Air Issues Associated with Animal Agriculture: a North American Perspective

Number 47 May 2011

Air Issues Associated with Animal Agriculture: A North American Perspective

Abstract The purpose of this CAST Issue Paper is to go beyond the general- izations and accusations often associated with the air quality topic. Experts from six universities examine a large amount of data and focus their information and conclusions around the key livestock areas: swine, poultry, dairy, and beef. Their critical analyses look at a wide scope of issues, from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the logistics of manure storage facilities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is increasing efforts to monitor emissions from agriculture, so further research is important for all parties involved, and this paper pro- vides solid, science-based information. Studies indicate that large livestock production facilities lower the value of residences within 4.8 kilometers (km; three miles) of the facility. Other economic studies also indicate, however, that the businesses increase economic activity in the county and state. For the greater good of the rural community, a com- promise needs to be reached between the positive and negative impacts of livestock production facilities using a common-sense approach that considers both regulatory and market forces. Air emissions attributed to animal agriculture consist of odorous and gaseous compounds as well as In the past 15 to 20 years, air quality issues associated with the livestock and poul- particulate matter associated with try industries have become a growing concern for the public. (Photo from iStock.) manure and animal management. While localized problems associated as those attributed to GHG, are be- lutants. The authors also examine the with odor tend to get highlighted, coming huge regulatory issues. This disparity between the results of the gaseous compounds having local- paper looks at some of the mitiga- EPA’s estimations of GHG emissions ized or regional impacts, such as tion techniques being employed to and the findings of the Food and ammonia, and global concerns, such decrease the effects of the aerial pol- Agriculture Organization (FAO) of

This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Grants No. 2010- 38902-20899, No. 2009-38902-20041, and No. 2008-38902-19327 and USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Agreement No. 59-0202-7-144. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of USDA, NIFA, or ARS. CAST Issue Paper 47 Task Force Members Frank M. Mitloehner, Department Richard R. Stowell, Departments Authors of Animal Science, University of of Biological Systems Engineering Larry D. Jacobson (Chair), Depart- California–Davis and Animal Science, University of ment of Bioproducts and Biosystems Alan L. Sutton, Department of Nebraska–Lincoln Engineering, University of Minne- Animal Science, Purdue University, Lingying Zhao, Department of sota, St. Paul West Lafayette, Indiana Food, Agricultural, and Biological Brent W. Auvermann, Department Hongwei Xin, Department of Agri- Engineering, The Ohio State Uni- of Biological and Agricultural cultural and Biosystems Engineering, versity, Columbus Engineering, Texas A&M Univer- Iowa State University, Ames sity, Amarillo CAST Liaison Ray Massey, Department of Ag- Reviewers A. David Scarfe, American ricultural and Applied Economics, Garth W. Boyd, Camco Global, Veterinary Medical Association, University of Missouri, Columbia Topsail Beach, North Carolina Schaumburg, Illinois

the United Nations. sions data for U.S. animal feeding in the southeastern United States A few of the many specific find- operations (AFOs) and recommended with a major poultry producer that ings include: diet composition has a the development of credible meth- measured NH3, H2S, greenhouse significant impact on emissions; miti- odologies for estimating air emis- gases (GHGs—CH4 [methane], CO2, gation methods, such as covering the sions. The American Public Health and N2O [nitrous oxide]), volatile manure storage surface, can greatly Association (2003) called for a mora- organic compounds (VOCs), and PM decrease odor emissions; and aeration torium on new AFOs until their im- emissions (ISU 2006). of the storage basin or employing an- pact on the environment and health The EPA recently (January 2011) aerobic digestion of the manure will was better understood. In 2001, the released air emission data on their also reduce the odor, but with higher U.S. Department of Agriculture– website, http://www.epa.gov/airqual- costs. The much-quoted study entitled Initiative for Future Agricultural and ity/agmonitoring/index.html, from the Livestock’s Long Shadow distinguish- Food Systems program funded two National Air Emissions Monitoring es between intensive and extensive multistate studies that monitored am- Study. This study, which was the livestock production; U.S. production monia (NH3) emissions from poultry main portion of the EPA ACA studies, is intensive so it does not have the (broiler and layer) buildings (Iowa, includes emissions data from barns GHG emissions associated with poor Kentucky, Pennsylvania) and NH3, and manure storage sites across the feed quality and deforestation. hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon diox- United States for dairy (nine farms in 1 ide (CO2), particulate matter (PM), California, Indiana, New York, Texas, and odor emissions from swine and Washington, and Wisconsin), swine Introduction poultry buildings (Illinois, Indiana, (eleven farms in Indiana, Iowa, North Historically, environmental con- Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Carolina, and Oklahoma), broiler cerns and regulations of animal agri- Texas). (one farm in California), and layer culture have focused on water quality. In 2005, the United States (three farms in California, Indiana, In the past 15 to 20 years, air quality Environmental Protection Agency and North Carolina) operations. issues associated with the livestock (EPA) settled on an Air Compliance Air pollutants monitored include and poultry industries have become a Agreement (ACA) (USEPA 2005) PM, H2S, NH3, and VOCs (USEPA growing concern for the public, lead- with various livestock and poultry 2006a). The EPA cites the Clean Air ing to increased attention on enforc- industry groups with the goals of (1) Act (CAA) goal of protecting public ing air quality regulations for animal monitoring and evaluating air emis- health and environmental quality as agriculture and new multimedia regu- sions from AFOs, (2) decreasing air the legislation directing it to poten- latory efforts. pollution, and (3) ensuring compli- tially regulate air quality from animal In 2003, a report by the National ance by AFOs with applicable legis- agriculture, if emissions are found Research Council (National Academy lation and regulation. Another ACA to exceed threshold levels triggering of Sciences), Air Emissions from study was conducted in 2005–2006 regulation. Animal Feeding Operations: Current Air emissions associated with Knowledge, Future Needs , acknowl- 1 Italicized terms (except genus/species names and animal agriculture consist of odor- edged the lack of baseline air emis- published material titles) are defined in the Glossary. ous and gaseous compounds and PM

2 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY associated with manure and animal nants (USEPA 2008), and (2) includ- port used a comprehensive LCA for management. Odor problems tend to ing manure management in their list livestock versus only direct emissions be localized to within a few kilome- of GHG emission sources that must for transportation, thereby elevating ters of a production facility. Most annually report their emissions to the livestock’s relative contribution to cli- gaseous compounds are also more in- EPA (USEPA 2009a). mate change. tense locally, but some have regional The EPA Inventory of U.S. As mentioned earlier, the EPA’s or even national importance when Greenhouse Gas Emissions and annual GHG inventory calculated a redeposited on land or in water, or Sinks: 1990–2008 estimates that total of 203 Mt CO2 Eq/yr from U.S. when they react to form secondary of the 6,957 million metric tons of animal agriculture, which is 2.9% of particles that can be transported long carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2 the total U.S. anthropogenic GHG distances. For example, NH3 loss into Eq) produced in the United States emissions (USEPA 2010). The dis- the atmosphere can have negative im- in 2008, 532 Mt CO2 Eq (7.6%) parity between the EPA and FAO pacts on the environment, such as soil are from agricultural activities. Of estimations of GHG emissions from acidification andeutrophication of the agricultural emissions, 203 Mt livestock agriculture occurs primar- surface waters. When combined with CO2 Eq (2.9%) are directly emit- ily because of the weight both place nitric or sulfuric acid, atmospheric ted by animal production (USEPA on livestock-related land use changes. NH3 can form fine particles that may 2010). The EPA follows the UN Specifically, the FAO identifies land impair human health and decrease Intergovernmental Panel on Climate use change (principally deforesta- visibility. Animal agriculture is also a Change (IPCC) 2007 report, Good tion to establish new pasture lands) significant source of GHGs, which are Practice Guidance and Uncertainty as the number one global source of of global importance (IPCC 2007). Management in National Greenhouse livestock-related emissions (34% of Air quality associated with ani- Gas Inventories, recommendation of the FAO’s total livestock-related GHG mal agriculture has historically been setting priorities among GHG sources emissions) (Steinfeld et al. 2006). But unregulated or minimally regulated. and sinks within the national inven- land use change to supply new pasture That, however, has been changing in tory. A source is designated a key lands is not occurring in the United many states with regulation at sev- category when it has a “significant States, and the amount of forestland in eral levels of political jurisdiction. influence on the country’s total inven- the nation has increased during recent The EPA and other federal and state tory of GHGs in terms of the absolute years because of more sustainable agencies, such as the Occupational level of emissions, the trend in emis- timbering and farming practices and Safety and Health Administration, are sions, or both.” The EPA listed 19 key the abandonment of former farmlands responsible for air quality as it affects categories based on 2008 emission (Pitesky, Stackhouse, and Mitloehner the health of workers and nearby resi- levels and trends. Key categories 7, 2009). Furthermore, transportation dents. State and local governments 15, and 18 on the list are CH4 emis- and other industries dwarf the rela- have begun to enact regulations to sions from enteric fermentation, CH4 tive contributions livestock has made minimize the impact of air emissions emissions from manure management, on total carbon (C) portfolios in de- from AFOs on nearby neighbors, and N2O emissions from manure veloped countries. For example, the businesses, and public spaces. management, respectively (USEPA U.S. transportation sector accounts for 2010). 26% of all GHG versus 3 to 4% for Using a Life Cycle Assessment livestock (Pitesky, Stackhouse, and Regulatory Issues (LCA) methodology, the United Mitloehner 2009; USEPA 2009b). The EPA is increasing its efforts Nations FAO report titled Livestock’s In Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. to ensure that air emissions from Long Shadow: Environmental Issues EPA (2004), the Second Circuit Court agriculture, including AFOs, meet and Options estimated that global of Appeals affirmed that the EPA can the EPA’s environmental standards livestock account for 9%, 35 to 40%, regulate point sources of emissions and their recent statement on human and 65% of the total global anthropo- in agriculture. In American Farm health risks from GHGs. The most genic-emitted CO2, CH4, and N2O, Bureau Federation and National notable efforts were the two ACAs, respectively, which equated to 7,100 Pork Producers Council et al. v. EPA mentioned previously, between Mt CO2 Eq/yr (Eq/year), or 18% of (2009), the Court decided that the the EPA and livestock and poultry global anthropogenic GHG emis- EPA’s decision to regulate emissions groups. Other EPA efforts directed sions (Steinfeld et al. 2006). A recent of PM in rural areas was legal. This toward agriculture entail (1) includ- paper by Pitesky, Stackhouse, and case is the first to allow regulation ing sustainable production agricul- Mitloehner (2009) questioned the va- of PM air emissions in rural areas ture in the 2009–2014 EPA Strategic lidity of the FAO (2006) comparison (except for engine emissions from Plan Change Document with a goal of between global livestock and trans- off-road equipment) and accepts the decreasing GHG emissions/contami- portation GHGs. The 2006 FAO re- use of the “precautionary principle”

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3 in justifying regulations. The precau- Alma v. Furnas County Farms 2003). buildings. Manure is typically stored tionary principle argues that an action Economic theory would suggest in liquid form within these buildings is to be avoided if the consequences that odors from animal agriculture in a pit beneath the animal space for of an action are unknown but judged would decrease the value of real es- a period of only several days to as to have some potential for major con- tate near the feeding facility. A sum- long as a year. Deep pits (8–10 feet sequences. In this particular case, the mary of economic literature (Ulmer deep) are commonly used to facilitate Court concluded “the agency need and Massey 2006) on the impact long-term storage of manure within not wait for conclusive findings be- of AFOs on residential land values these buildings, but long-term stor- fore regulating a pollutant it reason- found the following: (1) five of eight age allows manure to decompose and ably believes may pose a significant studies did find that AFOs lowered release resulting biogases. In another risk to public health” (American Farm residential property values; and (2) common system, often referred to as Bureau Federation and National any decrease in property values was a pull-plug system, manure is stored Pork Producers Council et al. v. EPA localized, or limited to properties less for only about a week within shallow 2009). than 4.8 km (three miles) from the pits and then removed from the build- Many states (Iowa, Missouri, AFO. ings routinely to outside storage facil- Oklahoma, etc.) regulate the siting ities to keep gas levels low within the of AFOs via setback distances be- animal building. If not covered, these nimal roduction tween AFOs and residences, busi- A P outside storage facilities (earthen, nesses, and public use areas (parks, Operations’ Air Emissions above- or in-ground concrete or steel churches, schools, etc.). These regu- and Air Quality tanks) can emit considerable amounts lations are justified on a nuisance of gas. Swine also may be housed in or air quality/odor rationale. Other Swine buildings (such as hoop barns) that states (Minnesota, Nebraska, etc.) Introduction use added bedding—typically straw, have county or even township (local) In pork production, gaseous com- cornstalks, or sawdust—and pro- control over siting of AFOs. The set- pounds are primarily generated from duce solid manure. Swine manure is back distances vary by state, type of anaerobic microbial decomposition almost always applied to cropland as animal building, and AFO size. The of organic matter in animal manure fertilizer. assumption is that concentrations of and spoiled feedstuff. Gaseous com- Following is a discussion of both odor and other air pollutants diminish pounds originate from the breakdown the concentrations of air pollutants with distance and the setback distance of various specific components of inside or near swine buildings and keeps the AFOs from negatively im- the pig’s diet or normal excretion of manure storages and the mass flow or pacting nearby residents. compounds from metabolism; there- emissions of the airborne pollutants State courts also have ruled that fore, diet composition has a signifi- from pork production sites, in order of the odor from AFOs can create a li- cant impact on the concentrations and their perceived importance. ability. A Missouri court in 2010 emissions of gaseous compounds. ruled that odor from one of Premium Greenhouse gases (CH4, N2O, and Ammonia Standard Farm’s swine operations CO2) are derived primarily from mi- Ammonia concentrations inside created an odor nuisance (Owens et crobial decomposition of manure in studied swine confinement buildings al. v. ContiGroup Companies et al. addition to normal animal respira- have been shown to vary widely, from not yet on file). A Nebraska court tion (CO2). Particulate matter gener- as low as 1.9 parts per million (ppm) ruled that residences could not build ates from feed systems, dried manure, to as high as 25.9 ppm, depending on within 0.8 kilometer (a half mile) and animal dander. Airborne microbes, the cleanliness condition of the build- of an AFO because of odor and dust otherwise classified as bioaerosols, ing (Duchaine, Grimard, and Cormier (Larry Coffey v. County of Otoe generate from animals and manure and 2000) and on the time of year and/ 2008). Some counties and town- may be attached to PM. Bioaerosols or barn ventilation rate (Heber et al. ships are beginning to regulate AFOs need not be alive and viable to impair 1997, 2000, 2004, 2005). Generally, because of human health concerns. human health, as in the case of bacte- farrowing rooms and nurseries had In Missouri, 21 counties or town- rial endotoxin. lower NH3 concentrations than swine ships have instituted zoning or public Sources of gaseous emissions in gestation or grow-finishing facili- health department regulations citing pork production include the build- ties (Jacobson et al. 2006; Zhu et al. air quality as a human health concern ings that house the animals, manure 2000). As one might expect, ambient (Milhollin 2010). Nebraska courts storage structures, and manure dur- NH3 concentrations diminished rapid- have ruled that municipalities can ing and after land application. Most ly with the downwind distances from regulate AFOs, though primarily for swine are housed in either mechani- swine buildings (Stowell et al. 2000). water quality concerns (Community of cally or naturally ventilated enclosed Arogo, Westerman, and Heber

4 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (2003) conducted a literature review Table 1. Odor emissions/concentrations levels in sample studies. on research studies that reported NH3 emissions from swine operations in- Source Odor Emissions Odor Concentrations Reference cluding buildings, lagoons, and field 1,200-head grow-finish 10,000–12,000 OU/sa 650–1,600 OU/m3 b Jacobson, Hetchler, applications of swine wastes. They pig buildings and Schmidt (2007) concluded that there are many factors 3 affecting NH emission rates includ- Fan-ventilated swine Mean of 23.5 OU/s/AU Mean of 519 OU/m Heber et al. (2004) 3 finishing buildings ing housing type; animal size, age, flushed daily with and type; manure management, stor- lagoon effluent age, and treatment; and climatic vari- 3 ables. Because of these many factors, Swine nursery buildings 51 OU/s/pig– 190 OU/m in exhaust Lim, Heber, with under-floor liquid 2.1 OU/s/m2 air; 18 OU/m3 outside and Ni (1999) it is difficult to determine specific manure storage pits building NH3 emission values for all types of swine operations across the coun- Four 1,000-head Average of 96 OU/s/pig Average of 294 OU/m3 Heber et al. (1998) 2 try. In a multistate research project finishing buildings or 5.0 OU/s/m (ranged from 12 to 1,586 OU/m3) involving different life-cycle aspects of pork production (Jacobson et al. aPer second bPer cubic meter 2004, 2006), average NH3 emissions were 48 and 30 grams/day/animal unit (g/day/AU) for gestating and far- old for that reference odorant. This ties. Hydrogen sulfide concentration rowing sows, respectively, and aver- definition allows scientists to evaluate levels spiked briefly to 3,000 ppb or 3 age NH3 emissions for the finishing the strength of an arbitrary mixture of ppm in the barn when liquid manure barns ranged from 102 to 130 g/day/ odorants using dilution olfactometry was drained (pull-plug system) in the AU in a deep-pit system and 77 to 81 and translate the mixture’s “dilutions gestation sow building. Swine finish- g/day/AU from a pull-plug barn. An to threshold” value into the pseudo- ing buildings that are mechanically observation by Heber and colleagues mass quantity OU. Refer to Table 1 ventilated with deep-pit manure stor- (2005) was that hourly NH3 emission for swine building odor emission and age had mean indoor concentrations of was positively correlated with indoor concentration studies. H2S from 38 to 536 ppb over a period and outdoor temperatures, ventila- of six months (Ni et al. 2002a,b). tion rate, and total live pig weight. Volatile Fatty Acids and Volatile Farrowing (lactating sow) barns Pig activity and NH3 emission rate Organic Compounds give off less H2S emissions than ges- displayed similar diurnal patterns. Volatile organic compounds mea- tating sow buildings, as do finishing Carter, Lachmann, and Bundy (2008) sured at three swine farms (8,000- pigs in pull-plug versus deep-pit barns showed that changing the diet of pigs head nursery; 2,000- and 3,000-head (Jacobson et al. 2006). Hydrogen can have a major impact on NH3 emis- finishing buildings) showed mean sulfide emissions from a 1,200-head sions from swine production buildings. total VOC emissions of 204, 291, grow-finish pig building studied by They reported that the use of a low and 258 µg/s/m2 (micrograms/sec- Jacobson, Hetchler, and Schmidt protein and synthetic amino acid diet ond/square meter) for the nursery and (2007) ranged from 400 to 775 g/d compared to a control diet decreased two finishing buildings, respectively (0.3 to 0.65 g/d/pig) over three sea- NH3 emissions by almost half. (Bicudo et al. 2002). A wean-to-fin- sons (winter, spring, and summer). ish pig growth study conducted by Also, mean H2S emissions for two Odor Radcliffe and colleagues (2008) re- 1,000-head finishing buildings were Because gaseous compounds as- ported volatile fatty acid (VFA) emis- 590 g/d/building or 6.3 g/d/AU (Ni et sociated with odor vary widely in mo- sions with a range of 30 to 70 and 40 al. 2002c). The average H2S emission lecular weight and odorant strength, to 100 millimoles/day/pig from pigs for the entire study was 0.72 g/d/pig. the concept of an “odor unit” (OU) fed a low-nutrient excretion diet and a These rates were directly proportion- was developed as a means of normal- control commercial diet, respectively. al to room temperatures and air flow izing the specifically odor-related ef- rates. Pig size was not a significant fect of an arbitrarily selected odorant Hydrogen Sulfide parameter. or mixture of odorants. In general, an Indoor mean H2S concentrations OU is defined as the mass of a refer- have been found to be higher in ges- Greenhouse Gases ence odorant (e.g., n-butanol) that, tating buildings (600 parts per billion Greenhouse gas emissions spe- when dispersed in the gas phase into [ppb]) than in farrowing barns (300 cifically related to swine production odor-free air, results in an odor pre- ppb), according to a study by Jacobson systems in Canada were estimated by cisely at the human detection thresh- and colleagues (2006) involving dif- Laguë (2003) as a total of 1,835 kilo- ferent phases of pork production facili- tons (kt) CO2. This corresponds to ap-

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5 proximately 3% of the total Canadian mean value of 3.54 mg/m3 (3.54 mil- ing barns. Bioaerosols assayed in 24 GHG agricultural emissions, 0.3% ligrams/m3; ranging from 2.15 to 5.60 swine confinement buildings showed of the total Canadian anthropogenic mg/m3). Concentrations of TSP in mean concentrations of bacteria and GHG emissions, or 0.006% of the to- swine farrowing buildings were sig- fungi ranging from 7.32 to 9.64 x 104 tal world GHG emissions. A majority nificantly lower than mean TSP con- cfu/m3 and 1.97 to 5.85 x 103 cfu/m3, of CO2 generation in pig operations is centrations in pig finishing buildings respectively. Other mean total bacterial 5 3 due to CO2 expiration from animals. (Cormier et al. 1990). concentrations were 5.9 x 10 cfu/m The amount of CO2 released from the (Haglind and Rylander 1987) and 1.08 manure in a pig production building Bioaerosols x 105 cfu/m3 (Heederick et al. 1991) (partially slatted floor and shallow Microbial concentrations in eight for swine confinement buildings. pits), as determined by Ni and col- swine confinement buildings with a leagues (1999), represents 37.5% of range of cleanliness conditions were Poultry the quantity of CO2 exhaled by the determined by Duchaine, Grimard, animals, whereas Lim and colleagues and Cormier (2000). The average Poultry Housing and Manure Management Systems (1998) reported CO emissions from concentrations were: molds, 883 colo- 2 Ammonia is the major noxious an 880-head grow-finish swine build- ny forming units per cubic meter (cfu/ gas in poultry operations, resulting ing with total slotted floors and tunnel m3); total bacteria, 4.25 x 105 cfu/m3; from biological breakdown of uric ventilation as 3.0 kilograms/day/pig and endotoxin, 4.9 x 103 endotoxin acid in the feces. Prolonged exposure (kg/d/pig), ranging from 1.2 to 9.5. units/m3. Airborne microorganisms to aerial environment with elevated Methane and N O emissions var- isolated by Cormier and colleagues 2 ammonia concentrations adversely ied from 48 to 54 g/d/AU and from (1990) in two swine farrowing and affects bird health (e.g., respiratory 0.8 to 2.1 g/d/AU, respectively, for a two pig finishing buildings showed system) and productivity (e.g., feed slatted-floor pig finishing barn stud- total bacteria concentrations averag- intake, body weight gain, egg produc- ied by Osada, Ram, and Dahl (1998). ing 1.51 x 105 cfu/m3 and 1.83 x 105 tion, feed conversion). The recom- Methane emissions of 160 g/d/AU cfu/m3 for each of the farrowing units mended indoor NH level for poultry were measured from deep-pit and and 4.92 x 105 cfu/m3 and 5.44 x 105 3 housing has been less than 25 ppm pull-plug pig finishing facilities (Zahn cfu/m3 for each of the two finish- et al. 2001), while N2O emissions from the liquid manure management system of swine production in North America were estimated to be 20 g/ yr/animal (Laguë 2003).

Particulate Matter Particulate matter (PM10 —PM with aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers [µm]) emission from a 1,200-head grow-finish pig building studied by Jacobson, Hetchler, and Schmidt (2007) ranged from 180 to 900 g/d (0.15 to 0.75 g/d/ Figure 1. Diurnal ammonia concentrations in a southeastern United States broiler house during different seasons (Li, H. 2009. Personal communication). pig) and the PM10 concentrations varied from 200 to 650 µg/m3 over three seasons (winter, spring, and summer). Total suspended particulates (TSP) and PM10 from fan-ventilated swine finishing buildings that were flushed daily with lagoon effluent showed a mean PM10 emission of 1.6 g/d/AU and a mean PM10 concentration of 334 µg/m3 (Heber et al. 2004). Total suspended particulate concentrations measured by Duchaine, Grimard, and Cormier (2000) in eight swine confinement buildings with a range of Figure 2. Diurnal ammonia concentrations in a central United States turkey house cleanliness conditions resulted in a during different seasons (Li et al. 2008a).

6 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (MidWest Plan Service 1990; United in the grow-out barns used to raise dominant housing types (HR and MB), Egg Producers 2010). Indoor NH3 the birds to market age. Depending a small fraction of eggs (< 5%) is pro- generation and concentrations are on geographical location, the bedding duced in cage-free (CF) systems. Due largely affected by housing and ma- materials used in broiler and turkey to the significantly lower stocking den- nure management practices. housing include rice hulls, wheat or sities of birds, thus lower body heat Broilers and turkeys (referred to rye hulls, sawdust or wood shavings, generation in the CF systems, main- as meat-type birds) are produced in peanut shells, sand, and, in some cas- taining a balance of good air quality littered floor systems. Most of the es, chopped straw or corn stalks. (low NH3 concentration) and comfort- litter is typically reused (known as More than 95% of the commercial able barn temperature has proved to be built-up litter) over multiple flocks of egg production in North America uses challenging for the CF houses during production, whereas the caked litter cage systems, either high-rise (HR) or cold weather (Green et al. 2009). (wet, hardened surface layer) along manure-belt (MB) housing systems. the feed and water lines is removed Hen manure in HR houses gener- Typical Indoor Ammonia and with special equipment between the ally is stored in the lower level of the Particulate Matter Concentrations flocks. Some poultry producers may house for one year and removed as Figures 1 and 2 show examples apply new bedding (top-dressing) fol- solid manure in the fall and applied of indoor NH3 concentrations found lowing removal of the caked litter, to cropland, whereas manure in MB in commercial poultry production whereas others opt not to, depending houses is removed daily to weekly facilities during different production on the amount of litter in the house into a separate storage or compost- seasons. Compared to NH3 data, PM and availability and cost of bedding ing facility. As a result of in-house concentration data are more limited. materials. An exception is with tur- manure storage for the HR system Nevertheless, Figures 3 and 4 il- key brooding (less than five weeks of vs. frequent removal of manure in the lustrate diurnal variations of PM in age), where old litter is completely MB system, the MB houses generally commercial broiler and turkey build- removed and new bedding introduced have much better indoor air quality ings in different production seasons. for each flock. The removed litter and lower NH3 emissions than the As shown by the data, NH3 and PM from turkey brooder barns is placed HR houses. In addition to the two pre- concentrations vary considerably throughout the day, especially during cool or cold weather, when there exist the diurnal variation of outside temperatures and hence building ventilation rates to maintain the desired indoor temperature. The ventilation rate in a poultry barn typically is controlled by indoor temperature, but ventilation is the most commonly used method to decrease indoor NH3 concentration. Increased ventilation, however, usually comes with the price of increased energy costs for ventilation fan op- Figure 3. Diurnal PM10 concentrations in a southeastern United States broiler house during different seasons (Burns et al. 2008a). eration and fuel usage (primarily LP gas) when supplemental heating is required. Moreover, the decreased NH3 concentration does not represent decreased NH3 emission rates—the amount of aerial NH3 exhausted to the atmosphere. To the contrary, increased building ventilation rate likely leads to elevated emissions.

Outdoor (Downwind) Concentrations Information concerning downwind gas or PM concentrations

Figure 4. Diurnal PM10 concentrations in a central United States turkey house is meager for poultry operations. during different seasons (Li et al. 2008a).

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7 Table 2. Summary of NH3 emission rates (ER, g NH3/d/AU) of laying hen houses with different housing and management schemes in different countries (1 AU=500 kg live weight) (Liang et al. 2006)

Country House Type (season) Manure Removal NH3 ER Reference (Year) England Deep-pit (winter) Info not available 192 Wathes et al. (1997) England Deep-pit (summer) Info not available 290 Wathes et al. (1997) England Deep-pit (N/A) Info not available 239 Nicholson, Chambers, and Walker (2004) USA (Ohio) High-rise (March) Annual 523 Keener, Elwell, and Grande (2002) USA (Ohio) High-rise (July) Annual 417 Keener, Elwell and Grande (2002) USA (Iowa) High-rise (all year) Annual 299 Yang, Lorimor, and Xin (2000) USA (Iowa and High-rise (all year) Annual 298 Liang et al. (2006) Pennsylvania) –standard diet USA (Iowa) High-rise (all year) Annual 268 Liang et al. (2006) –1% lower CP diet

The Netherlands Manure-belt (N/A) Twice a week with 31 Kroodsma, Scholten, and no manure drying Huis in’t Veld (1988) The Netherlands Manure-belt (N/A) Once a week with 28 Kroodsma, Scholten, and manure drying Huis in’t Veld (1988) Denmark Manure-belt (all year) Info not available 52 Groot Koerkamp et al. (1998) Germany Manure-belt (all year) Info not available 14 Groot Koerkamp et al. (1998) The Netherlands Manure-belt (all year) Info not available 39 Groot Koerkamp et al. (1998) England Manure-belt (all year) Weekly 96 Nicholson, Chambers, and Walker (2004) England Manure-belt (all year) Daily 38 Nicholson, Chambers, and Walker (2004) USA (Iowa) Manure-belt (all year) Daily with no 17.5 Liang et al. (2006) manure drying USA (Pennsylvania) Manure-belt (all year) Twice a week with 30.8 Liang et al. (2006) manure drying

Table 3. Ammonia emissions of U.S. commercial broiler and turkey houses

State, USA Species Growth Period, d Litter g NH3/Bird Marketed Reference (Year) Tennessee Broiler 42 Built-up 38.6 Burns et al. (2003) Texas Broiler 49 Built-up 30.9 Lacey, Redwine, and Parnell (2003) Delaware Broiler 42 Built-up 49.6 Seifert et al. (2004) Kentucky and Pennsylvania Broiler 42 New 19.7 Wheeler et al. (2006) 42 Built-up 27.3 49 Built-up 37.2 63 Built-up 61.7 Kentucky Broiler 52 New 25.5 Burns et al. (2008a) 52 Built-up 32.2 Iowa Tom turkey 35–140 New and built-up 144±12 Li et al. (2008a) Minnesota Hen turkey 35–84 New and built-up 104±10 Li et al. (2009)

8 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Table 4. Summary of limited data on PM ER from poultry facilities in different countries (1 AU=500 kg live weight) Country Poultry Species Ventilation PM Size ER (mg/h/AU) Reference (Year) England Broilers Mechanical Inhalable; respirable 6,218; 706 Takai et al. (1998) Holland 4,984; 725 Denmark 1,856; 245 Germany 2,805; 394

USA (Minnesota) Turkey Natural PM10 135~210 (W) Schmidt, Jacobson, 431~2,133 (SU) and Janni (2002)

USA (Texas) Broiler Mechanical/Mixed PM10 536 Lacey, Redwine, and Parnell (2003) TSP 10,210

USA (Indiana) Layer Mechanical PM2.5 26 Lim et al. (2003)

PM10 384 TSP 1,512

USA (Ohio) Layer Mechanical PM10 361~1,319 Zhao et al. (2005) TSP 1,292~3,778

g/Bird Marketed

USA (Kentucky) Straight-run broiler Mechanical PM2.5 0.25 (±0.02) Burns et al. (2008a) grown to 52 d or PM 2.52 (±0.46) 2.73 kg 10 TSP 6.0 (±0.29)

USA (Iowa) Tom turkey (35 to Mechanical PM2.5 3.7 (±0.8) Li et al. (2008a) 140 d at 19.1 kg) PM 30 (±4) 10

USA (Minnesota) Hen turkey (35 to Mechanical PM10 5.0 (±2.6) Li et al. (2009) 84 d at 6.8 kg)

The Iowa Department of Natural eight years, in response to the rec- Kentucky over one year. Resources conducted downwind mon- ommendations from the previously itoring at designated distances from mentioned 2003 National Academy Air Emissions from Poultry Houses AFOs (cattle, egg, and swine) and of Sciences report, researchers in Table 2 summarizes NH3 emis- compared the results against certain the United States have made con- sions for laying-hen houses in differ- human health effect values (HEVs) siderable strides toward collecting ent countries, whereas Table 3 sum- (hourly average of 30 ppb H2S) and baseline air emissions data for U.S. marizes NH3 emissions from broiler health effect standards (seven daily production conditions. The most and turkey houses in different parts exceedances of the HEV per year) extensive field studies focusing on of the United States. Compared to (IDNR n.d.). Fairchild (2008) report- poultry air emissions completed to data on NH3 emissions, data on PM ed ammonia concentrations down- date are those reported by Liang and emissions are more limited. Table 4 wind from tunnel-ventilated broiler colleagues (2006) for NH3 and CO2 summarizes the available literature houses, indicating that 94% of the emissions from 10 laying-hen hous- information for poultry. Data on GHG ammonia concentration readings were es in Iowa and Pennsylvania over emissions are even more limited. lower than 1 ppm at 150 m downwind one year; by Wheeler and colleagues Burns and colleagues (2008b) re- from the exhaust fans. (2006) for NH3 and CO2 emissions ported GHG emissions of 3.41 g CH4

from 12 broiler houses in Kentucky (85.3 g CO2 Eq) and 1.72 g N2O (513 Air Emissions from Poultry and Pennsylvania over one year; and g CO2 Eq) per bird marketed for broil- Facilities by Burns and colleagues (2008a,b) er houses in the southeastern United Before 2000, air emissions data in for NH3, CO2, H2S, CH4, N2O, TSP, States. Compared to bird respiration the literature were collected most- PM10, and PM2.5 (PM with aerody- of CO2 production (4.64 kg), CH4 and ly from European poultry produc- namic diameter of less than or equal N2O emissions account for 9.8% and tion facilities. During the past six to to 2.5 µm) from two broiler houses in 1.6% of the total CO2 Eq emission.

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9 Air Emissions from Poultry Manure Storage Manure-belt housing systems in- volve separate manure storage, which also contributes to the overall air emissions of the production system. Li and Xin (2010) reported lab-scale measurements of NH3, CH4, and N2O emissions from hen manure storage. Factors considered in the evaluation included manure stacking configura- tion, manure moisture content (MC) as encountered under commercial production conditions, and ambient air temperature in the storage. Hen manure at 77% MC emits more NH3 than that at 50% MC (Figure 5). It Figure 5 . Ammonia emission rates from hen manure storage associated with manure-belt housing system as affected by air temperature and mois- should be noted that storage condi- ture content of the manure (LMC=low moisture content, 50%; HMC=high tions under commercial settings can moisture content, 77%) (Li and Xin 2010). differ considerably from the controlled environment of the lab studies, tigating viable techniques that will other odor-forming compounds, and and field measurements over extend- decrease the generation and/or emis- GHGs. These pollutants have a va- ed periods are thus warranted. sions of the aerial pollutants. The riety of local, regional, and global mitigation techniques that have been environmental effects including odor Air Emissions from Poultry Manure studied include dietary manipulation production, human exposure and Land Application (Roberts et al. 2007; Xin, H. 2010. health, ozone and PM formation, and Poultry manure is typically land Personal communication), topical ap- production of GHGs that contribute applied as fertilizer, although poul- plication of chemical or mineral ad- to climate change. Therefore, a better try litter has found very limited use ditives on poultry manure (Li et al. understanding of the nature and sig- in renewable energy generation as 2008b), electrostatic precipitation of nificance of each of these pollutants a fuel in power plants. Data on air particulates (Ritz et al. 2008), treat- with respect to dairy AFOs in North emissions associated with land ap- ment of exhaust air via biofilter or America is essential for appropriate plication of poultry manure are much wet scrubber (Bandekar, Bajwa, and legislation/regulation and ultimately more limited when compared to emis- Liang 2008; Manuzon et al. 2007; cost-effective mitigation of pollutants. sions from poultry houses or manure Melse and Ogink 2005; Shah et al. Most intensive modern dairies storage due to technical difficulties 2008), or vegetative environmen- in North America house large num- in quantifying such emissions and in- tal buffer (Malone, VanWicklen, and bers of cows in barns or dry-lot cor- herent large variations of application Collier 2008), as well as prompt in- rals (instead of grazing on pasture). conditions. Ammonia nitrogen loss corporation of land-applied manure. Significant emission sources identi- from manure during land application Although these prospective mitiga- fied with these facilities include barns has been expressed as percentage of tion strategies have shown apprecia- or corrals associated with housing, manure nitrogen content. These loss- ble efficacy in emissions reduction, manure storage and treatment fa- es have been estimated to be 7% for the economic viability of the tech- cilities, silage piles, and cropland to dry laying-hen manure (Lockyer and niques under production conditions which manure is applied. Pain 1989), 41.5% for wet laying-hen remains to be further evaluated. Multiple abiotic (e.g., physical) manure (Lockyer and Pain 1989), and and biotic (e.g., biological) factors 25.1% for broiler litter (Cabera et al. Dairy influence the type and quantity of air 1994), as cited by the EPA in devel- The effects of different classes of emissions from each of the emissions opment of livestock and poultry ma- emissions (e.g., VOCs, GHGs, bio- sources just listed. Specifically, dairy nure management training. aerosols) associated with dairy AFOs emission rates are influenced by the in the United States have become a following: Mitigation Technologies considerable public policy and regu- 1. Diet composition, feed conver- To improve indoor air quality and latory issue. Dairies emit compounds sion efficiencies, and animal decrease air emissions, researchers identified as pollutants including physiology. and others have been actively inves- The makeup of a dairy cow’s NH3, PM2.5 and PM10, VOCs, H2S,

10 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY diet, lactation status, and ef- “life cycle” and the factors that influ- none, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl ficiency of its conversion into ence the emissions rates are essential disulfide were at much lower rates meat and milk products affects for understanding, regulating, and at 3.03±0.85, 145±35, 3.46±1.11, the quantity and composition of mitigating dairy air emissions effec- 25.1±8.0, 2.19±0.92, and 16.1±3.9 manure and urine excreted by tively. The following brief synopsis nanograms/second/cow, respective- cows. For example, a lactating reviews the major classes of emis- ly (Filipy et al. 2006). Although the cow produces more than twice sions from dairy AFOs. the amount of methane compared concentration of most of the detected to its dry cow equivalent. compounds in this study was below Odor published odor detection thresholds, 2. Manure handling practices. Odor production and the mitiga- the cumulative effects (additive or How manure is handled af- tion of odor-producing compounds multiplicative) of different VOCs still fects its chemical and physical from dairies are of growing concern require further investigation. properties, including chemical because of urban encroachment into composition, biodegradability, dairying regions. Mackie, Stroot, Particulate Matter and Bioaerosols microbial populations, oxygen and Varel (1998) identified six major The available literature is not ex- content, moisture content, and groups of odorous compounds, which pH. An adult dairy cow produces tensive with respect to PM emissions include VOCs (e.g., VFAs, volatile approximately 41 to 54 kg (90 from dairy AFOs in part because the amines, phenols, and indoles), NH , to 120 pounds [lbs]) of manure 3 emissions of particulates from differ- and sulfur-containing compounds. daily, which on dairy AFOs is ent sources are dependent on sev- Most of these compounds are pro- usually either flushed with water eral factors including animal density, duced by anaerobic digestion and or scraped from the housing area manure management, flooring sys- fermentation of organic matter. On a (free-stall) into large manure tems, and weather. A considerable and storage basins or treatment la- dairy operation, these compounds can growing body of evidence, however, goons. The type of liquid manure be emitted from silage mounds, barns, shows an association between adverse system determines the potential waste storage facilities, or manure health effects and exposure to ambi- for gas volatilization and odor applied to land (National Research ent airborne particulates in livestock production in both dairy housing Council 2003). operations (Aneja, Schlesinger, and and land application (ASABE The greatest odors on dairy AFOs 2006). For example, long-term Erisman 2009). Particulate matter are associated with land application stored cattle manure produces emissions from dairies are consid- of manure (1.5 to 90 OU/s/m2) fol- twice the concentration of VFA ered a human health risk because lowed by dairy manure storage (5.1 to compared to fresh manure during of the present and potential inhala- 32 OU/s/m2) and housing (1.3 to 3.0 anaerobic incubation, reflect- tion of PM and PM . Specifically, OU/s/m2) (ASABE 2006; Pain et al. 2.5 10 ing the significance of time and exposure to PM has been associ- hence management on mitiga- 1991). Although dairy manure that is 2.5 ated with various types of pulmonary tion of odor-forming compounds applied to land has the greatest odor disease (Pope, Ezzati, and Dockery (ASABE 2006). flux rates, the rates decrease rapidly 2009), whereas exposure to PM has 3. Environmental conditions. over time (Mackie, Stroot, and Varel 10 been associated with decreased lung 1998). Furthermore, it should be noted Time of year, temperature, wind function, cardiac arrhythmia, heart at- that a 52% decrease in total odor units speed, and relative humidity tacks, and premature death (Madden, greatly influence production and was achieved over 48 hours by imme- Southard, and Mitchell 2008). emissions of gaseous and partic- diately incorporating dairy slurry into In addition to the health effects, ulate compounds. For example, the soil (Pain et al. 1991). both PM and PM have local and NH3 emissions from dairies were The class of compound with the 2.5 10 regional environmental effects. On a found to be approximately twice greatest impact on odor production in dairy and at downwind locations, NH as much during the summer (11.3 dairy operations seems to be VOCs. 3 to 18.2 g/d/cow) compared to the reacts with atmospheric nitric and Filipy and colleagues (2006) identified winter (3.8 to 6.8 g/d/cow) (Blu- sulfuric acids to form PM . These 82 different VOCs at a dairy lactating- 2.5 teau, Masse, and Leduc 2009). fine particles contribute to smog or cow pen stall and 73 VOCs from the 4. Dairy infrastructure. haze formation, decrease visibility, manure lagoon, many of which are and may contribute to eutrophication Stocking density, barn ventilation known to be odorous. Emissions rates rates, housing type, and bedding in surface water following deposition of ethanol and dimethyl sulfide were material can significantly affect downwind. highest and estimated at 1,026±513 air emissions. Feed storage and processing, crop- and 13.8±10.3 μg/s/cow, respectively. ping, composting, and manure storage As these examples demonstrate, Emissions rates from the manure la- understanding the different emissions can produce PM , including those goon for acetone, 2-butanone, methyl 10 profiles of pollutants throughout their derived from soil matter, feed, dried isobutyl ketone, 2-methyl-3-penta-

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 11 feces, bacteria, fungi, and endotoxins sol, phenol, methyl isobutyl ketone Council 2003). As discussed previ- (Cambra-López et al. 2009). Although or hexone, and methanol) have been ously, NH3 is derived from N that the relative significance of PM10 is identified as hazardous air pollutants originates in the excreta. The N ex- dependent on the type of dairy and the by the EPA. To attain “major-source” cretion (urine and feces) estimate for surrounding environmental conditions, emissions levels, however, herd sizes an average dairy cow in a modern soil-derived material often is the most will have to be of considerable size western U.S. dairy is 169 kg/head/yr significant source of PM10 (Madden, (Ndegwa 2009). (Sunesson, Gullberg, and Blomquist Southard, and Mitchell 2008). In addition to the cows and their 2001). Urine urea N, when combined Madden, Southard, and Mitchell manure, recent work has identi- with urease contained in feces, is (2008) noted a reduction of PM10 from fied fermented feeds as a significant readily hydrolyzed to ammonia; how- cropland between 52% and 93% with source of VOC emissions on dairy ever, the content of urea N in a dairy the use of conservation tillage. AFOs (Alanis et al. 2008; Howard et animal’s urine varies greatly with diet With respect to bioaerosols, al. 2010a). But more research is need- (James et al. 1999). Seedorf and colleagues (1998) mea- ed and is currently being conducted Ammonia volatilization is the sured bacterial, enterobacteriaceael, to better identify VOC sources and main loss pathway for N from dairy and fungal emissions of 6.8, 6.2, and emission rates from dairy production. AFOs (Kirchmann et al. 1998) with 6.0 cfu/hour/AU, respectively, which Volatile organic compound pro- total NH3 losses ranging from 17 were similar to measurements in other duction, emissions, and flux rates are to 46 kg N/yr/cow (Bussink and livestock housing operations. The determined by biological (i.e., chemi- Oenema 1998) or between 20 and significance of these data for public cal reactions catalyzed by bacteria) 40 g NH3/d/AU in the free-stall area health and worker safety has not been and environmental (i.e., wind speed, (Groot Koerkamp et al. 1998; Snell, determined. volatility) factors. Consequently, Seipelt, and Van den Weghe 2003). there is considerable variability in The wide ranges in NH3 losses and Volatile Organic Compounds the type and concentration of VOCs volatilization reflect the variability in and Ammonia from dairy AFOs, leading to much amount and composition of animal Emissions of VOCs and NH3 controversy regarding the impact of excreta (urine + feces), management from dairy operations occur when VOCs (Filipy et al. 2006; Hobbs, of the slurry, and soil and environ- bacteria decompose organic matter Misselbrook, and Cumby 1999). For mental conditions. Sources of NH3 in manure and silage under anaerobic example, in 2004, California regu- emissions on dairy AFOs in decreas- conditions (Filipy et al. 2006). Both latory agencies estimated dairies ing relative importance are slurry ap- of these emissions have local effects to contribute as many VOCs to the plication, housing, slurry storage, and including odor production, particulate atmosphere as light/medium-duty fertilizer application (Bussink and formation, troposphere ozone for- trucks or light passenger vehicles. But Oenema 1998). mation, ecosystem degradation, and two subsequent studies concluded Manure and facilities manage- health effects including ear, nose, and that the sum of reactive VOC fluxes ment (i.e., flooring system, type of throat damage (Cambra-López et al. measured was 6 to 10 times less than bedding, and manure handling sys- 2009; Mitloehner and Calvo 2008; previous estimates and that the VOC tem) have a significant effect on vola- Pinder, Adams, and Pandis 2007). emissions from dairy cattle and their tilization rates of NH3. Kroodsma, Volatile organic compounds in- fresh waste have a relatively small Huis in’t Veld, and Scholtens (1993) clude thousands of individual gases impact on ozone formation per VOC determined that scraped or dirty that vaporize at room temperature. mass emitted (Howard et al. 2010b; solid floors gave NH3 emissions of 2 They contribute to ozone forma- Shaw et. al. 2007). On dairies, fer- 15 g NH3d/m , versus 5 g NH3/d/ tion when combined with oxides of mented feed is a much larger con- m2 for a flushed system. Thompson N (NOx) in the presence of sunlight tributor of smog-forming VOCs than and Meisinger (2002) measured NH3 (Shaw et al. 2007), although VOCs manure or any other source (Howard emissions following surface land ap- have differing reactivity and poten- et al. 2010a). plication of liquid dairy manure and tial to form ozone (Carter 1994). Ammonia is emitted from AFOs found when manure was left unincor- Volatile organic compounds typically when the nitrogen (mainly urea) in porated into the soil for a period of are divided into the following classes: animal waste is hydrolyzed, mineral- five days, 39 to 52% of the ammoni- + VFAs, indoles and phenols, amines, ized, and/or volatilized. Once volatil- um-N (NH4 -N) was lost. Mitigation and sulfur-containing compounds ized, the NH3 can be harmful in sev- of NH3 emissions from land appli- (ASABE 2006). eral ways including acidification of cation via land injection of manure Among the major VOC emis- ecosystems, eutrophication, and for- (i.e., anaerobic conditions) versus sions identified in dairy operations, mation of aerosols and particulates, traditional land application is an area five compounds (2-butanone, p-cre- including PM2.5 (National Research of active research. Although imme-

12 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY diately incorporating manure into amounts of N2O (Kaspar and Tiedje unvegetated, usually earthen corrals the soil can decrease NH3 emissions 1981); however, little research has in which beef animals receive a grain- (Thompson and Meisinger 2002), been conducted to quantify N2O emis- based, mixed feed in concrete feed incorporating manure can greatly in- sions derived directly from dairy cat- troughs two or three times per day. crease emissions of the potent GHG tle. Decreasing N2O emissions could Depending on liveweight or growth N2O (Wulf, Maeting, and Clemens have a significant impact on total stage, animal sex, bunk space, cli- 2002). Likewise, mitigation of N2O GHG emissions from dairies because matic factors, management schemes, emissions via composting of manure of its high global warming potential and topography, each animal may be 2 often results in increased NH3 (Amon (IPCC 2007). allocated from 7 to 28 m /head (7 to et al. 2001). 28 m2/hd; 75 to 300 ft2/hd) of corral Beef area. The production area of a cattle Greenhouse Gases Although most of the confined feedyard with a one-time capacity of Major sources of CH4 on dair- beef production in the United States 20,000 hd may occupy a footprint be- ies include enteric fermentation now takes place in the Great Plains tween 14 and 57 hectares (ha; 35 and within the rumen and stored manure. and the West in outdoor facilities 140 acres). In the most concentrated Methane emissions from dairy cows known as “feedlots” or “feedyards,” cattle-feeding region in the United raised in intensive systems range from some cattle feeding still occurs in States—the southern High Plains, between 55 and 70 kg CH4/yr/animal open-sided or fully enclosed barns. comprising parts of Texas, Oklahoma, (ASABE 2006; Moiser et al. 1998). Most of the beef production that takes and southwest Kansas—the typical Dairy AFOs produce significant summertime cattle stocking density is place under roof in the United States 2 2 amounts of CH4 because of the wide- is found in the higher-rainfall areas about 14 m /hd (150 ft /hd). spread use of anaerobic manure la- east of the Mississippi River, where Beef production in the United goons and storage basins. Specifically, the abundant rainfall is captured as States includes a substantial herd manure stored under aerobic condi- roof drainage and directed away from grown on pasture and rangeland, ei- tions produces less CH4 than the an- the production areas without being ther all the way to slaughter or for aerobic systems used in dairy AFOs contaminated by manure, feed, or a period of time before being trans- (ASABE 2006). Safley and Casada other kinds of waste. ported to feedyards to be finished. (1992) measured CH4 conversion In the Great Plains and West, open Although such operations are beyond factors (MCF) between 20 and 90 feedlots are the norm because most the scope of this report, they also from anaerobic liquid slurry systems or all of the precipitation that falls exchange gases with the atmosphere compared to MCFs of 10 for solid on the production area can be evapo- that may represent significant propor- and pasture-applied manure (ASABE rated or irrigated (during the warmer tions of the North American budgets 2006). months) or cheaply stored in runoff of ecologically important elements Gaseous emissions of N2O from ponds through the colder months until such as C, N, and sulfur (S). A life- soils associated with dairy waste or it can be evaporated or used for irri- cycle understanding of emissions at- dairy-owned cropland are a major gation. As a result, air emissions from tributable to beef production would source of indirect GHG emissions as- beef production areas in the Great need to include pasture operations, sociated with dairy manure. Nitrous Plains and West tend to be driven and where applicable. oxide formation results from deni- modified by precipitation (or its ex- trification processes reducing nitrate tended absence). Air emissions from Emissions from Beef Feedyards (NO3) to N2O and from nitrification beef production areas in the eastern The primary emissions of local oxidizing ammonium (NH4) to N2O. United States tend to be driven and concern to cattle feeders and their Therefore, when excess NO3 or NH4 modified by ventilation, either pas- neighbors are fugitive particulate is present in the soil (i.e., from fer- sive or active (forced). Where beef matter (PM10 and coarse particu- tilizer or manure application), N2O animals are fed under roof, addition- late or PM10-2.5), which arise mostly emissions can be significant (Menneer al gas-phase emissions result from from uncovered corrals, unpaved et al. 2005). In addition, higher N2O uncovered manure storages, holding roads, or exhaust fans, and nuisance emissions have been noted at sites ponds, and anaerobic lagoons, similar odor, which consists mainly of VOCs with long-term N applications, sug- to most of the confined swine- and and, to a lesser extent, NH3 and H2S. gesting that long-term accumula- poultry-feeding operations across the At the regional and national scales, tion of N in soils affects emissions. nation. NH3, H2S, and VOCs may contribute Consequently, effective manure and In the semi-arid and temper- to secondary fine particulate matter land management is essential to the ate climates of the Great Plains and (PM2.5), acid rain, and ground-level mitigation of N2O. Enteric fermenta- the western United States, open-lot ozone (O3). tion has been found to produce small feedyards are the norm and consist of As with other livestock and poul-

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13 try species, most of the airborne peak occurring shortly after dusk area. The original emission factor emissions from cattle feedyards de- and reaching a short-term (e.g., five- for fugitive TSP from cattle feedlots rive from what the animals eat. The minute averaged) concentration 5 was 127 kg (280 lb) TSP/d/1,000 hd nutrient composition of so-called to 15 times greater than the corre- (USEPA 1985). Subsequent work es- “finishing” rations—mixed feed giv- sponding 24-hour average concen- tablished that the PM10/TSP ratio in en to animals within a few weeks of tration (see Figure 6). This so-called feedyard dust was between 0.19 and slaughter, with a dry-matter digest- “evening dust peak,” during which 0.40 (Sweeten et al. 1988), meaning ibility of about 83%—includes about five-minute average PM10 concentra- that the federally recommended emis- 2.2% N and 0.32% S on a dry-matter tions may reach into the thousands sion factor was equivalent to 31.75 kg basis (Heflin, K., L. McDonald, and of micrograms per cubic meter (μg/ (70 lb) PM10/d/1,000 hd. B. W. Auvermann. 2000. Unpublished m3), results from the confluence of Since 1994, as new modeling al- data). When distillers’ grains are in- three quasi-independent influences: gorithms were developed for ground- cluded at up to 30% of feed dry mat- (1) increasing atmospheric stability, level area sources, many new esti- ter, N and S may be as high as 2.6 (2) increasing animal activity, and (3) mates of the AP-42 emission factor and 0.43% of dry matter, respectively, daily minimum moisture content in have been proposed, ranging from 1.8 with dry-matter digestibility decreas- the uncompacted manure on the cor- to 11.3 kg (4 to 25 lb) PM10/d/1,000 ing to around 78% (MacDonald, J. ral surface. The absolute values of hd and converging at an annual- Personal communication). The more the short-term concentrations at the ized value of 7.7 kg/d/1,000 hd (17 N, S, and dry matter excreted by the downwind corral edge vary widely lb/d/1,000 hd) for feedyards in the animals, the greater the potential for from day to day and from feedyard to southern High Plains (Parnell, Shaw, those constituents to be emitted as feedyard. The PM concentrations are and Auvermann 1999). A more ra- NH3, H2S, and PM, respectively. quite sensitive to variations in atmo- tional approach to emission factors Feed efficiency of cattle (i.e., dry spheric stability, feedyard geometry, would account for the vast regional matter intake per unit of body weight and animal inventory. diversity in climatic settings; an ap- gain) ranges from 5:1 to 7:1 depend- Emission rates of fugitive dust propriate emission factor for cattle ing on breed, sex, diet composition, from feedyard corrals are notori- feedyards is likely to be higher in days on feed, dietary supplements, ously difficult to estimate. The typi- winter-rainfall areas like California animal health, climate, and anabolic cal method involves measuring mass and lower in the more humid regions implant status. Nutrition technologies concentrations of dust at fixed, down- of the Great Plains and eastern United have been quite successful in decreas- wind receptors and using meteoro- States as compared to that of the ing the feed-to-gain ratio (increasing logical data in a dispersion model to southern High Plains. feed efficiency) industry-wide, which infer the flux of dust from the source Road-dust emissions are ex- increases production efficiency and decreases emissions of macronutrient gases per unit of beef produced.

Particulate Matter Particulate matter is the primary air pollutant of concern to cattle feeders, their neighbors, and their local communities. Airborne PM emitted by cattle-feeding operations includes dust from unpaved roads, dander, hair, and dry, pulverized manure and soil resuspended in the air by hoof action on the corral surface. Under typical conditions, hoof action is the primary mechanism for fugitive PM emissions. In the semi-arid and arid regions of the western United States, mass concentrations of ground-level PM immediately downwind of cattle feedyards vary significantly and pre- Figure 6. Typical daily variation in mass concentrations of PM10 downwind of dictably with time of day, with the cattle feedyards (Auvermann, B. Unpublished data).

14 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY pressed in units of mass per distance surface, it may be volatilized to the Flesch and colleagues (2007) used traveled (e.g., kg/vehicle miles trav- atmosphere as gaseous NH3. Because open-path lasers to measure 15-min- eled). The EPA has developed emis- the chemical pathways from feed N ute average NH3 concentrations sion estimates of PM10 from unpaved to gas-phase N emissions are well within and downwind of a cattle feed- roads (USEPA 2006b) that are a func- defined, gaseous NH3 emissions are yard. The long-term mean of their tion of the silt content (%) of the road probably best expressed in mass-bal- measurements within the feedyard surface, the gross vehicle weight, the ance terms as a percentage of the N was between 1.2 and 1.7 ppm, with vehicle ground speed, and the mois- fed to the animals. daily maximum 15-minute concen- ture content (%) of the road surface. Ammonia emissions from open- trations approaching 5 ppm. At their An estimate of the total annual PM10 lot cattle feedyards vary seasonally, downwind measurement path nearest emissions from a feedyard’s vehicle with summertime emission rates ap- the feedyard, long-term mean con- fleet may be obtained by estimating proximately twice the wintertime centrations were between 0.8 and 1.0 the average daily emissions for each emission rates (Todd et al. 2008). ppm, with daily maximum 15-min- vehicle used in the feedyard, sum- Using a variety of independent meth- ute concentrations approaching 2.5 ming those emissions over all vehi- ods to estimate emissions, annualized ppm. Long-term averages and daily cles used in the facility, and multiply- NH3-N emissions from commercial maximum 15-minute concentrations ing by 365. cattle feedyards in Texas were be- decreased substantially at the more Emission factors, which are es- tween 36 and 53% of the N fed to the distant monitoring sites downwind. timates of the mass emitted per unit animals (Todd and Cole 2007; Todd They assumed that the long-term av- of industrial throughput or capacity, et al. 2008). Thus, a 20,000-hd yard erage background concentration was are often criticized as one-size-fits-all feeding a corn-based ration at about on the order of 0.015 ppm (15 ppb) or estimates that do not account for dif- 10.2 kg (22.5 lb) dry matter per day two orders of magnitude lower than ferences in feeding regimes, climate, per head would be expected to emit the in-source and downwind concen- corral design, or management fac- a total of about 2,050 kg (4,519 lb) trations (Flesch et al. 2007). tors that vary from feedyard to feed- of N per day (2,050 kg N/d). Other McGinn, Janzen, and Coates yard. A report commissioned by the researchers have estimated NH3 (2003) measured 48- to 72-hour aver- National Academy of Sciences rec- emissions from open-lot feedyards at age concentrations of NH3-N down- ommended that the emission-factor rates between 9 and 56% of the N fed wind of three cattle feedyards in approach to estimating emissions of to the animals (Faulkner and Shaw Alberta. Concentrations immediately all kinds of air pollutants be replaced 2008). Although some of that N is downwind occasionally approached by a process-based modeling ap- emitted from runoff holding ponds, 1.5 ppm (850 μg/m3) but averaged proach that accounts for site-specific most of it is emitted by the corral about 1 ppm. Short-duration (five- feedyard attributes, climate, and man- surfaces. minute) concentrations measured agement tactics (National Research Concentrations of NH3 at ground with portable analyzers were on the Council 2003). A mathematical level near cattle feedyards are highly order of 3 ppm or less at the down- framework for process-based model- variable and, as is the case with near- wind perimeter. At 200 m downwind, ing of PM emissions from cattle feed- ly all air pollutants, depend strongly NH3-N concentrations routinely de- yards has been proposed (Auvermann on the averaging time over which creased by 60 to 80% as compared 2003); although that framework has the concentrations were measured to the concentrations measured at the been used to develop screening meth- (National Research Council 2003).2 feedyards’ downwind perimeter. ods for various dust-control tech- Moreover, because NH3 is so reac- niques (Razote et al. 2006), it has not tive, changing the location at which Hydrogen Sulfide been comprehensively and conclu- NH3 is measured may change the Hydrogen sulfide is a product of sively validated. measured concentrations significant- the fermentation of sulfur-contain- ly. Finally, NH3 plumes downwind of ing compounds (primarily the ami- Ammonia open-lot feedyards are spatially non- no acids methionine and cysteine, Ammonia emissions from cattle uniform, so path-averaged and point as well as sulfur salts) ingested by feedyards arise principally from the monitors generally yield different cattle in feed and drinking water and metabolism of proteins and amino measured concentrations. then excreted in urine and feces. It acids. Metabolites of those feed con- is produced under anaerobic condi- stituents are excreted as urea, which 2 In general, peak concentrations over short durations, generally postexcretion, which is subsequently hydrolyzed to aque- tions significantly exceed the peak concentrations in the feedyard are found in runoff over much longer durations. Thus, the highest peak ous-phase NH3 in the presence of the holding ponds and on corral surfaces 1-hour NH3 concentration on a given day would be enzyme urease. Once aqueous NH3 is much greater than the corresponding 24-hour aver- that remain wet for an extended time present in the manure on the feedyard age concentration. (Parker et al. 2005). Its odor (he-

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 15 donic tone) is widely described as semi-arid, summer-rainfall climate, In most cases, researchers use the “rotten eggs,” which accounts for its those emission factors would need to inverse-modeling technique of mea- offensiveness and its reputation as a be adjusted for use in winter-rainfall, suring downwind concentrations and primary cause of nuisance odor. At colder, or temperate climates such as inferring source strength via disper- high concentrations (> 150 ppm), H2S the Pacific Coast, the northern Great sion modeling. can be lethal, but such concentrations Plains, and the southeastern United Downwind concentration data are not observed in outdoor livestock States, respectively. are more easily found. For example, facilities.3 Koelsch and colleagues researchers in Texas measured p- (2002) measured total reduced S, Volatile Organic Compounds cresol (an odorous VOC) concentra- which includes mainly hydrogen sul- Trace gases emitted by cattle tions in the air upwind and at multi- fide, concentrations on a 15-minute feedyards include many of the same ple locations downwind of two cattle averaging time near cattle feedyards metabolites and co-products emitted feedyards in the Texas Panhandle in Nebraska and reported a maximum by other livestock and poultry species. (Perschbacher-Buser et al. 2007). 15-minute concentration of 0.03 ppm The class of emissions known as VOC One-hour concentrations of p-cresol along feedyard perimeters. Within the is diverse. occasionally approached 0.07 ppb at feedyard properties (i.e., adjacent to Odorous VOCS tend to be, though the downwind property line but de- primary sources such as runoff hold- not exclusively, intermediate products creased rapidly with downwind dis- ing ponds) per se, “no situations were of fermentation and include mercap- tance. Researchers in Canada mea- observed where three consecutive tans, amines, organic sulfides, VFAs, sured VFAs and other odorants over readings exceeded Nebraska’s 0.1 phenols, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, two- to three-day averaging times near ppm, 30-minute standard” (Koelsch and many others. Their odor poten- the downwind perimeters of three et al. 2002). tials, as measured by the threshold cattle feedyards in Alberta (McGinn, Like NH3, H2S is listed as a “haz- concentrations at which the human Janzen, and Coates 2003). Total VFA ardous substance” under the EPA’s nose can detect them, vary over many concentrations varied from 10.4 to Emergency Planning and Community orders of magnitude. 177.6 μg/m3, with acetic, butyric, and Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), and as Reactive VOCs are known, along propionic acids predominating. The of January 2009 livestock facilities with a wide variety of hydrocarbons, p-cresol concentrations ranged from releasing more than 45.4 kg/day (100 to react with other atmospheric gases 0.003 to 0.018 μg/m3, which are in lb/day) of H2S are required to report in the presence of sunlight to form the low part-per-trillion range. It also 6 those releases to local emergency- O3, a criteria pollutant and the main seems from their research that VFAs response authorities. Drawing on re- component of smog. The reactive are less prone than NH3 to depletion search conducted in the Texas High VOCs include alkenes, aldehydes, and from the plume as the compounds are Plains, the range of emission fac- some industrial chemicals. Of particu- carried downwind. tors used in the National Cattlemen lar regulatory importance are the so- Organic compounds—not all of Beef Association’s 2009 EPCRA called “highly reactive VOCs,” which them volatile—are also likely to be guidance document for cattle feed- react more rapidly than other reactive carried along in fugitive aerosols 4 -3 -3 yards is 2.132x10 to 3.856x10 VOCs to form O3. Some of the most either as (inherently) solid-phase kg/d/hd (4.7x10-3 to 8.5x10-3 lb/d/ notorious of the reactive VOCs, iso- or adsorbed constituents. Rogge, hd).5 Because the study area has a prene and monoterpenes, are emitted Medeiros, and Simoneit (2006) found naturally and in large quantities by more than 100 organic compounds

3 deciduous and coniferous forests, re- in samples of the soil collected near Agricultural fatalities associated with H2S tend to cluster around indoor facilities in which manure is spectively (Fuentes et al. 1996). the surfaces of cattle feedyards and stored below the production floor. When a manure Emission fluxes of VOCs, like dairies in the San Joaquin Valley of pit is agitated to ensure that it can be emptied ef- other fugitive emissions from cattle California.7 Not surprisingly, the ficiently, it releases a burst of 2H S that may exceed the concentration that is lethal to any worker present feedlots, are difficult to obtain with compounds they found are associated in that building without respiratory protection. See, good precision, and accuracy is dif- with feedstuffs, vitamins, and supple- for example, Ni et al. (2000). ments routinely fed to livestock, as 4 See Sweeten et al. (1988). ficult to assess because there are no 5 well as metabolites of those materi- Expressing the upper bound of the H2S emission standard methods that have been vali- factor in terms of mass per animal unit is slightly dated against known emission fluxes. als, and the authors proposed that the misleading in the case of cattle feedyards because (1) basal (dry-weather) H2S emissions come primarily from runoff holding ponds, and (2) elevated (wet-weather) emissions are roughly proportional to 6 “Criteria pollutants” are air pollutants for which 7 Using the term “soil” for the materials they ana- wet corral area. In either weather regime, the emit- health-based, ambient air quality standards have lyzed may be confusing. The samples in question ting area is likely to be a more reliable predictor of been adopted under the CAA Amendments. They were collected outside the corrals and should be H2S emissions than the number of animals on feed include PM10 and PM2.5, lead, O3, NOx, sulfur di- interpreted as mineral soil that has been subjected to at the time. Lower flux estimates were reported by oxide, and carbon monoxide. For more information, continuous dry deposition of dust and gases emitted Baek et al. (2006). see http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/. from the feedyard surfaces.

16 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY organic compounds be used as source Manure Storage and Land recover nutrients, land application of markers that distinguish feedyard dust Application manure may be the most environmen- from other aerosol sources. tally friendly method for using animal Manure is stored at nearly all Because there are so many organ- manure. commercial animal operations in ic, N- and S-based, and aerosol-phase the United States, from a few days compounds present in cattle excreta to more than one year, primarily to Odor on the feedyard surface, no brief ac- Manure storage units are chronic conserve manure nutrients for timely count can describe all of them with sources of odor emissions for most of application onto cropland or for value- respect to emissions processes, fate the animal species. This is especially added processes, such as anaerobic di- and transport, or downwind concen- the case for uncovered earthen stor- gesters and composting. The practice trations. Researchers generally group age or treatment lagoons that store of production site manure storage cre- them into classes and subclasses, liquid manure, because any distur- ates another emission source of odors, which obscures individual compound bance of the liquid surface can result gases, particulates, and bioaerosols. behavior but permits useful general- in odor (as well as many gas) emis- The type of manure storage varies izations for selecting control mea- sions. A number of studies, summa- depending on species and region of sures.8 Still, the scientific literature rized by Casey and colleagues (2006), the country. Earthen storage basins on VOC emissions from cattle feed- have measured odor emissions (pri- or treatment lagoons are common for yards is thin, and to the extent odors marily odor flux rates) with ranges dairy farms throughout the country and ground-level ozone continue to from 5 to 50 OU/s/m-2 for swine and and for swine operations in the south- be nuisance and public-health threats dairy liquid manure storage units eastern and southern regions of the (respectively) near cattle-feeding op- and also for stockpiled solid poul- United States. Concrete storage pits erations, efforts to quantify emissions try manure storage units. Mitigation beneath buildings are commonly used and develop abatement measures methods such as covering, either by in the Midwest by swine producers, should continue. a natural crust or an artificial mem- especially pig finishing and nursery brane, of the storage surface can facilities. Poultry operations may store greatly (70 to 90%) decrease the odor Greenhouse Gases their manure (semi-dry litter) within Greenhouse gases of concern to the emissions from these sources (Bicudo the buildings (on floor) for up to two cattle-feeding industry include CH , et al. 2002). Other mitigation tech- 4 years or as short as a single flock (sev- CO , and N O. They vary widely niques, such as aeration of the stor- 2 2 en weeks) and then stockpile the lit- in their atmospheric prevalence and age basin (Westerman, Bicudo, and ter outside the building or adjacent to in their heat-trapping capacity, with Kantardjieff 2000) or employing an- cropland for up to six months or more. N O>CH >CO . Greenhouse gases aerobic digestion (Powers et al. 1997) 2 4 2 All of these manure storage options from beef production units in Ireland of the manure, will also decrease the affect the farm’s overall air quality were the focus of a life-cycle invento- odor generated but with considerably and emissions. ry study by Casey and Holden (2006). higher costs. Land application of manure has Although Irish beef systems differ Odor emissions during land ap- the potential to be the largest emitter considerably from cattle feedyards in plication of “stored” manure (espe- of air pollutants from the animal pro- the United States, their projections cially liquid manure) are an acute duction systems. But in manure han- serve as an interesting benchmark problem for the animal production dling systems that experience large for future work on U.S. confinement industry. Much of the odor released emission losses during the housing operations. Synthesizing survey re- during land application originates and/or manure storage phases, there sponses from 15 suckler-beef opera- during the agitation/mixing process may not be much N or S to lose dur- tions, they projected that GHG emis- of manure storage units to suspend ing land application. Also, the mag- sion from Irish beef production was manure solids so they can be pumped nitude of these emissions (primarily between 1,500 and 6,000 kg of CO and removed from the storage basin 2 odor and gas) during land application equivalents per hectare per year, de- or tank. Also, the spreading of ma- of manure can be greatly decreased pending on feed composition, man- nure, especially liquid manure, onto with known technologies such as di- agement strategies, and other site- cropland or grassland can produce rect incorporation (injection) into the specific descriptors.9 high amounts of odor if it is simply soil and tillage immediately or shortly broadcast or spread on the land sur- after surface application. Because face. A large decrease in odor (90+%) 8 manure contains valuable crop nutri- A good example of this tendency can be found in emissions occurs if manure is directly Miller and Berry (2005). ents, nearly all manure from animal injected into the soil or tilled into the 9 Projections like these are difficult, if not impos- production systems is eventually ap- sible, to validate at the national scale. For a full soil immediately after surface applied to cropland or pastures. Besides description of the authors’ life-cycle procedure, see plication (Pain et al. 1991). Pain and Casey and Holden (2006). this strong economic incentive to

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 17 colleagues (1991) also measured odor Greenhouse Gases application of pig slurry and found emissions from the application of Designs for anaerobic treat- nearly all (98%) occurred within the solid cattle manure and found consid- ment basins or lagoons often result first four days after spreading. They erably smaller odor flux rates than for in low VOC and other gas emissions also found that CH4 emissions during pig slurry spreading. but may produce increased levels of fall application were twice as large CH4 emissions (Zahn et al. 2001). as summer spreading (5.5 vs. 2.35 kg Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, Measurements of lagoon CH4 emis- CH4/ha). Sharpe and Harper (2002) and Volatile Organic Compounds sion rates have varied from almost reported an N2O flux of 0.0016 mg/d/ 2 Manure storage systems can emit 0 up to as high as 188 g CH4/d/AU m before irrigation of swine lagoon so-called hazardous gases—NH , 3 (Casey et al. 2006). Average CH4 liquid to cropland and 2.6 to 3.8 mg/d/ H2S, as well as VOCs—into the at- emissions of 154 g/d/AU and 21.4 m2 after irrigation. Akiyama and mosphere. Uncovered liquid manure g/d/AU were measured from liq- Tsuruta (2003) measured yearly N2O storage basins and tanks along with uid manure storage units by Zahn fluxes of 184 and 61.3 mg/m2 from treatment lagoons can release moder- and colleagues (2001) and Hobbs, the land application of poultry and ate to high levels (5 to 40 g NH3/d/ Misselbrook, and Cumby (1999), re- swine manure, respectively. m2) of NH and relatively low levels 3 spectively. Covers over cattle slurry (0.65 to 5 g H S/d/m2) of H S (Gay et 2 2 storages (straw, Leca, or natural crust) Particulate Matter and Bioaerosols al. 2003). Volatile organic compound Airborne emissions of dust and emission data are much more lim- decreased CH4 emissions 40% com- bioaerosol from manure storage units ited for manure storage sources and pared to uncovered storages (Sommer have typically identified specific com- and Moller 2000). Solid manure stor- and land application are relatively pounds such as VFAs, phenols, and ages may also produce CH4 depend- unknown. Liquid manure would emit indoles (Bicudo et al. 2004; Hobbs, ing on the degree of composting (in- little or no PM during the storage or Misselbrook, and Cumby 1999; Zahn creasing CH4 generation) that occurs. land application phase but could be et al 2001). As with odor emissions, Sommer and Moller (2000) found sol- a source of airborne microorganisms covered liquid manure storage and id dairy manure produced about 50.8 (pathogenic or otherwise). However, most solid manure storage systems g CH4/tonne (50 g CH4/ton) whereas little or no data have been collected. have lower gas emission rates, typi- composting of deep-bedded housing Solid manure storage and the associ- cally in the lower ranges (5 to 10 g swine manure with a high bulk den- ated application of these solids onto 2 NH3/d/m ) of those seen for uncov- sity produced up to 254 g CH4/tonne cropland could produce some PM if ered liquid systems (Bicudo et al. (250 g CH4/ton). the solid manure is sufficiently dry. 2004; Brewer and Costello 1999) Solid manure storages have been Typically only cattle feedyard stock- for NH3 and below the range (0.16 g identified as sources of 2N O with piles and lots (especially in the dry 2 H2S/d/m ) for uncovered liquid sys- emissions of 3.58 kt N2O/yr and High Plains area of the southwest- tems for H S (Bicudo et al. 2004). 2 1.86 kt N2O/yr being reported by ern United States) have been iden- Land application of manure can Chadwick and colleagues (1999) for tified as a source of PM emissions constitute large NH3 and other gas stockpiled cattle and poultry manure, (Auvermann et al. 2002). emission sources with reported levels respectively. Nitrous oxide emissions above 100 g NH /d/m2 (Chadwick et 3 will be released in any manure treat- Manure Use Summary al. 1998). As with odor, much of the ment system that uses a combina- On-farm manure storage systems gas emission occurs during the agitation of aerobic and anoxic treatments and the land application of animal tion of the manure storages (liquid) (Beline and Martinez 2002). Sommer that often produces large spikes of manure are sources of odor, gases and Moller (2000) measured N2O (hazardous and greenhouse), particu- H2S, NH3, and other VOCs (Clarke and McQuitty 1987). Ammonia loss emissions from the composting of lates, and bioaerosols. The magnitude during land application using both solid manure with straw from swine and importance or priority of each of deep and shallow injection and drag housing and found a total of 58.9 g/ these pollutants varies depending on shoe methods was decreased from tonne (58 g/ton) of N2O emitted dur- species, location in the United States, 90+, 80+, and 60+%, respective- ing the composting period. Anaerobic and type of manure management ly, in a study conducted by Burton lagoons in North Carolina from a system. From a producer’s perspec- (1997). Other techniques can be used farrow-to-finish farm and a farrow- tive, odor is often the main neighbor- to decrease these gases (especially to-wean operation emitted 0.3 and 0.4 hood concern during siting of a new NH3) but are highly dependent on kg/d/ha of N2O, respectively (Harper production operation or expansion soil, moisture, and climate condi- et al. 2004). of an existing one. From a regulations during the application process Chadwick and colleagues (1998) tory standpoint, hazardous gases (Thompson and Meisinger 2001). measured CH4 emissions after land (H2S and NH3) may be of the great-

18 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY est concern, because depending on some of these ideas. Higher fertilizer in order for methane digesters to be the state or area of the country, there prices are causing producers to seek voluntarily adopted. may be regulatory limits on what can to maximize the value of their manure be emitted from the production site resource by storing in a manner that or there is a property line concentra- conserves nutrients and land applying Summary tion threshold for certain gases. Until it to crops that benefit from the nutri- In the past 10 to 20 years, air recently, GHGs, PM, and bioaerosols ents. Livestock production is moving quality and emissions inside of and have been less of a concern from ei- back to the crop-producing regions of from animal production systems have ther manure storage or land applica- the nation as opposed to areas where become environmental concerns tion sources. But GHGs and PM are the nutrients are not as valuable be- equal to those of water quality and a growing concern as more data are cause crop production is minimal. emissions to surface and groundwa- becoming available and the concern Greenhouse gases from livestock ter for animal agriculture in the 1970s over climate change and regional air production are primarily from enteric and ’80s. During the same time, there quality in nonattainment sections of fermentation and manure manage- has been a large increase in air qual- the country increases. Bioaerosols are ment. The much-quoted UN study ity/emission research, much of it driv- being examined both from public and Livestock’s Long Shadow distinguish- en and funded by the animal industry, animal health perspectives but are not es between intensive and extensive that has provided air emission rates high on the list for most producers. livestock production (Steinfeld et al. and information for a variety of air- 2006). United States livestock produc- borne parameters from animal hous- tion is intensive and does not have the ing units, associated manure storages, ir ollutant mpacts A P I GHG emissions associated with poor and land application systems. The and Policy feed quality and deforestation. Enteric airborne parameters measured and the Most studies indicate that large fermentation is a natural process for levels of concern include the follow- livestock production facilities lower ruminant animals, but the GHG emis- ing: the value of residences within 4.8 km sions/unit of meat produced is very • Odor and PM10—primarily a local (three miles) of the facility (Ulmer low in the U.S. production system. issue and nuisance complaints and Massey 2006). Studies also in- The U.S. manure management • Hazardous gases (NH3 and H2S) dicate that these businesses increase system is relatively high in GHG and PM2.5—regional/national economic activity in the county and emissions because most all pork ma- issues; primarily environmental state. Political actions try to balance nure and at least half of the dairy impacts, but also health concerns the competing positive and negative manure is stored wet rather than dry. • Greenhouse gases—global impor- impacts of any business. To the ex- The CH4 emissions that come from tance on climate change impacts tent that pollutants (including odor) manure storage structures can be cap- have local effects, regulatory actions tured and destroyed by using covers • Air quality (pollutant concentra- should be taken into account locally. and digesters on large facilities. The tions) inside animal buildings or For example, the risk of nitrogenous economies of scale associated with ambient levels near neighbors— animal and human health issues gases leaving lagoons and being rede- capturing and destroying CH4 indi- posited within water bodies is greater cate that attempts to decrease CH4 Swine production systems gen- in Missouri (with average rainfall of from livestock production will foster erate a large variety of significant 1.02 m/year [40 inches/year]) than greater concentration in the industry. air emissions. Ammonia, H2S, odor, in western Oklahoma (with average Currently, the science exists to capture VOCs, PM, bioaerosols, and GHGs rainfall less than 0.5 m [20 inches] and destroy CH4, but the economic are all emitted in quantities of con- per year). benefit from qualifying and selling cern from pork production systems. A combination of regulatory and C offsets or credits using registries This has created challenges for pork market forces is causing a shift in the such as the Climate Action Reserve, producers, because a more compre- way manure is stored and land ap- Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, hensive approach (vs. targeting one plied. Regulatory forces are empha- and Chicago Climate Exchange and or two contaminants) is necessary to sizing sufficient storage capacities from electricity generation using control or manage several of these air for spreading windows, setbacks of methane-powered generators is insuf- emission parameters simultaneously. storage and spreading areas from en- ficient in most livestock operations to But the pork industry has been quite vironmental concerns such as wells justify the expense of the equipment. progressive in dealing with air quality and streams, and application lim- Other benefits must be identified (e.g., problems, funding emissions research its that reflect crop nutrient needs. odor reduction or increased retention projects, and promoting practices and Environmental forces are reinforcing of nutrients) or costs must come down technologies that manage and miti-

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 19 gate air emissions from their produc- Regulation of air emissions from Volatile fatty acid. A short‐chain tion systems. animal production at the federal, fatty acid—acetic, propionic, and Poultry producers, on the other state, and even local level has been butyric acid—which, apart from hand, have been concerned primar- steadily increasing during the past 20 its presence in some foods, is pro- ily with one airborne contaminant— years, creating uncertainty for produced by intestinal bacteria from ammonia—secondarily, with PM ducers and the industries. Compliance undigested starch and dietary fiber. and, potentially, bioaerosols. This is to existing and new regulations is Volatile organic compounds. A large especially the case for layer opera- being met through a combination group of carbon-based chemicals tions. Meat bird (broiler and turkey) of new mitigation technologies and that easily evaporate at room producers have some concern with management practices depending on temperature. PM levels in barns and PM emissions the animal species, location of the because of the litter pack manure- production operations, and economics handling systems. Ammonia emis- of the industry. Many of these mitiga- Literature Cited sions have been determined for the tion technologies are site and specie Akiyama, H. and H. Tsuruta. 2003. Nitrous oxide, major housing systems used in the specific, but several, such as diet ma- nitric oxide, and nitrogen dioxide fluxes from soils after manure and urea applica- poultry industry, with some housing nipulation, are common to all animal tion. J Environ Qual 32 (2): 423–431. systems and/or management practices species. The goal is to use science- Alanis, P., M. Sorenson, M. Beene, C. Krauter, B. producing substantial NH emission based information to help all stake- Shamp, and A. S. Hasson. 2008. Measure- 3 ment of non-enteric emission fluxes of decrease. holders involved in animal produc- volatile fatty acids from a California dairy Dairy producers, like swine pro- tion to protect the environment and by solid phase micro-extraction with gas ducers, have a number of different public health in a proactive manner chromatography/mass spectrometry. Atmos Environ 42:6417–6424. air emission parameters of concern. and avoid costly litigation to solve American Farm Bureau Federation and National Ammonia, odor, and GHG emissions nuisance suits or enforce regulations. Pork Producers Council et al. v. EPA, 559 are of interest to the U.S. dairy in- F.3d 512 (DC Cir. 2009). American Public Health Association. 2003. dustry; in addition, dairies in western Precautionary moratorium on new animal states such as California are also con- Glossary feeding operations. Adv Pol, Policy No. cerned about VOC emissions. Dairy 20037, http://www.apha.org/advocacy/ Animal unit. 1 AU=500 kg or 1,100 policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1243 operations not only have emissions lbs of animal weight. (12 November 2010) from buildings and manure storages, AP-42 emission factor. Emission Amon, B., Th. Amon, J. Boxberger, and Ch. Alt. but they also have large feed (for- factors listed in the AP-42 series of 2001. Emissions of NH3, N2O, and CH4 from dairy cows housed in a farmyard ma- age) storage sources. Additionally, the documents are best viewed as EPA nure-tying stall (housing, manure storage, dairy industry has become proactive guidance, primary regulatory au- manure spreading). Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst in managing and mitigating emissions thority residing with the states. 60:103–113. from their operations, funding air Aneja, V. P., W. H. Schlesinger, and J. W. Eris- Bioaerosols. Airborne particles that man. 2009. Effects of agriculture upon emission monitoring and C footprint are biological in origin. the air quality and climate: Research, studies. Biogas. A mixture of methane and policy, and regulations. Environ Sci Technol Beef cattle are primarily finished 43:4234–4240. carbon dioxide produced by the Arogo, J., P. W. Westerman, and A. J. Heber. in large open feedyards. The main air bacterial decomposition of organic 2003. A review of ammonia emissions from quality concern with these open lots wastes and used as a fuel. confined swine feeding operations.Trans is PM (dust) emissions. Other air- ASAE (Am Soc Agric Eng) 46:805–817. Endotoxin. A toxin produced by cer- American Society of Agricultural and Biologi- borne parameters such as NH3 may tain bacteria and released upon de- cal Engineers (ASABE). 2006. Air quality be of concern under certain weather struction of the bacterial cell. and emissions from livestock and poultry (wet) conditions. production/waste management systems. Pp. Eutrophication. A process where 1–40. In J. M. Rice, D. F. Caldwell, and Emission of gases from manure water bodies receive excess nutri- F. J. Humenik (eds.). Animal Agriculture storages and land application of ani- ents that stimulate excessive plant and the Environment: National Center for mal manure on cropland and pastures Manure and Animal Waste Management growth. White Papers. can be a significant percentage of the Greenhouse gases. Gases that trap Auvermann, B. W. 2003. A mechanistic total air emissions from animal op- heat in the atmosphere. model of fugitive dust emissions from cattle erations. Management practices and Hedonic tone. A property of an odor feedyards. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Air Pollution mitigation technologies have been relating to its pleasantness or un- from Agricultural Operations, 12 October, and are being developed and used pleasantness. Durham, North Carolina. to decrease odor, hazardous gases, Particulate matter. Minute airborne Auvermann, B. W., R. W. Bottcher, A. J. Heber, GHGs, and VOCs from manure stor- D. Meyer, C. B. Parnell, B. Shaw, and J. liquid or solid particles (such as Worley. 2002. Particulate Matter Emissions age units and during land application dust, fume, mist, smog, smoke) from Confined Animal Operations: Manage- of manure. that cause air pollution. ment and Control Measures: National Cen-

20 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ter for Manure and Animal Waste Manage- Cabera, M. L., S .C. Chiang, O. C. Merka, O. with an inverse dispersion technique. Agric ment White Papers, p. 41. North Carolina C. Pancorbo, and S. C. Thompson. 1994. Forest Meteor 144 (2): 139–155. State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Pelletizing and soil water effects on gaseous Fuentes, J., D. Wang, H. Neumann, T. Gillespie, (available on CD-ROM from MidWest Plan emission from surface-applied poultry litter. G. Den Hartog, and T. Dann. 1996. Ambi- Service). Soil Sci Soc Am J 58:807–811. ent biogenic hydrocarbons and isoprene Baek, B., R. Todd, N. A. Cole, and J. Koziel. Cambra-López, M., A. J. A. Aarnink, Y. Zhao, emissions from a mixed deciduous forest. J 2006. Ammonia and hydrogen sulphide flux S. Calvet, and A. G. Torres. 2009. Airborne Atmos Chem 25 (1): 67–95. and dry deposition velocity estimates using particular matter from livestock produc- Gay, S. W., C. J. Clanton, D. R. Schmidt, K. A. vertical gradient method at a commercial tion systems: A review of an air pollution Janni, L. D. Jacobson, and S. Weisberg. beef cattle feedlot. Int J Global Environ Iss problem. Environ Pollut doi:10.1016/j. 2003. Odor, total reduced sulfur, and am- 6 (2/3): 189–203. envpol.2009.07.011. monia emissions from livestock and poultry Bandekar, P., S. Bajwa, and Y. Liang. 2008. Carter, S., M. Lachmann, and J. Bundy. 2008. buildings and manure storage units. ASAE Preliminary evaluation of a wet scrubber Effects of dietary manipulation on ammonia App Eng Agric 19 (3): 347–360. system to reduce ammonia emission from emissions. Proceedings Mitigating Air Green, A. R., I. Wesley, D. W. Trampel, and H. poultry houses. ASAE Paper No. 083945. Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations Xin. 2009. Air quality and hen health status ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan. cd, Des Moines, Iowa, May 19 to 21, 2008. in three types of commercial laying hen Beline, F. and J. Martinez. 2002. Nitrogen trans- Carter, W. P. L. 1994. Development of ozone houses. J App Poult Res 18 (3): 605–621. formations during biological aerobic treat- reactivity scales for volatile organic com- Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G., J. H. M. Metz, G. H. ment of pig slurry: Effect of intermittent pounds. J Air Waste Manage 44:881–899. Uenk, V. R. Phillips, M. R. Holden, R. W. aeration on nitrous oxide emissions. Biores Casey, J. and N. M. Holden. 2006. GHG emis- Sneath, J. L. Short, R. P. White, J. Hartung, Technol 83:225–228. sions from conventional agri-environmental J. Seedorf, M. Schröder, K. H. Linkert, S. Bicudo, J. R., D. R. Schmidt, W. Powers, J. A. scheme and organic Irish suckler-beef units. Pedersen, H. Takai, J. O. Johnsen, and C. M. Zahn, C. L. Tengman, C. J. Clanton, and L. J Environ Qual 35:231–239. Wathes. 1998. Concentrations and emissions D. Jacobson. 2002. Odor and VOC emis- Casey, K. D., J. R. Bicudo, D. R. Schmidt, of ammonia in livestock buildings in North- sions from swine manure storages. Proceed- A. Singh, S. W. Gay, R. S. Gates, L. D. ern Europe. J Agri Eng Res 70:79–95. ings of Odor and Toxic Air Emissions 2002, Jacobson, and S. J. Hoff. 2006. Air quality Haglind, P. and R. Rylander. 1987. Occupational Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 28 to and emissions from livestock and poultry exposure and lung function measurements May 1, 2002. WEF, Alexandria, Virginia (on production/waste management systems. Pp. among workers in swine confinement build- CD-ROM). 1–40. In J. M. Rice, D. F. Caldwell, and F. J. ings. J Occup Med 29:904–907. Bicudo, J. R., C. J. Clanton, D. R. Schmidt, W. Humenik (eds.). Animal Agriculture and the Harper, L. A., R. R. Sharpe, T. B. Parkin, A. De Powers, L. D. Jacobson, and C. L. Tengman. Environment. National Center for Manure Visscher, O. van Cleemput, and F. M. Byers. 2004. Geotextile covers to reduce odor and and Animal Waste Management White 2004. Nitrogen cycling through swine pro- gas emissions from swine manure storage Papers. ASABE, St. Joseph, Michigan. duction systems: Ammonia, dinitrogen, and ponds. Appl Eng in Agric. 20 (1): 65–75. Chadwick, D. R., T. van der Weerden, J. Marti- nitrous oxide emissions. J Environ Qual 33 Bluteau, C. V., D. I. Masse, and R. Leduc. 2009. nez, and B. F. Pain. 1998. Nitrogen trans- (4): 1189–1201. Ammonia emission rates from dairy live- formations and losses following pig slurry Heber, A. J., R. K. Duggirala, J. Q. Ni, M. L. stock buildings in eastern Canada. Biosys applications to a natural soil filter system Spence, B. L. Haymore, V. I. Adamchuk, D. Eng 103 (4): 480–488. (Solepur process) in Brittany, France. J S. Bundy, A. L. Sutton, and K. M. Keener. Brewer, S. K. and T. A. Costello. 1999. In situ Agric Eng Res 69:85–93. 1997. Field Performance of a Pit Additive measurements of ammonia volatilization Chadwick, D. R., R. W. Sneath, V. R. Phillips, Tested in Commercial Grow-Finish Houses. from broiler litter using an enclosed air and B. F. Pain. 1999. A UK inventory of Purdue University Swine Day Report, http:// chamber. Trans ASAE (Am Soc Agric Eng) nitrous oxide emissions from farmed live- www.ansc.purdue.edu/swine/swineday/ 42:1415–1422. stock. Atmos Environ 33:3345–3354. sday97/psd17-97.htm (12 November 2010) Burns, R. T., K. A. Armstrong, F. R. Walker, C. Clark, P. C. and J. B. McQuitty. 1987. Air quality Heber, A. J., D. S. Bundy, T. T. Lim, J. Q. Ni, B. J. Richards, and D. R. Raman. 2003. Am- in six Alberta commercial free-stall dairy L. Haymore, C. A. Diehl, and R. K. Duggi- monia emissions from a broiler production barns. Can Eng Agric 29:77–80. rala. 1998. Odor emission rates from swine facility in the United States. Pp. 88–95. Community of Alma v. Furnas County Farms. 266 confinement buildings. Pp. 301–310.Animal Proceedings International Symposium on Neb. 558 (2003). Production Systems and the Environment. Gaseous and Odor Emissions from Animal Cormier, Y., G. Tremblay, A. Meriaux, G. Proceedings International Conference on Production Facilities, CIGR, Horsens, Brochu, and J. Lavoie. 1990. Airborne Odor, Water Quality, Nutrient Management, Denmark. microbial contents in two types of swine and Socioeconomic Issues, Des Moines, Burns, R. T., H. Li, L. Moody, H. Xin, R. Gates, confinement buildings in Quebec.Am Ind Iowa, July 20 to 22, 1998. D. Overhults, and J. Earnest. 2008a. Hyg Assoc J 51:304–309. Heber, A. J., J. Q. Ni, T. T. Lim, C. A. Diehl, A. Quantification of particulate emissions from Duchaine, C., Y. Grimard, and Y. Cormier. 2000. L. Sutton, R. K. Duggirala, B. L. Haymore, broiler houses in the southeastern United Influence of building maintenance, envi- D. T. Kelly, and V. I. Adamchuk. 2000. States. Proceedings of the 8th International ronmental factors, and seasons on airborne Effect of a manure additive on ammonia Livestock Environment Symposium, Iguassu contaminants of swine confinement build- emission from swine finishing buildings. Falls, Brazil, September 1 to 3, 2008. ings. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 61:56–63. Trans ASAE 43:1895–1902. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan. Fairchild, B. D. 2008. Fence line ammonia con- Heber, A. J., T. T. Lim, P. C. Tao, and J. Q. Ni. Burns, R. T., H. Li, H. Xin, R. Gates, D. Over- centration from broiler operations. Poultry 2004. Control of air emissions from swine hults, J. Earnest, and L. Moody. 2008b. Science Department, University of Georgia, finishing buildings flushed with recycled Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Athens, Georgia. lagoon effluent. Paper presented at the 2004 broiler houses in the southeastern United Faulkner, W. B. and B. W. Shaw. 2008. Review of ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting, States. ASABE Technical Paper #08-4649. ammonia emission factors for United States Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. ASABE, St. Joseph, Michigan. animal agriculture. Atmos Environ 42 (27): Heber, A. J., P. Tao, J. Q. Ni, T. T. Lim, and A. Burton, C. H. 1997. Manure Management— 6567–6574. M. Schmidt. 2005. Air emissions from two Treatment Strategies for Sustainable Agri- Filipy, J., B. Rumburg, G. Mount, H. Westberg, swine finishing buildings with flushing: culture. Silsoe Research Institute, Silsoe, and B. Lamb. 2006. Identification and quan- Ammonia characteristics. Livestock Envi- Bedford, United Kingdom. tification of volatile organic compounds ronment VII Proceedings 7th International Bussink, D. W. and O. Oenema. 1998. Ammonia from a dairy. Atmos Environ 40:1480–1494. Symposium, Beijing, China, May 18 to 20, volatilization from dairy farming systems in Flesch, T., J. D. Wilson, L. A. Harper, R. W. 2005. ASAE 701P0205. temperate areas: A review. Nutr Cyc Agro- Todd, and N. A. Cole. 2007. Determining Heederik, D., R. Brouwer, K. Biersteker, and J. ecosys 51:19–33. ammonia emissions from a cattle feedlot S. M. Boleij. 1991. Relationship of airborne

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 21 endotoxin and bacterial levels in pig farms Keener, H. M., D. L. Elwell, and D. Grande. Lim, T. T., A. J. Heber, J. Q. Ni, R. Duggirala, with the lung function and respiratory symp- 2002. NH3 emissions and N-balances for and C. A. Diehl. 1998. Production of carbon toms of farmers. Int Arch Occup Health a 1.6 million caged layer facility: Manure dioxide in a deep-pit swine finishing house. 62:595–601. belt/composting vs. deep pit operation. Paper 984049, ASAE International Meet- Hobbs, P. J., T. H. Misselbrook, and T. R. Cumby. Trans ASAE 45 (6): 1977–1984. ing, Orlando, Florida. ASAE, St. Joseph, 1999. Production and emission of odours Kirchmann, H., M. Esala, J. Morken, M. Ferm, Michigan. and gases from ageing pig waste. J Agric W. Bussink, J. Gustavsson, and C. Jako- Lim, T. T., A. J. Heber, J. Q. Ni, A. L. Sutton, and Eng Res 72:291–298. bsson. 1998. Ammonia emissions from P. Shao. 2003. Odor and gas release from Howard, C. J., A. Kumar, I. A. Malkina, F. M. agriculture; summary of the Nordic seminar anaerobic treatment lagoons from swine ma- Mitloehner, P. G. Green, R. Flocchini, and on ammonia emission, science and policy. nure. J Environ Qual 32:406–416. M. Kleeman. 2010a. Reactive organic gas Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 51:1–3. Lockyer, D. R. and B. F. Pain. 1989. Ammonia emissions from livestock feed contribute Koelsch, R., B. Woodbury, D. Stenberg, D. emission from cattle, pig, and poultry significantly to ozone production in central Miller, and D. Schulte. 2002. Survey of wastes applied to pasture. Environ Pollut 56 California. Env Sci Technol 44:2309–2314. hydrogen sulfide concentrations in vicin- (1989): 19–30. Howard C., A. Kumar, F. M. Mitloehner, K. R. ity of beef cattle feedlots. Proceedings of Mackie, R. I., P. G. Stroot, and V. H. Varel. 1998. Stackhouse, P. G. Green, R. G. Flocchini, the Annual International Meeting of the Biochemical identification and biological and M. J. Kleeman. 2010b. Direct measure- American Society of Agricultural Engineers, origin of key odor components in livestock ments of the ozone formation potential from Chicago, Illinois, July 28 to 31, 2002. Paper waste. J Anim Sci 76:1331–1342. livestock and poultry waste emissions. Env No. 02-4088. Madden, N. M., R. J. Southard, and J. P. Mitchell. Sci Technol 44:2292–2298. Kroodsma, W., J. W. H. Huis in’t Veld, and R. 2008. Conservation tillage reduces PM10 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Scholtens. 1993. Ammonia emissions and emissions in dairy forage rotations. Atmos (IPCC). 2007. Good Practice Guidance its reduction from cubicle house by flushing. Environ 42 (16): 3795–3808. and Uncertainty Management in National Livest Prod Sci 35:293–302. Malone, G., G. VanWicklen, and S. Collier. 2008. Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Cambridge Kroodsma, W., R. Scholten, and J. W. H. Huis Efficacy of vegetative environmental buffers University Press, Cambridge, U.K., and in’t Veld. 1988. Ammonia emissions from to mitigate emissions from tunnel-ventilated New York, New York. 996 pp. poultry housing systems. Pp. 7.1–7.13. poultry houses. Pp. 27–29. Proceedings Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). Report 96: Proceedings of the CIGR Semi- of the Mitigating Air Emissions from n.d. Iowa DNR Air Quality—Animal Feed- nar on Storing, Handling, and Spreading Animal Feeding Operations Conference, ing Operations (AFOs), http://www.iow- of Manure and Municipal Waste, Uppsala, Des Moines, Iowa, May 19 to 21, 2008. adnr.gov/air/afo/afo.html (23 March 2011) Sweden. E. Muhlbauer, L. Moody, and R. T. Burns Iowa State University. 2006. Tyson Foods Air Lacey, R. E., J. S. Redwine, and C. B. Parnell, (eds.). ISBN 978-0-9817781-0-5. Pollutant Emission Monitoring. Iowa State Jr. 2003. Particulate matter and ammonia Manuzon, R. B., L. Y. Zhao, H. M. Keener, and University Animal Industry Report 2006. emission factors for tunnel-ventilated broiler M. J. Darr. 2007. An acid spray wet scrub- A. S. Leaflet 2121, http://www.ans.iastate. production houses in the southern U. S. ber for absorbing ammonia emissions from edu/report/air/2006pdf/R2121.pdf (22 April Trans ASAE 46 (4): 1203–1214. exhaust fans of animal buildings. Trans 2011) Laguë, C. 2003. Management practices to ASABE 50 (4): 1395–1407. Jacobson, L. D., B. R. Hetchler, and D. R. reduce greenhouse gas emissions from McGinn, S. M., H. H. Janzen, and T. Coates. Schmidt. 2007. Sampling pit and wall emis- swine production systems. Adv Pork Prod 2003. Atmospheric ammonia, volatile fatty sion for H2S, NH3, CO2, PM and odor from 14:287–294. acids, and other odorants near beef feedlots. deep-pit pig finishing facilities.Proceed - Larry Coffey v. County of Otoe. S-06-921, Su- J Environ Qual 32:1173–1182. ings of the International Symposium on Air preme Court of Nebraska (2008). McGinn, S., T. Flesch, B. Crenna, K. Beauche- Quality Waste Management Agriculture, Li, H. and H. Xin. 2010. Lab-scale assessment min, and T. Coates. 2007. Quantifying Broomfield, Colorado, September 16 to 19, of gaseous emissions from laying-hen ammonia emissions from a cattle feedlot 2007. ASABE 701P0907cd. manure storage as affected by physical and using a dispersion model. J Environ Qual Jacobson, L. D., B. P. Hetchler, V. J. Johnson, R. environmental factors. Trans ASAE 53 (2): 36:1585–1590. E. Nicolai, D. R. Schmidt, P. R. Goodrich, 593–604. Melse, R. W. and N. W. M. Ogink. 2005. Air A. J. Heber, J. Q. Ni, T. T. Lim, P. C. Tao, Li, H., H. Xin, R. T. Burns, S. J. Hoff, J. D. scrubbing techniques for ammonia and odor S. J. Hoff, D. S. Bundy, M. A. Huebner, B. Harmon, L. D. Jacobson, and S. Noll. reduction at livestock operations: Review of C. Zelle, Y. Zhang, J. McClure, M. Roberts, 2008a. Ammonia and PM emissions from a on-farm research in the Netherlands. Trans J. A. Koziel, B. H. Baek, A. Balota, J. P. tom turkey barn in Iowa. ASABE Techni- ASABE 48 (6): 2303–2313. Pinhirme, J. M. Sweeten, D. B. Beasley, cal Paper #08-4425. ASABE, St. Joseph, Menneer, J. C., S. Ledgard, C. Ledgard, C. G. R. Baughman, and R. Manilla. 2004. Pre- Michigan. McLay, and W. Silvester. 2005. Animal liminary NH3, H2S, and PM10 data from pig Li, H., H. Xin, R. T. Burns, and Y. Liang. 2008b. treading stimulates denitrification in soil and poultry buildings from six-state project. Reduction of ammonia emission from stored under pasture. Soil Biol Biochem 37:1625– ASAE Paper 044156. poultry manure using additives: Zeolite, 1629. Jacobson, L. D., A. J. Heber, S. J. Hoff, Y. Al+Clear, Ferix-3 and PLT. J App Poult Res Midwest Plan Service. 1990. Mechanical Venti- Zhang, D. B. Beasley, J. A. Koziel, and B. 17 (4): 421–431. lating Systems for Livestock Housing. Iowa J. Hetchler. 2006. Aerial emissions from Li, H., H. Xin, R. T. Burns, L. D. Jacobson, S. State University, Ames, Iowa, MWPS-32, confirmed animal buildings. Pp. 775–784. Noll, S. J. Hoff, J .D. Harmon, and J. A. ISBN 0-89373-075-0. Proceedings of the Workshop on Agricul- Koziel. 2009. Ammonia and PM emissions Milhollin, R., 2010. Permitting Animal Feeding tural Air Quality: State of the Science, June from Midwest turkey barns. Trans ASABE Operations in Missouri: Local Restriction, 5 to 8, 2006. (in review). http://agebb.missouri.edu/commag/permit/ James, T., D. Meyer, E. Esparza, E. J. DePeters, Liang, Y., H. Xin, H. Li, R. S. Gates, E. F. restrictions.asp (23 August 2010) and H. Perez-Monti. 1999. Effects of dietary Wheeler, and K. D. Casey. 2006. Effect of Miller, D. and E. Berry. 2005. Cattle feedlot soil nitrogen manipulation on ammonia volatil- measurement interval on estimation of am- moisture and manure content: I. Impacts ization from manure from Holstein heifers. monia emission rates for layer houses. Trans on greenhouse gases, odor compounds, J Dairy Sci 82:2430–2439. ASAE 49 (1): 183–186. nitrogen losses, and dust. J Environ Qual Kaspar, H. F. and J. M. Tiedje. 1981. Dissimila- Lim, T. T., A. J. Heber, and J. Q. Ni. 1999. Odor 34:644–655. tory reduction of nitrate and nitrite in the emissions from commercial swine nurser- Mitloehner, F. M. and M. S. Calvo. 2008. Worker bovine rumen: Nitrous oxide production and ies. Paper 994147, ASAE/CSAE Interna- health and safety in concentrated animal effect of acetylene. Appl Environ Microbiol tional Meeting, Toronto. ASAE, St. Joseph, feeding operations. J Agric Saf Health 41:705–709. Michigan. 14:163–187.

22 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Moiser, A. R., J. M. Duxbury, J. R. Freney, O. Commission. Department of Agricultural swine, dairy and poultry barns. ASAE Paper Heinemeyer, K. Minami, and D. E. Johnson. Engineering, Texas A&M University, Col- No. 024060. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan. 1998. Mitigating agricultural emissions of lege Station, Texas. Seedorf, J., J. Hartung, M. Schroder, K. M. methane. Clim Change 40:39–80. Perschbacher-Buser, Z., D. Parker, K. Casey, Linkert, V. R. Phillips, M. R. Holden, R. W. National Research Council. 2003. Air Emissions G. Green, E. Caraway, and M. Rhoades. Sneath, J. L. Short, R. P. White, and S. Ped- from Animal Feeding Operations: Current 2007. Quantification of ambient p-cresol ersen. 1998. Concentrations and emissions Knowledge, Future Needs. National Acad- concentrations downwind of beef cattle of airborne endotoxins and microorganisms emies Press, Washington, D.C. 263 pp. feedyards. Paper presented at the Interna- in livestock buildings in northern Europe. J Ndegwa, P. 2009. Important Air Emissions from tional Symposium on Air Quality and Waste Agric Eng Res 70 (1): 97–109. Dairy Operations vis-à-vis the Prevailing Management for Agriculture, Broomfield, Seifert, R. L., J. R. Scudlark, A. G. Potter, K. Federal Statutes. Report submitted to Wash- Colorado, September 16 to 19, 2007. A. Simonsen, and K. B. Savidge. 2004. ington State Dairy Federation. Pinder, R. W., P. J. Adams, and S. N. Pandis. Characterization of atmospheric ammonia Ni, J. Q., C. Vinckier, J. Hendriks, and J. Coene- 2007. Ammonia emission controls as a cost- emission from a commercial chicken house grachts. 1999. Production of carbon dioxide effective strategy for reducing atmospheric on the Delmarva Peninsula. Environ Sci in a fattening pig house under field condi- particulate matter in the eastern United Technol 38:2769–2778. tions. II. Release from the manure. Atmos States. Environ Sci Technol 41:380–386. Shah, S. B., P. W. Westerman, R. D. Munilla, Environ 33:3697–3703. Pitesky, M. E., K. R. Stackhouse, and F. M. Mit- M. E. Adcock, and G. R. Baughman. 2008. Ni, J. Q., A. J. Heber, C. A. Diehl, and T. T. Lim. loehner. 2009. Clearing the air: Livestock’s Design and evaluation of a regenerating 2000. Ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and contribution to climate change. Adv Agron scrubber for reducing animal house emis- carbon dioxide release from pig manure 103:3–36. sions. Trans ASABE 51 (1): 243–250. in under-floor deep pits. J Agric Eng Res Pope, C. A. III, M. Ezzati, and D. W. Dockery. Sharpe, R. R. and L. A. Harper. 2002. Nitrous 77:53–66. 2009. Fine-particulate air pollution and life oxide and ammonia fluxes in a soybean Ni, J. Q., A. J. Heber, C. A. Diehl, T. T. Lim, R. expectancy in the United States. N Engl J field irrigated with swine effluent.J Environ K. Duggirala, and B. L. Haymore. 2002a. Med 360:376–386. Qual 31:524–532. Characteristics of hydrogen sulphide con- Powers, W. J., A. C. Wilkie, H. H. Van Horn, and Shaw, S. L., F. M. Mitloehner, W. Jackson, E. centrations in mechanically ventilated swine R. A. Nordstedt. 1997. Effects of hydraulic J. DePeters, J. G. Fadel, P. H. Robinson, buildings. Can Biosys Eng 44:6.11–6.19. retention time on performance and effluent R. Holzinger, and A. H. Goldstein. 2007. Ni, J. Q., A. J. Heber, C. A. Diehl, T. T. Lim, R. odor of conventional and fixed-film anaero- Volatile organic compound emissions from K. Duggirala, and B. L. Haymore. 2002b. bic digesters fed dairy manure wastewaters. dairy cows and their waste as measured by Summertime concentrations and emissions Trans ASAE 40 (5): 1449–1455. proton-transfer-reaction mass spectrometry. of hydrogen sulfide at a mechanically venti- Radcliffe, J. S., B. T. Richert, D. M. Sholly, K. A. Environ Sci Technol 41:1310–1316. lated swine finishing building.Trans ASAE Foster, B. Hollas, T. T. Lim, J. Q. Ni, A. J. Snell, H. G. J., F. Seipelt, and H. F. A. Van den 45:193–199. Heber, and A. L. Sutton. 2008. Diet modi- Weghe. 2003. Ventilation rates and gaseous Ni, J. Q., A. J. Heber, T. T. Lim, C. A. Diehl, R. fication to reduce odors, gas emissions and emissions from naturally ventilated dairy K. Duggirala, and B. L. Haymore. 2002c. nutrient excretions from swine operations. houses. Biosys Eng 8 (1): 67–73. Hydrogen sulphide emission from two Proceedings of Mitigating Air Emissions Sommer, S. G. and H. B. Moller. 2000. Emis- large pig-finishing buildings with long-term from Animal Feeding Operations cd, Des sion of greenhouse gases during com- high-frequency measurements. J Agric Sci Moines, Iowa, May 19 to 21, 2008. posting of deep litter from pig produc- 138:227–236. Razote, E. B., R. G. Maghirang, B. Z. Predicala, tion—Effect of straw content. J Agric Sci Nicholson, F. A., B. J. Chambers, and A. W. J. P. Murphy, B. W. Auvermann, J. P. Harner 134:327–335. Walker. 2004. Ammonia emissions from III, and W. L. Hargrove. 2006. Laboratory Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Caster, broiler litter and laying hen manure manage- evaluation of the dust-emission potential of M. Rosales, and C. de Haan. 2006. Live- ment systems. Biosyst Eng 89 (2): 175–185. cattle feedlot surfaces. Trans ASABE 49 (4): stock’s Long Shadow. Food and Agriculture Osada, T., H. B. Ram, and P. Dahl. 1998. Con- 1117–1124. Organization of the United Nations, http:// tinuous measurement of nitrous oxide and Ritz, C. W., B. W. Mitchell, B. D. Fairchild, M. www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00. methane emission in pig units by infrared Czarick III, and J. W. Worley. 2008. Dust htm (12 November 2010) photoacoustic detection. Trans ASAE 41 (4): and ammonia control in poultry production Stowell, R. R., S. Foster, H. Keener, and D. 1109–1114. facilities using an electrostatic space charge Elwell. 2000. Ammonia emissions from Owens et al. v. ContiGroup Companies et al. 16th system. Pp. 47–50. Proceedings of the a high-rise swine finishing facility. Paper Judicial Circuit Court (Jackson County, Mitigating Air Emissions from Animal Feed- presented at the ASAE International Meet- Missouri), 02CV235322 (not yet on file). ing Operations Conference, Des Moines, ing, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Paper 004080. Pain, B. F., C. R. Clarkson, V. R. Phillips, J. Iowa, May 19 to 21, 2008. E. Muhlbauer, L. ASAE, St. Joseph. Michigan. V. Klareneek, T. H. Misselbrook, and M. Moody, and R. T. Burns (eds.). ISBN 978-0- Sunesson, A-L., J. Gullberg, and G. Blomquist. Bruins. 1991. Odour emission arising from 9817781-0-5. 2001. Airborne chemical compounds on application of livestock slurries on land: Roberts, S. A., H. Xin, B. J. Kerr, J. R. Russell, dairy farms. J Environ Monitor 3:210–216. Measurements following spreading using a and K. Bregendahl. 2007. Effects of dietary Sweeten, J. M., C. B. Parnell, R. S. Etheredge, micrometeorological technique and olfac- fiber and low crude protein on ammonia and D. Osborne. 1988. Dust emissions in tometry. J Agric Eng Res 48:101–110. emission from laying-hen manure. Poul Sci cattle feedlots. Vet Clin N Am: Food Anim Parker, D., K. Casey, N. A. Cole, J. Sweeten, B. 86:1716–1725. Prac 4 (3): 557–578. Auvermann, M. Rhoades, S. Mukhtar, and Rogge, W., P. Medeiros, and B. Simoneit. 2006. Takai, H., S. Pedersen, J. O. Johnsen, J. H. M. R. Todd. 2005. Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions Organic marker compounds for surface Metz, P. W. G. Groot Koerkamp, G. H. from Open-Lot Beef Cattle Feedyard Pens soil and fugitive dust from open lot dairies Uenk, V. R. Phillips, M. R. Holden, R. W. and Ponds. White paper presented to the and cattle feedlots. Atmos Environ 40 (1): Sneath, J. L. Short, R. P. White, J. Hartung, Industry Advisory Committee of USDA- 27–49. J. Seedorf, M. Schröder, K. H. Linkert, CSREES. Special Research Grant 2005- Safley, L. M. and M. E. Casada. 1992.Global and C. M. Wathes. 1998. Concentrations 34466-15703. Methane Emissions from Livestock and and emissions of airborne dust in livestock Parnell, C. B. Jr., B. W. Shaw, and B. W. Auver- Poultry Manure. U.S. Environmental buildings in northern Europe. J Agric Eng mann. 1999. Agricultural Air Quality Fine Protection Agency, Report 400/1-92/048, Res 70:59–77. Particle Project—Task 1: Livestock-Feedlot Washington, D.C. Thompson, R. B. and J. J. Meisinger. 2001. Mea- PM Emission Factors and Emissions Schmidt, D. R., L. D. Jacobson, and K. A. Janni. surement and management of ammonia vol- Inventory Estimates. Final project report to 2002. Continuous monitoring of ammonia, atilization from dairy slurries. Proceedings the Texas Natural Resource Conservation hydrogen sulfide and dust emissions from of the International Symposium Addressing

COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 23 24 COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Animal Production and Environmental Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Wathes, C. M., M. R. Holden, R. W. Sneath, R. P. Issues, Raleigh, North Carolina, October 3 Carolina. White, and V. R. Phillips. 1997. Concentra- to 5, 2001. North Carolina State University, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). tions and emission rates of aerial ammonia, Raleigh, North Carolina (on CD-ROM). 2005. Consent Agreement and Final Order, nitrous oxide, methane, carbon dioxide, Thompson, R. B. and J. J. Meisinger. 2002. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/ dust, and endotoxin in U.K. broiler and Management factors affecting ammonia agreements/caa/cafo-agr-050121.pdf (25 layer houses. Brit Poul Sci 38 (1): 14–28. volatilization from land-applied cattle slurry March 2011) Westerman, P. W., J. R. Bicudo, and A. Kantard- in the Mid-Atlantic USA. J Environ Qual U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). jieff. 2000. Upflow biological aerated filters 31:1329–1338. 2006a. Animal Feeding Operations Air for the treatment of flushed swine manure. Todd, R., and N. A. Cole. 2007. Ammonia emis- Quality Compliance Agreement Fact Sheet, Biores Technol 74:181–190. sions from a beef cattle feedyard using http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/ Wheeler, E. F., K. D. Casey, R. S. Gates, H. Xin, flux-gradient, integrated horizontal flux, agreements/caa/cafo-infosht-0309.html (30 J. L. Zajaczkowski, P. A. Topper, Y. Liang, backward Lagrangian stochastic modeling, January 2006). and A. J. Pescatore. 2006. Ammonia emis- mass balance, and nitrogen/phosphorus ratio U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). sions from twelve U.S.A. broiler chicken methods. In J. M. Sweeten et al. Air Quali- 2006b. Unpaved roads. Chapter 13.2.2 in houses. Trans ASAE 49 (5): 1495–1512. ty: Odor, Dust, and Gaseous Pollutants from AP-42: Compilation of Emission Factors. Re- Wulf, S., M. Maeting, and J. Clemens. 2002. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in search Triangle Park, United States Environ- Application technique and slurry co-fermen- the Southern Great Plains. Annual progress mental Protection Agency. Updated November tation effects on ammonia, nitrous oxide, report submitted to USDA-CSREES. Spe- 1, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/ and methane emissions after spreading: II. cial Grant No. 2006-34466-17434. final/c13s0202.pdf (15 October 2008). Greenhouse gas emissions. J Environ Qual Todd, R., N. A. Cole, R. N. Clark, T. Flesch, L. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 31:1795–1801. Harper, and B. H. Baek. 2008. Ammonia 2008. 2009–2014 EPA Strategic Plan Yang, P., J. C. Lorimor, and H. Xin. 2000. emissions from a beef cattle feedyard on Change Document. September 30, 2008. Nitrogen losses from laying hen manure in the southern High Plains. Atmos Environ 42 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). commercial high-rise layer facilities. Trans (28): 6797–6805. 2009a. Mandatory reporting of greenhouse ASAE 43 (6): 1771–1780. Ulmer, A. and R. Massey. 2006. Animal Feeding gases: Final rule. Federal Register 74 (209): Zahn, J. A., J. L. Hatfield, Y. S. Do, and A. A. Operations and Residential Land Value. 56260–56519, October 30, 2009. National DiSpirito. 2001. Functional classification of University of Missouri Extension Guide Archives and Records Administration, swine manure management systems based MP748. July. Washington, D.C. on effluent and gas emission characteristics. United Egg Producers. 2010. United Egg Produc- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USE- J Environ Qual 30:635–647. ers Animal Husbandry Guidelines for US PA). 2009b. Animal Feeding Operations: Zhao, L., T. T. Lim, A. J. Heber, H. Sun, C. A. Egg Laying Flocks, http://www.uepcertified. Overview, http:cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home. Diehl, J.-Q. Ni, P. C. Tao, and S. M. Hanni. com/media/pdf/UEP-Animal-Welfare- cfm?program_id=7 (18 September 2009) 2005. Particulate matter emissions from a Guidelines.pdf (September 2010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Ohio belt-battery layer barn. ASAE Paper U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas No. 054010. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan. 1985. AP-42: Compilation of Air Pollut- Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2008. April 15, Zhu, J., L. Jacobson, D. Schmidt, and R. Nicolai. ant Emission Factors, Volume I: Station- 2010. 2000. Daily variations in odor and gas emis- ary Point and Area Sources. 4th ed. Pp. Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 sions from animal facilities. Appl Eng Agric 6.15–3. Office of Air Quality Planning and (2d Cir. 2004). 16:153–158.

CAST Member Societies, Companies, and Nonprofit Organizations AMERICAN ACADEMY OF VETERINARY AND COMPARATIVE TOXICOLOGY/AMERICAN BOARD OF VETERINARY TOXICOLOGY n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AVIAN PATHOLOGISTS n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF BOVINE PRACTITIONERS n AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PESTICIDE SAFETY EDUCATORS n AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, SECTION OF ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, & RESOURCES–AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT n AMERICAN DAIRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION n AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION n AMERICAN FORAGE AND GRASSLAND COUNCIL n AMERICAN MEAT SCIENCE ASSOCIATION n AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY n AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR NUTRITION n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERS n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL SCIENCE n AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS n AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION n AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT SOCIETY n COUNCIL OF ENTOMOLOGY DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATORS n CROPLIFE AMERICA n ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH • IOWA SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION n LAND O’LAKES n MONSANTO n NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION n NATIONAL PORK BOARD n NORTH CENTRAL WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY n NORTHEASTERN WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY n NOVUS INTERNATIONAL, INC. n PIONEER, A DUPONT BUSINESS n POULTRY SCIENCE ASSOCIATION n SOCIETY FOR IN VITRO BIOLOGY n SOCIETY OF NEMATOLOGISTS n SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC. n THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE n UNITED SOYBEAN BOARD n WEED SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA n WESTERN SOCIETY OF WEED SCIENCE The mission of the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) is to assemble, interpret, and communicate credible science-based information regionally, nationally, and internationally to legislators, regulators, policymakers, the media, the private sector, and the public. CAST is a nonprofit organization composed of scientific societies and many individual, student, company, nonprofit, and associate society members. CAST’s Board is composed of representatives of the scientific societies, commercial companies, nonprofit or trade organizations, and individual members, and an Executive Committee. CAST was established in 1972 as a result of a meeting sponsored in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. ISSN 1070-0021

Additional copies of this Issue Paper are available from CAST. Linda M. Chimenti, Chief Operating Officer. http://www.cast-science.org.

Citation: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 2011. Air Issues Associated with Animal Agriculture: A North American Perspective. Issue Paper 47. CAST, Ames, Iowa.