Using Vegetative Environmental Buffers for Odor Mitigation

Vegetative Environmental Buffers
& Air Quality
John Tyndall
Department of Natural Resource Ecology & Management
Iowa State University
Photo: J. Lorimor; photoshop manipulation J. Tyndall

Presentation Outline
• Odor and odor mitigation
• VEB and odor dynamics
• VEB design issues
• Research brief
• Questions…

Common Pollutants
• Odor (VOC’s)
• Dust (PM)
• Ammonia (NH 3 )
• Hydrogen sulfide
(H 2 S)
Image: R. Burns, ISU

Primary Emission Sources
• Livestock buildings and lots
• Manure and wastewater storage facilities
• Land application
Photos: R. Burns, ISU

Air Pollution Control Points
Odor, Dust, and Chemical Compounds
• Prevent generation
• Capture or destroy
before releasing to
the atmosphere
• Disperse to reduce
impact
3,000 + Head Finishing Facility
Central, Iowa

Possible Approaches To Odor
Problems
• Manure Storage Covers
• Manure Composting
• Manure Additives
• Manure Injection
• Application Timing
• Aeration
• Anaerobic Digestion
• Genetic Engineering?
Photo: R. Burns, ISU

Possible Approaches To Odor
Problems
• Bio-filtration
• Diet Manipulation
• Oil Sprinkling
• Solids Separation
• Air Filtration
• Barriers
• Landscaping
Single Row, 8 yr old Austree
VEB, Eastern IA
Photo: J. Love, ISU

Goals of Vegetative Environmental Buffer
1.Visual screen
2.Vegetative filter
3.Windbreak +
Shade

Odor / VEB Dynamics
Odor
• Ground level emissions
• Limited plume rise
• Spatial & temporal
variability
• Particulates & Odor
VEB’s (15’ +)
• Dilution
• Particulate Interception
• Deposition
• Aesthetics
Photo: J. Tyndall
Single row, 8 yr old Austree Willow
Odor Buffer, Winterset, IA

Unabated Odor Plumes (Particulates)
Prevailing winds
Naturally Ventilated
Swine Barn
Computer simulation by Lammers et al., 2001

Simulation of Odor Dilution Process
Prevailing Winds
H
Adapted Computer from Raine simulation (1974) by as Lammers used in McNaughton et al., 2001 (1988)
Note: Overlay not to scale

Physical Interception of Dust
• ≈ 90 % of odor particles are in the size range best
captured by trees
• Odor particles are irregular in shape = better for
retention on tree surfaces
• The whole above ground part of tree acts as
surface area for filtration
• Precipitation can wash tree surfaces clean
poultry building ventilation
dust on W. Cedar
Photo: J. Tyndall

Aesthetics & Odor Perception
Studies have shown that :
As farm “attractiveness”
odor offensiveness
Out of sight out of mind:
Softening visual cues
Photos: J. Lorimor (ISU)

Iowa:
Aesthetic Focus Group Findings:
Iowa Pork Consumers Summer 2004
• High preferences for more trees in Iowa
landscape.
• High agreement that shelterbelts improve
aesthetics of confinement production.
• High appreciation for “visual” response to
odor issues.

Building, Planned Year 10 5 Facility Year - 15 1 planting Site
• (3-4 year old Red Cedar Stock)
Simulations courtesy of B. Malone, U of Delaware

Other Benefits of VEB’s
• Size Neutral - Large or small producers
• Can help with all sources of odor
• Comparatively very inexpensive.
• In theory – increased effectiveness over time
Photo: TS
USDA

Odor Mitigation = incremental reductions in odor
Research suggests VEB’s ≈ 6% - 10% ↓ in odor
• “suite” of odor management strategies
FIDO factor reduction
enhancing the
separation distance
Photo: G. Wyatt,
U. of Mn. Extension

Planting Design
Issues

Main summer wind filter zone and winter windbreak
Min 250’
Natural Ventilation
Snow deposition
area
Hog Building
Pit vents
Access road
• Goals of producer
• Functional Zones
• Create no hazards
Minimum of 10 H
between tree row
and building
N
N
Wider spacing between trees (25’ +)
Not to scale
June – Aug Nov – Feb
wind rose for
Central Iowa

Snow Deposition zone – min 150’
Min 10 x diameter of fans
Tunnel Ventilation
Main Highway
Pit
Vents
Tunnel
Vents
Concrete
Manure Store
100’x15’
• Goals of producer
• Functional Zones
• Create no hazards
100’x15’
N
N
Access Road
Minimum of 10 H
between tree row
and building
Not to scale
June – Aug Nov – Feb
wind rose for
Central Iowa

Some visual screening from B.Woods Rd N – might cause snow probs
N
1
≈40’ b/w row & building
E. Wind
block
2
Visual
screening
3
≈ 155’ from access rd
≈ 60’ b/w rows
≈ 55’ from access rd
Artificial wind screen can be within about 5-10
times diameter of vent fan without back
pressure.
Winter Snow deposition
Zone & Summer odor filter
= Austree Willow
= E. Red Cedar
= Red Osier Dogwood
5
≈ 55’
from rd.
4
This row is about 8 – 9 H; if summer wind is
needed move back 80 – 100ft

Row Silver closest Maple: to building Near-by - market. Austree High Willow Demand - Visual = Screen; High Stumpage Life span Rates 15-20 years.
Outside 15 - 20 row year – Concolor rotation - or $2,500 Norway - $3,200. Spruce 20 – 30’ in 20 years
20-35’
100’ – 150’

Proper site prep will:
• Tree Mortality
• Tree Growth (upwards of 70%)
• Ultimately time, $, and effort.
• 1 Yr Before:
– 4’ Kill strip (e.g. Round Up)
– Disk/cultivate (work soil to 8” depth)
• Yr 1 (Spring – late April/Early May)
– Disk/ cultivate again & if possible rototill
– Soil should have no clumps & minimal residue

www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/ shelterbelt/shbpub13.htm
Tree Care Options: Drip Irrigation
Tree
10 – 12”

Mulching
Source: www.hort.cornell.edu

Weed Control Demo

Economics: Cost Details
• Examining upfront costs for site prep, planting
stock, planting & maintenance costs over time:
– Low Cost scenario (≈$0.75/tree) over 20 years:
• Seedling stock ≈ $0.03/pig produced
– High Cost scenario (≈$11/tree) over 20 years:
• Larger (5-6 year old) tree stock ≈ $0.33/pig produced
• With extensive drip irrigation add ≈ $0.008/pig

Current ISU Research
• Field Odor Reduction studies:
– Bio-physical & Socio - Economic
• Multi-departmental: Nat Res, Ag Syst
Bio-engineering, Sociology, Animal
Science
• Partners: Penn State University and the
University of Delaware

“Before & After” VEB Field Study
25’
N
R. Cedar
Willow
Air samples:
• Odor
• Ammonia
• PM 10
• PM2.5
Mobile Emissions Lab

Sparboe Pullet Facility, Eagle Grove, IA - 2005
Photo: J. Love, ISU

What's next research-wise?
1)National Pork Board funded –More field and wind
tunnel studies with USDA ARS –NTL
2) Expand research to other species: Beef, Dairy
3) More Extension programming…
A
Previous Wind Tunnel Conclusions -
Up to a 56 % reduction in off-farm dust movement
ISU – Laird and Thernelius, 1997
B

VEB Summary
• Biophysical & Social quantification – “incremental”
– More research on the way
• Relatively inexpensive – but it is an expense…
– Cost-share programming may become important
• Fastest growing application
of shelterbelts
• More info becoming
available from ISU

8 Year old Austree Willow
Thank You for your time!
Are there any questions?

Contact Info:
Dr. John Tyndall
Phone: 515.294.4912
jtyndall@iastate.edu

Lin et al, 2006

Lin et al, 2006

55% Optical
Porosity
35% Optical
Porosity
Lin et al, 2006

Dollars ($) ($) per per head
VEB Economics
Shelterbelt Cost vs. Odor Mgt Expenditures
High Price Scenarios
Seedling Price Scenarios
0.8
0.7
0.6
$ $ 0.69
0.69
0.5
Expenditures
0.4
0.3
0.2
$
$
0.24
0.24
$ 0.24
$ $ 0.37
W/out EQIP
EQIP
0.1
0
Farm A -
Farm B -
Farm C - -
Farm D D - -
10,500 Head
2,025 Head
1,600 Head
1,000 Head
Data: Tyndall, 2007 and USDA, 1996

Willingness to Pay
(cents per head)
Iowa Pork Producer Demand Curve for VEB’s
Based on 2005 Iowa
Pork Producer
Survey Data:
75% of Iowa’s
Producers are
Willing To Pay for
VEB’s
120
100
80
13%
60%
25% of Iowa’s
Producers
WTP = 0
60
40
20
VEB Costs $0.33/ Head
VEB Costs $0.03/ Head
0
3
8
17
36
53
70
74
100
Data: Tyndall, 2007
Percent of Producers

Missouri NRCS Publication
EQIP being used to a high
degree for VEB’s
• Our work here at
ISU is the primary
reference.