Technologies for Odor Control in

Swine Production Facilities

Authors, Zifei Liu, Ph.D., Biological and Agricultural Engineering; Pat Murphy, Ph.D., Biological and Agricultural Engineering;
Joel DeRouchey, Ph.D., Animal Sciences and Industry, all at Kansas State University

Introduction
Odor complaints are a major environmental chal-
lenge for the swine industry. Swine odors generate due
to anaerobic decomposition of manure, and from feed
materials and wastewater. They are emitted from ma-
nure handling, storage, and treatment facilities, as well
as swine buildings themselves. Although little is known
about the connection between odor and human health,
people generally have a natural aversion to manure odors.
Swine odors may become a nuisance that interferes
with the neighbor’s quality of life and property values of
nearby communities. Increasingly stringent regulations
of odor levels and air emissions can be a limiting factor
in the growth of the industry.

Constituents of swine odors

Odors from swine facilities are the human olfac-
tory response to a complex mixture of various odorous
gases (odorants), which comprise hundreds of chemicals,
including volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia
(NH3), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), etc. (Table 1).
Quantifying the contributions of each odorant to
the overall odor intensity is difficult, and their contribu-
tions do not accumulate in an additive manner. Odor
Units (OU) can be used to describe odor concentration; A number of factors affect odor control in swine
one OU/m3 is defined as the amount of odorant(s) in production facilities.
one cubic meter of air at the odor detection threshold.
The numerical value of the odor concentration is equal Table 1. Concentrations of odor, VOC, NH3 and
to the dilution factor that is necessary to reach the odor H2S at the edge of swine facilities in literature
threshold. Most gaseous odorants can be absorbed in and
carried by airborne dust in swine buildings, and thus can Odor VOC NH3 H2S
travel long distances and be re-emitted from the dust. Median 120 OU/m 3
50 µg/m 3
6 ppm 20 ppb
Ammonia can create strong odors near the manure Range 40 to 960 1 to 27,700 0.3 to 16 2 to 115
storage, but it is usually quickly diluted as it travels due OU/m3 µg/m3 ppm ppb
to its high volatility. Hydrogen sulfide is an extremely
toxic and irritating gas at high levels, and has a generally
objectionable rotten-egg odor. Compared to NH3, H2S Data are adapted from results of a meta-analysis of
concentrations are generally low in swine houses, but air emissions from swine production facilities in North
when the manure is agitated, high quantities of H2S can America, part of which is published in Liu and Powers
be released. (2013).

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
Best practices ences the amount of odor generated from swine facilities.
Frequency and cleaning ability of the flushing water both
for odor control have a great impact; for example, frequent flushing for
Proper management and maintenance practices are short periods is more effective than prolonged but less
essential for odor control in swine production facilities. frequent flushing. Using fresh water instead of recycled
Many practices that help control odor also improve in- water can further reduce emissions.
door air quality, thus improving health and productivity Manure storage. Reducing the manure surface area
for both workers and animals. and minimizing air circulation at the manure surface can
Regular cleaning of facilities. Manure and feed reduce emissions. Altering the pit design to use sloped
particles can attach to floors, walls, equipment, and pigs. pit walls or manure gutters could reduce the manure sur-
Regular and thorough cleaning of all surfaces that may face area. The depth of the slurry channels also affects air
have exposed organic material can reduce odor source. movements over the slurry surface. A deeper channel has
Designing the building and all facilities for easy clean- lower emissions. Cooling the floor of the slurry channel
ing is important. Smooth surfaces and easy access to all also can reduce emissions. Loading rates for treatment
building areas for cleaning is helpful. Quick disposal of lagoons should adhere to proper recommendations.
mortalities, adhering to proper manure removal plans
and preventing water and feed waste are also important Technologies for odor control
to reduce odor sources. During the last two decades, various mitigation
Ventilation. If buildings are kept clean, the next fac- technologies have been evaluated to reduce odor emissions
tor for odor control in swine facilities should be effective from swine production facilities. Approaches to control
ventilation. A proper setting of the minimum ventilation odor and air pollutants can be classified into three cat-
rate is one of the first steps for maintaining a healthy egories: ration/diet modification, manure treatment, and
environment for pigs and workers. Minimum ventilation capture/treatment and dispersion of emitted gases. Each
rates should be increased as the pigs gain weight. of these mitigation approaches includes several specific
Floor design. Floor design has a large impact on technologies (Table 2).
dust and odor levels in swine houses. Solid concrete
Diet modification
floors with scrapers or small flush gutters have more wet,
manure covered surfaces, and tend to emit more odor- Reducing dietary crude protein (CP) content
ous compounds than slatted floors. Many swine facilities can result in reduced excretion of excess nutrients such
use either fully slatted or partially slatted floors to allow as nitrogen (N) and can reduce NH3 and odor emis-
liquids to drain through to a manure pit or gutter. Hoop sions from manure. To avoid overfeeding nutrients and
swine housing systems with bedding have been shown to enhance nutrient use in animals, dietary composition
have higher NH3 and H2S emissions. should be well balanced by matching dietary nutrients
with pigs’ requirements.
Drainage and manure removal systems. Good
drainage of manure through a slatted floor reduces A low-CP diet can be used without effect on animal
odor sources by decreasing the area of waste exposed to performance by supplementing with synthetic amino
ventilation air. Lodging of manure between slats should acids (AA) to provide the limiting nutrients in the diet.
be minimized. Drainage properties are influenced by slat Up to 40 percent reduction in swine N excretion and a
design, width of openings, and material characteristics reduction of manure pH have been reported by reducing
such as roughness and porosity. Replacing concrete slats dietary CP content and supplementing AA. Reduction in
with cast iron, metal or plastic slats has been shown to urinary N and manure pH both favor reduction in NH3
reduce NH3 production. Smooth floors have lower emis- emissions. Reducing dietary CP content and supple-
sions. A partially slatted floor with reduced slurry pit area menting synthetic AA have been shown to be effective
is known to have lower NH3 emission than a fully slatted in reducing NH3 emissions from swine operations, but
floor. A typical flat-scraper system consists of a shallow whether these adjustments control odor is uncertain. For
slurry pit with a horizontal scraper under the slatted every percentage point reduction in dietary CP content
floor, but the surface area under the slat is a large emit- (e.g. 14 percent vs. 15 percent dietary CP concentra-
ting area. Pit flushing has been shown to reduce NH3 tion), a 10 percent reduction in NH3 emissions from
emission significantly compared to static pits. manure can be expected.
Frequent manure removal. How often and well Feed additives can be used to increase the digestibility
manure is removed from swine facilities greatly influ- and absorption of nutrients and to influence N excretion

2 Technologies for Odor Control in Swine Production Facilities

Table 2. Summary of technologies for odor control in swine production facilities
Cost

Technology Effectiveness Installation Operation Overall Comments

($ per pig ($ per pig
space) produced)
Low CP Moderate — <$0.50a Low Use of synthetic amino acids to
Ration/ content diets reduce diet CP and cost is well
diet and/or feed established, and is a common
modification additives industry practice; should be
considered as a BMP.
Solid-liquid Moderate $22–$27b $2–$3b Moderate More research is needed to
separation to high develop practical techniques for
immediate separation of solids
from freshly excreted manure.
Storage addi- Uncertain $1.20c $0.50c Moderate Only works for a short period or
tives specific odorants; need further
research to improve reliability.
Manure Imperme- High $6–$32d - Moderate A venting system and a support
handling and able storage structure may be needed.
treatment covers
Permeable Moderate $0.60–$5d - Low to Effectiveness highly dependent
storage moderate on how the cover is managed.
covers
Anaerobic High $22–$150e, f - Highg Not economically feasible for
digestion small operations; has problem of
NH3 inhibition; has more poten-
tials through co-digestion.
Oil spraying Low to ~$6e ~$0.70e Moderate Create slick flooring for pigs and
moderate people; health concern on oil
misting.
Biofilters High $4–$11e $0.05–$0.10e Low to A promising technology; need
moderate careful maintenance.
Air Wet scrubbers Moderate ~$40e ~$2e Moderate Need treatment for wastewater;
treatment to high effectiveness on odor depends
on solubility of odorants.
Vegetative Low to ~$1h $0.05–$0.20h Low Decreases direct visual view-
environmen- moderate ing of facilities; may decrease
tal buffers natural ventilation in summer;
requires planning and time.
Note: CP = crude protein; BMP = best management practices.
a
Depends on price of synthetic amino acids; the cost of low CP diets sometimes can be lower than regular diets.
b
Based on a gravity screen system or a gravity belt thickener system; from Walker and Wade. 2009. Comparison of the effectiveness and
economic costs of two production scale polyacrylamide assisted solid/liquid separation systems for the treatment of liquid swine manure.
Appl Eng Agric. 26(2): 299-305.
c
Based on addition of a commercial manure additive (Alliance); from Heber et al., 2000. Effect of a manure additive on ammonia emission
from swine finishing buildings. Trans ASABE. 43(6):1895-1902.
d
Calculation was based on assumption of 2.1 m2 lagoon area per pig space; adapted from Stenglein et al., 2011. Covers for mitigating
odor and gas emissions in animal agriculture: an overview. eXtension. Air Quality Education in Animal Agriculture. http://www.extension.
org/sites/default/files/Covers%20overview%20FINAL_1.pdf.
e
Data were adapted from resources of eXtension. Available online at http://www.extension.org/pages/23980/technologies-for-mitigat-
ing-air-emissions-in-swine-production
f
Calculation was based on installation of an anaerobic digestion system for a capacity of 4,000 pigs.
g
Cost effectiveness depends on the value of energy recovery from biogas.
h
Data were adapted from Iowa demonstration cooperators.

Technologies for Odor Control in Swine Production Facilities 3

and pH of manure. Addition of fermentable carbohydrates usually classified as permeable [e.g., straw or Geotextile®
can shift N excretion from urine (quickly degradable urea) (a synthetic permeable cover), or both], or imperme-
to feces (slowly degradable microbial protein) and lower able (plastic, concrete, or wood). Both permeable and
feces pH. Addition of acidifying salts can lower urinary impermeable floating covers decrease odor emissions by
pH. These strategies can be combined with a low-CP diet decreasing the solar radiation and direct wind velocity
to further reduce NH3 emission. To reduce odor emis- that transports odor constituents. Some permeable covers
sions, dietary sulfur-containing AA should be minimized are thought to act as biofilters on the top of stored liquid
to meet the recommended requirements. In recent years, manure. Floating permeable covers are simple and inex-
co-products of ethanol such as dried distillers grain with pensive ($0.03 to $0.09/ft2 for straw, $0.09 to $0.22/ft2
solubles (DDGS) have been used to replace a portion of for Geotextile®) but they degrade in a relatively short time
the grain in swine feed. Increased DDGS content in diets period (2 to 6 months for straw due to saturation and
can result in increased odor, NH3, and H2S emissions. sinking; 3 to 5 years for Geotextile®). The performance
of straw covers depends on the straw’s ability to float on
Manure handling and treatment the surface. Buoyancy or support is essential if consistent
Solid-liquid separation of manure is a physical performance is required. Impermeable covers have higher
means to reduce odor by mechanical or gravitational capital costs ($0.30 to $1.40/ft2) and have a life expectan-
separation of solids from liquid manure. Separated cy as long as 10 years. Impermeable covers usually require
liquid will have lower biodegradable organic matter for a venting system to avoid pressure buildup under the cover
anaerobic degradation, and separated solids will have due to production of manure gases, and require a system
much smaller volumes and air-manure contact surface, for removing rain and snowmelt. Covering lagoons may
reducing odor emissions. The N in urine is mainly in the also reduce evaporation, requiring either more frequent
form of urea, and it is converted into volatile NH3 after irrigation pumping or greater lagoon volume.
it is in contact with feces containing urease. If urine-to- Anaerobic digestion is a widely applied technol-
feces contact is reduced, NH3 formation will be reduced. ogy for stabilization of organic waste and production
Effectiveness of solid-liquid separation on odor reduction of biogas. It is one of the most effective end-of-pipe
is highly variable, depending on the time between excre- methods of reducing odor and air pollutants from swine
tion and separation, and the separation efficiency. Solid- manure. Anaerobic digestion has been shown to reduce
liquid separation should occur within 10 days of manure odor emissions effectively. Due to high cost, anaerobic
excretion to prevent decomposition of fine manure digestion generally is not economically feasible for small
particles, and to minimize odor emissions ideally should operations. Cost effectiveness of anaerobic digestion is
occur immediately after manure is excreted. Separation dependent on the value of energy recovery from biogas;
is challenging once the feces and urine have been mixed. such as through a contract with an electrical utility com-
Common separation units include gravity settling/sedi- pany. The high content of NH3 has been a limitation for
mentation and mechanical screening, which require ad- digestion of swine manure. Co-digestion of manure with
ditional space and maintenance. More research is needed carbon-based substrates recently has renewed interest in
to incorporate the concept of solid-liquid separation into enhancing the biogas production efficiency and econom-
planning and design of the manure handling systems. ic viability of anaerobic digestion.
Storage additives have been proposed to be added
to the manure storage pit, or sprayed on the manure to Air treatment
control odors. Common additives include biological ad- Oil spraying or sprinkling on floor and pen surfaces
ditives such as enzymatic or bacterial products that alter at regular intervals reduces dust levels in swine buildings
the decomposition so that odorous compounds are not and can reduce odor. However, problems such as oils
generated; chemical additives such as acid and disin- transforming into a gum and plugging irrigation sprinklers
fectants; oxidizing agents; and adsorbent and masking have been observed during manure application. Smaller
agents. Biological additives are usually odorant-specific, facilities could apply the oil with a hand sprayer. The oil
and one additive is not suitable for all odorants. Chemi- needs to be applied at low pressure to form relatively large
cal additives are often effective only for a short period droplets and avoid formation of a fine mist that gets into
of time, requiring frequent applications and becoming the worker’s and animal’s respiratory systems.
costly. Use of adsorbent and masking agents has had Biofilters are made of moist, porous material with
limited success in reducing odors. a large surface areas in which microorganisms can grow
Storage covers are being used to reduce odors from and break down odorants when contaminated air passes
liquid manure storage structures and lagoons. Covers are through. If properly designed and maintained, biofilters

4 Technologies for Odor Control in Swine Production Facilities

can reduce up to 90 percent of emissions of odor, NH3, not cause excessive backpressure to the fans and do not
and H2S from ventilation fan exhausts. Biofilter media significantly reduce building ventilation airflow. One
moisture content and empty bed residence time (EBRT) option to decrease operation costs is to clean only part
are the most important design and operation parameters. of the outgoing air, especially for the limited number of
A 5-second EBRT has been recommended for adequate days of maximum ventilation. The wet scrubbers can be
odor and H2S reduction from swine facilities. Desirable optimized to benefit both emissions and indoor air qual-
media properties include high moisture-holding capacity, ity, and it may also help cooling the air. Removed liquid
and high pore space to maximize EBRT and minimize may be used as a liquid fertilizer.
pressure drop. Examples of biofilter media include peat, Vegetative environmental buffers (VEBs) can be
soil, compost, wood chips, sawdust, straw, or a combina- established by planting trees around swine facilities.
tion of different materials. VEBs are thought to reduce dust and odor in two ways.
Performance of biofilters depends on microbial activ- First, VEBs work as a windbreak, enhancing vertical
ity, which is complicated and is influenced by tempera- air mixing that results in more dilution and slowing
ture, nutrient availability, moisture, pH, and airflow air movement that results in more deposition of dust.
rate. Design and operational parameters such as selection Second, VEBs reduce odor and dust as living bio-filters
of packing material, maintaining optimum moisture through interception and retention of dust, and adsorp-
content, weed control, and assessing pressure drop are tion and break down of odor components. The waxy leaf
critical to efficient operation of the biofilters. surface area has an affinity for N-based chemicals. VEBs
In general, recommended operating conditions for have been shown to reduce downwind concentrations
biofilters are: moistures of 40 to 65 percent, temperature (up to 50 percent reduction in NH3 and dust, up to 85
of 77 to 122°F, and media porosity of 40 to 60 percent. percent reduction in H2S, and 6 to 66 percent reduction
Maintaining operating conditions with a supply of mois- in odor). Effectiveness and costs are highly variable and
ture and energy source is important. More than 90 per- depend on site-specific design. The most effective reduc-
cent of biofiltration problems were attributed to media tion occurs just beyond the VEBs.
drying. Horizontal media beds or vertical media beds can Greater species diversity and a combination of plant
be used, depending on surface area and space availabil- growth rates are recommended to make a robust and
ity. Leaving the biofilters open to the atmosphere helps mature VEB system. A row spacing of 16 to 20 feet is
reduce pressure drops. Up-flow open biofilters can be recommended by the Natural Resource and Conserva-
constructed at a relatively low initial cost for minimum tion Service. Appropriate site preparation is critical to
airflows. Higher construction and operating costs occur the long-term health of tree plantings and contributes to
if biofilters are designed for high airflows. Pressure drops lower tree mortality and faster tree growth. Many prob-
of less than 60Pa and media depth of 0.25 to 0.45m have lems of VEBs (e.g. high tree mortality) were due to inad-
been suggested to maintain reasonable fan ventilation equate site preparation. Design of VEBs should consider
efficiency and to prevent excessive drying. air circulation near and through animal houses. VEBs are
Wet scrubbers have been developed for removing gaining popularity as a promising strategy for mitigating
dust and air emissions from ventilation fan exhausts. A dust, odor, NH3, and H2S from farms. Additional ad-
scrubber consists of a reactor with a filter made from an vantages of VEBs include visual screen (aesthetics value),
inert material (e.g., plastic) with large surface area. The improved neighbor relations, and increasing effectiveness
filter is moistened with a sprayer or sprinkler system. Usu- over time. The main barrier to adoption of VEBs is lack
ally, portion of the used water is recycled and the rest is of technical guidelines.
replaced with new water. Exhaust air is forced through the
filter to ensure good contact between air and water. The Odor dispersion and
simplest scrubber uses only water, while acid can be added
into the recirculated water to improve reduction of NH3
separation distances
and make an acid scrubber. Acid scrubbers can reduce 70 Odor decreases exponentially with distance. Properly
to more than 90 percent NH3, but they are much less ef- siting new swine facilities and establishing a sufficient
fective in reducing typical odors. Effectiveness in reducing distance between these facilities and neighbors with con-
NH3 depends on the amount of acid used and the contact sideration of prevailing winds can effectively minimize
time allowed between air and liquid, while effectiveness in odor nuisance, although this method may not be ap-
reducing odor also depends on the solubility of odorants. plicable for existing facilities. Under stable atmospheric
conditions (e.g., during the evening hours with calm
Wet scrubbers have great potential for adaptation to
wind), odor can travel long distances, but generally few
existing swine facility ventilation fans because they do
Technologies for Odor Control in Swine Production Facilities 5
swine facilities generate odor that travels more than half Take home messages
a mile. The ideal separation distance between a swine • Many odorous compounds are carried on dust
facility and the nearest neighbor to avoid odor nuisance particles and, therefore, strategies to reduce dust
is somewhat subjective. Odor dispersion is a complex emissions contribute significantly for odor control.
process and odor modeling tools are being developed
to aid in the siting of new facilities and the expansion • If urine and feces don’t come in contact with each
of current production sites. Consider the direction of other, NH3 formation will be greatly reduced.
prevailing winds, distance to neighbors, topography, and • H2S is an extremely toxic and irritating gas at high
presence of natural windbreaks when siting new facili- levels. Although the H2S concentrations are gener-
ties. When planning a new facility in hilly areas, choose ally low in swine facilities, a high quantity of H2S
a site that is not up-slope from close neighbors to avoid can be released when the manure is agitated.
downhill air drainage carrying odors to neighbors. • When controlling odor and air pollutions, con-
sider the whole farm system and a combination of
Summary different methods.
The practices and technologies discussed vary in costs
and effectiveness. Some have not been evaluated thor- Resources and references
oughly, and some may need more economic incentives or Liu, Z. and W. Powers. 2013. “Ammonia and hydrogen
regulatory compliance requirements to be widely adopted. sulfide emissions from swine production facilities in North
Odor reduction research from swine operations is ongo- America: a meta-analysis.” Swine Industry Day Report of Prog-
ing, and many new technologies are being developed. No ress, Kansas State University.
single method will completely eliminate odors from swine Rahman S. and M.S. Borhan. 2012. “Typical odor miti-
facilities. When trying to control odor and air pollution, gation technologies for swine production facilities — a review.”
consider the whole farm system and a combination of Journal of Civil Environmental Engineering 2:4.
different practices and technologies to be more effective.
Botermans, J., G. Gustafsson, K.H. Jeppsson, N. Brown,
Care must be taken to select technologies that are compat-
and L. Rodhe. 2010. Measures to reduce ammonia emissions in
ible with the management capabilities of the operation to
pig production — Review. Swedish University of Agricultural
prevent potential failure due to mismanagement.
Sciences. Report 2010:12. ISBN 978-91-86373-19-1.
Riskowski, G.L. 2003. Overview of methods to reduce
odorant emissions from confinement swine buildings. University
of Illinois Pork Industry Conference. Swine Odor and Manure
Management. Champaign, Illinois.
Chastain, J.P. 1999. “Air quality and odor control from
swine production facilities.” Confined Animal Manure Manag-
ers Program. Chapter 9. Clemson University Extension. http://
www.clemson.edu/extension/livestock/camm/camm_files/swine/
sch9_03.pdf

Publications are reviewed or revised annually by appropriate faculty to reflect current research and practice.
Date shown is that of publication or last revision.
Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. No endorsement is intended,
nor is criticism implied of similar products not mentioned.
Publications from Kansas State University are available at: www.ksre.ksu.edu
Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. In each case, credit
Zifei Liu, Ph.D., et al, Technologies for Odor Control in Swine Production Facilities,
Kansas State University, April 2014.

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
MF2918 April 2014
K-State Research and Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work, Acts of May 8 and June 30,
1914, as amended. Kansas State University, County Extension Councils, Extension Districts, and United States Department of Agriculture Cooperating, John D.
Floros, Director.