Des Moines Register
12-06-07
OK funding to test livestock-odor controls
It's hard to believe the No. 1 pork-producing state in the nation doesn't already
know which odor-control practices work best and are most cost-effective.
That's apparently the case, however, since a state task force is recommending
the 2008 Legislature spend $23 million to gather more information about best
practices for hog, poultry and cattle facilities. Several hundred farms will be test
sites on a voluntary basis over five years. Producers will share the cost for some
of this applied research. "Part of the solution is to have this additional data," said
Wendy Wintersteen, Iowa State University's agriculture dean.
Fine, then spend the money, but at the end of the study - or sooner if enough
information is available - the Legislature should require livestock operations with
odor issues to adopt proven control methods.
That will help address concerns of neighbors and send the message nationally
that Iowa cares about its quality of life. It's embarrassing that residents and
visitors sometimes gag from the stink while driving along Interstates 35 and 80.
No state or federal laws regulate livestock industry odor. Despite bitter disputes
in rural Iowa over stench and health controls, Iowa lawmakers have resisted
controlling air pollution from confinements.
It's not clear how much the $23 million proposal would reduce odor: "I don't
know, but we are going to get something," said Rich Leopold, Iowa Department
of Natural Resources director.
The $23 million proposal came from an alliance including Leopold, Wintersteen
and Iowa Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey. Their collaboration on this issue
holds promise for delivering practical solutions for rural Iowa, rather than
perpetuating a standoff between agricultural interests and environmental
activists.
They should change their proposal, however, to make all test results public. As it
stands, the plan calls for shielding individual farms' test results to encourage
participation. When anyone accepts public dollars, full disclosure should be part
of the trade-off. It also will increase public confidence in the test results.
The purpose of the $23 million proposal is twofold, to find out more about:
- Well-known methods of odor control, such as covers for manure storage, tree
buffers and biofilters that use compost to clean air leaving buildings. Research
could look at whether a biofilter should run 24/7 or just part of the time, saving
electricity costs.
- Experimental techniques, such as air scrubbers and ultraviolet radiation
treatment of waste.
Marian Riggs Gelb, executive director of the nonprofit Iowa Environmental
Council, said Iowa should look at ways to get the most public benefit from the
$23 million: "I think that supporting the demonstrating and testing of new
technologies that hold the potential to reduce odor is a good use of those funds."
Gelb said that new facilities should be required now to adopt proven, costeffective odor-control methods as part of their manure-management plans and
that such a requirement should be phased in for existing facilities.
Northey said that farmers come to him all the time with questions about the best,
most cost-effective ways to control odor, and that more information is needed. He
could not estimate the share of producers already using odor-mitigation methods,
but said some do.
All producers should use available knowledge to reduce odor. It's called being a
good neighbor. The $23 million proposal should better educate farmers about
what else works.