second test requires that 60% of a random sample of persons exposed to
the odor claim it to be objectionable (Reg. NR 154.18). Abatement tech-
niques recommended include removal and disposal of the odorous substance,
changes in methods of handling and storage so as to minimize odor prob-
lems, and the following of prescribed standards in the maintenance of
the premises. The statute provides for counties to adopt and administer
local air pollution control programs, including regulation of emissions
within the corporate boundaries of the cities contained within the
counties (144.41).
ADDRESS: Department of Natural Resources
Air Quality Control Section
Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
608/266-1199
NUISANCE
Any individual county, city, village or town may bring an action
to abate a public nuisance (823.01). Violations of city ordinances may
rise to the level of a nuisance and may be enjoined (823.07). Nuisances
are broadly defined to include any source of filth (146.14). The cost
of abating nuisance may be charged against the owner of the premises
(146.14). Any city or village may restrict the location and construction
or may license any industry which carries on a nauseous, offensive or
unwholesome business within the corporate limits or within four miles
outside its boundaries (66.052).
WYOMING
Key to Legal Citation
Wyo. Stat. §
(§ )
(35-502)
92
-------
AIR
The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Air Quality
Division (AQD), is the agency responsible for implementing the state's
air pollution program (35-502.5). There is, in addition, an advisory
board to AQD made up of five members, one of whom must represent agri-
cultural interests (35.502.13). Air contaminants and air pollution
are defined to include both dust and odors. AQD has issued regulations
that specifically deal with the odor problem (Air Reg. Sect. 16). Odor
emissions are measured at the property line and may be no greater than
seven dilutions of odor-free air as measured on a scentometer. Two
measurements must be taken within one hour before a violation is found.
Odor producing materials must be stored so as to minimize odor emissions,
Since it is an ambient air quality standard, all new or modified sources
of odor must receive construction and operating permits issued by AQD.
ADDRESS: Department of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Division
State Office Building, West
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
307/777-7391
NUISANCE
The State Board of Health is given primary responsibility for
abating nuisances (35-5).
93
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Intijiictions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-083
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
CONTROL OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION ODORS:
THE-ART
THE STATE-OF-
7. AUTHOR(S)
R. Douglas Kreis
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory-Ada,OK
P. 0. Box 1198
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
April 1978 issuing date
6, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB770
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
In-house
12. SPONSORiNG AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,01
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Ada, OK
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
State-of-the-Art - Current
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Odors emanating from animal production facilities are the primary environmental
cause for complaint resulting in great corrective expense and, in many instances,
facility closure. The current state-of-the-art of odor control technology ranges
from intensive waste management and good housekeeping practices to chemical treatment
and facility isolation. These controls at best only limit the generation and/or
quality of animal production odors. The most effective odor limiting technologies
are the most cost intensive. Therefore, the methods used are dependent upon the
seriousness of the situation and the cost-benefit that may be derived from their use.
Original facility design and site selection considerations are of great
importance to the existence of confined animal feeding enterprises with a non-farm
population which is encroaching at increasing rates into rural areas. Land use
planning and zoning restrictions for agricultural/animal feeding purposes may well
be the ultimate odor control tool of the future for newly instituted facilities.
Extensive basic and applied research is required to provide adequate technology
for use by existing facilities.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Agricultural Wastes
Air Pollution
Odor Control
Dust
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Manure
Toxic Substances
Volatile Organics
c. COS AT l Field/Group
43F
68A
68D
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
104
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
94
. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978-757-140/6821 Region No. 5-11
------- |