Financial feasibility of using shelterbelts for swine odor mitigation

Abstract

A farm-level financial feasibility was performed to examine the use of shelterbelts as a swine odor mitigation technology. Shelterbelts are purposefully planted rows of trees and shrubs around the main sources of swine odor-swine buildings, manure storage systems, and crop fields that receive land applied manure. By using a series of model pork finishing farms and a number of differing shelterbelt design scenarios, the shelterbelt establishment and long-term (20 years) maintenance costs were calculated using a discounted cash flow analysis. Total costs for examined pork finishing farms, depending upon the shelterbelt design scenario, and whether or not government cost-share programming was used, ranged from $0.01 to $0.65 per pig produced. Study results emphasized the importance of cost-share programs, particularly Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). In most cases, both with and without cost-share programming, the total costs were well below reported pork producer expenditures for odor management.

Willingness to pay for aesthetics associated with field windbreaks in Iowa, United States

“…Farm operators were half as likely to think that more field windbreaks were needed, which might reflect the view that land is needed for agricultural production and windbreaks constitute an opportunity cost. Such findings provide important incremental information regarding the need for expanded and continued programming associated with windbreak planting, maintenance as well as renovation (Annou & Pederson, 2000;Tyndall, 2009;Tyndall & Grala, 2009). …”

Review of Filter Strip Performance and Function for Improving Water Quality from Agricultural Lands

“…Beyond the opportunity costs associated with taking land out of production, other FS costs include site preparation, establishment costs including seed, and management costs, some of which may be annual and some periodic. Tyndall et al (2013) highlighted an example of a financial model for perennial systems established on cropped land (Tyndall and Grala, 2009) and consistent with USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service cost assessment guidelines (NRCS, 1998) that can be used to estimate costs of FSs. This approach considers all costs associated with FSs and discounted using standard discounted cash-flow formulation.…”

Experimental investigation of vegetative environment buffers in reducing particulate matters emitted from ventilated poultry house

“…Generally, there are two options to reduce the quantity of PM leaving poultry farms: 1) emission control, which reduces the amount of PM leaving barn buildings through modified management practices (Patterson and Adrizal 2005) or technical solutions (Jerez et al 2013;Ritz et al 2006) or filters (Borrelli, Gregory, and Abtew 1989;Raupach et al 2001); and 2) deposition control, which enhancing deposition efficiency of already emitted PM leaving the barn buildings through mitigation strategies, such as installing vegetative environment buffer (VEB) (Leuty 2004;Liang, VanDevender, and Tabler 2010;Tyndall 2009;Tyndall and Colletti 2007;Tyndall and Grala 2009).…”