Source: IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY submitted to
SHELTERBELTS AND LIVESTOCK ODOR MITIGATION: A SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF PORK PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
TERMINATED
Funding Source
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
0188753
Grant No.
2001-35108-10649
Project No.
IOW06561
Proposal No.
2001-00683
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Program Code
(N/A)
Project Start Date
Sep 1, 2001
Project End Date
Aug 31, 2006
Grant Year
2001
Project Director
Colletti, J. P.
Recipient Organization
IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
2229 Lincoln Way
AMES,IA 50011
Performing Department
NATURAL RESOURCE ECOLOGY & MANAGEMENT
Non Technical Summary
The US pork production is expanding, especially in the Midwest and in foreign markets. With expected economic benefits from expansion come potential environmental and social costs from odor. Scientific evidence suggests that shelterbelts - living tree barriers - can be cost-effective, biologically active buffers that reduce odor, and complement other odor control strategies used by producers. Consumers seem to accept and desire shelterbelts as part of the suite of best management practices to reduce odor. We propose to study producer attitudes regarding market-based incentives for odor control; identify producer and consumer values regarding odor management involving the use of shelterbelts; provide bio-physical evidence of shelterbelt efficacy to reduce odor; and to assist producers and consumers on the use of market-based incentives and socially preferred
Animal Health Component
(N/A)
Research Effort Categories
Basic
50%
Applied
50%
Developmental
(N/A)
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
1250699301010%
1250699308010%
1250699309010%
1333510301010%
1333510308010%
1330699310010%
6043510301010%
6046299301010%
6073520308010%
6070699308010%
Goals / Objectives
1) Identify pork producer attitudes and values regarding market mechanisms designed to capture incremental value obtained from consumers because of management that minimizes odor, thereby providing real incentives for odor control, 2) Assess producer and consumer attitudes, values, and behavioral intentions regarding modified livestock management strategies that use shelterbelts (natural bio-filters), 3) Provide additional quantitative information regarding the bio-physical effectiveness of odor mitigation by shelterbelts via sensory panel analyses, and 4) Create outreach materials and programming for producers and consumers that promotes a new market mechanism and management strategies to ensure livestock production and sustainable urban/rural communities and environments.
Project Methods
Modifications in the pork market and management strategies with shelterbelts will be evaluated by producers and consumers by considering biophysical, social, institutional, environmental, and economic factors. This evaluation will facilitate the active participation of all the relevant and interdependent stakeholders in the livestock odor issue to collectively develop beneficial approaches that can be used wherever pork is produced in the US to sustain agriculture, communities, and the environment. Seven focus groups of producers will occur in Iowa (3), North Carolina (2) and Washington (2). Likewise five consumer focus groups will be completed in Iowa (3) and North Carolina (2). Telephone surveys will be done of pork producers (350) in years 2 and 3 and consumers (350) in year 3 to assess market mechanisms and management strategies that include shelterbelts. Two additional mixed producer and consumer focus groups will occur in year 3 to assess aesthetic values.

Progress 09/01/01 to 08/31/06

Outputs
Related research suggests that shelterbelts - living tree barriers - can be cost-effective, biologically active buffers that reduce odor, and complement other odor control strategies used by producers. Previous research has suggested that some consumers accept partial responsibility in environmental degradation and exhibit an inertest in purchasing "environmentally friendly" products including pork meat. Market mechanisms that allow price premiums for environmentally friendly pork meat to flow back to producers can reduce financial constraints faced by producers and directly link producers to consumers through joint socially-valuable efforts. Surveying both pork consumers and producers in three different states - Iowa, North Carolina and Washington State - we have examined attitudes regarding market-based incentives for odor control and identified producer/consumer values regarding odor management in general and odor management involving the use of shelterbelts. Results from consumer willingness to pay (WTP) surveys indicate strong consumer interest and WTP for "environmentally friendly" pork products. Across all states, 82% indicated a positive WTP for pork products that originated on farms that made odor management a priority. The maximum mean WTP was $0.14/ pound of pork meat purchased. Consumer acceptance of the use of shelterbelts specifically for on-farm odor mitigation was significantly higher than other listed odor control technologies. The mean cost that pork producers across all three states were willing to pay to plant and maintain shelterbelts for odor management was $0.14/ head produced. Additionally the producers all expressed interest in raising pigs with extra odor management if the prices received covered additional costs. With regards to variables that strengthen the behavioral intention represented by the consumer WTP figures, consumers surveyed expressed low to moderate environmental values when it came to making food purchasing decisions in general and moderate label reading behavior but expressed strong attitudes about odor management at the swine farms that produce their pork. Consumers expressed high concern about air quality around hog facilities in general (Iowa consumers being the most concerned). Non-meat attributes such as production methods is also important to consumers. Results indicate pork consumers who are likely to pay more for meat originating from farms with higher air quality management. Moreover, consumers indicate a preference for the "natural look and feel" of shelterbelts (trees) relative to other bio-chemical-mechanical odor control technologies. It seems that pork producers and consumers agree that shelterbelts can and should play a role in mitigating swine odor. Some pork producers are willing to explore new ways to capture the extra money that consumers are seemingly willing to spend for "clean air pork" through innovative marketing strategies while others simply value the addition of shelterbelts to farms. Project results were a featured plenary talk at the Workshop on Agricultural Air Quality: State of the Science, Potomac, Maryland, June 5 -8, 2006.

Impacts
This research demonstrates that odor mitigation is not a simple technological issue for producers alone to deal with, but rather a multi stakeholder socio-technological issue. There are consumers who desire to share in the responsibility for cleaner rural air and they are willing to pay $0.14/lb more for pork products (e.g. "clean air pork") that are produced in ways that lead to fewer odor nuisance conflicts. There exist strong public preferences for shelterbelts as an odor mitigation technology. Because of this research pork producers are beginning to capitalize on these preferences by utilizing shelterbelts at higher rates and promoting that use at their facility sites. While no market yet exists for "clean air pork", this research shows how such a market could be arranged and the type of producers who would be interested. When the problem of nuisance swine odor is tackled only with top down technology there likely will be some failure in the social response to such an approach. This research suggests that it would be better to apply social preferences for on-farm technology when they are known. This research has directly spawned additional studies involving bio-physical quantification of the odor mitigation effects of shelterbelts. Additionally, this research has caused the Iowa NRCS to investigate the creating of standards specifically for the use of shelterbelts for swine production air quality management.

Publications

  • Tyndall, J.C. 2003. A biophysical and socio-economic examination of the use of shelterbelts for swine odor mitigation. Thesis (Ph.D.)--Iowa State University, 2003. Dissertation publication number: AAT 3085949.
  • Tyndall, J.C. and J.P. Colletti. 2006. Mitigating Swine Odor with Strategically Designed Shelterbelt Systems: A Review. Agroforestry Systems. Accepted August 1, 2006. Published online: 22 September 2006.
  • Tyndall, J.C. 2006. Shelterbelts and Clean Air Pork: A systems analysis. Iowa Manure Matters: Odor & Nutrient Management (Fall 2006 edition).
  • Tyndall, J.C. 2006. Shelterbelts and Livestock Odor Mitigation: a Socio-economic Assessment of Pork Producers and Consumers. Pages 341 - 345. In Aneja et al. (Eds.), Proceedings: Workshop on Agricultural Air Quality: State of the Science, Potomac, Maryland, June 5-8, 2006.
  • Tyndall, J. C. and J.P. Colletti., 2003. Shelterbelts: A Successful Trend in Odor Reduction. Iowa Pork Producers Headlines. A Publication of the Iowa Pork Producers Association. Fall 2003, Vol.2, No.3.
  • Colletti, J. and J. Tyndall. 2002. Shelterbelts: an answer to growing odor concerns? Inside Agroforestry. USDA National Agroforestry Center. Spring 2002.
  • Tyndall, J.C. and J.P. Colletti. 2001. Shelterbelts, Livestock Odor Mitigation, and Sustainable Agriculture: A Research Framework. In: Schroeder, W. and J. Kort (Eds.) Temperate Agroforestry: Adaptive and Mitigative Roles in a Changing Physical and Socio-Economic Climate. Proceedings of the 7th Biennial Conference on Agroforestry in North America & 6th Annual Conference of the Plains and Prairie Forestry Association, August 12-15, 2001 Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.


Progress 01/01/05 to 12/31/05

Outputs
Consumers: Survey analysis indicates strong consumer interest and willingness to pay (WTP) for environmentally friendly pork products across all three states examined; Iowa (IA), North Carolina (NC) and Washington State (WA). Eighty two percent of the respondents indicated a positive WTP for pork products that originated on farms that made extra odor management a priority. The mean WTP was $0.14/pound of pork meat purchased. NC consumers expressed the highest mean WTP at $0.16/pound. Logistic regression examination of likelihood to express a positive WTP for environmentally showed that up to 33% of the variation between those WTP nothing and those WTP some positive value is explained by gender, overall environmental values, and attitudes about the importance of on-farm odor reduction. Females are 3.2 times more likely to have a positive WTP than males and those consumers with strong attitudes about hog farms making efforts to reduce odor from their farms are 7.4 times more likely to express a positive WTP. The consumers shared preferences for odor mitigation technology that was seemingly more natural. Producer Details: Total completed interviews 587: IA = 410; NC = 141; WA = 36. Seventy three percent of the producers surveyed somewhat to strongly agree that shelterbelts bio-physically remove odor from the air and 67% somewhat to strongly disagree that shelterbelts are not worth the expense. Across all three states, the mean willingness to pay for planting and maintaining shelterbelts is $0.14/hog produced. There are significant (p = .05) differences between the states on mean WTP. NC producers are WTP $0.07/hog produced, IA $0.14/hog, and WA $0.24/hog. Marketing Issues: Across all three states 51% of the producers are interested to very interested in producing differentiated pork. Seventy percent stated that they are interested to very interested in producing pork specifically with extra odor control as long as the prices received covered additional odor management costs. Contracting this differentiated product with either a packer or the owner of the hogs, direct marketing or through a marketing coop are the top four preferred ways to arrange for the sale of such products. Focus groups with consumers and producers (Tasks 2.3 and 2.4) were performed in IA and NC during the summer of 2004. A total of 15 hog producers participated. In terms of their opinions about the aesthetic appeal of shelterbelts planted in and around hog facilities, producers viewed a basic buffer (one that has some shelterbelts but not a whole complex of them) as being preferred. This was explained by concerns for cost and maintenance of the more complex systems impacting the visual component of the trees. For the consumers, there were a total of 27 people in the discussions. There were high preferences for more trees in the Iowa landscape in general and that shelterbelts improve the aesthetics of confinement livestock production. In NC, shelterbelts were not as important in the landscape largely because NC is heavily forested. They did have strong appreciation of the idea that shelterbelts were a technology and they liked the innovativeness of their use.

Impacts
Results indicate that pork consumers are likely to pay more for meat originating from farms with higher air quality management. Moreover, consumers indicate a preference for the natural look and feel of shelterbelts (of trees) relative to other bio-chemical-mechanical odor control technologies. Shelterbelts are generally accepted as add-on aesthetic or public-relations technology by producers rather than highly effective in controlling odor. Producers and consumers agree that shelterbelts can and should play a role in mitigating swine odor. Some pork producers are willing to explore new ways to capture the extra money that consumers are seemingly willing to spend for fresh air pork through innovative marketing strategies while others value the addition of shelterbelts to farms. Shelterbelts should provide a suite of benefits for the pork industry, producer, consumer, and communities. A website is currently being designed that will include extension type reference sheets, technical diagrams, and a photo essay of various systems. All published and other work will be available for download. Three abstracts have been accepted for presentation at the Workshop on Agricultural Air Quality: State of the Science, Potomac, Maryland, June 5, 6, & 7, 2006.

Publications

  • No publications reported this period


Progress 01/01/04 to 12/31/04

Outputs
All phases of data collection have been completed September 2004. The pork producer odor management and pork marketing surveys (objectives 1 and 2) were completed summer of 2004 and clean data sets are currently being processed by the Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology at Iowa State University. Pork producer and consumer landscape aesthetics and odor-mitigating shelterbelts focus groups (objective 2) were completed in September 2004. Analysis of the consumer surveys indicate strong consumer interest and willingness to pay (WTP) for environmentally friendly pork products across all three states examined Iowa, North Carolina and Washington State. Based on demographic comparisons with US Census data, the samples acquired are statistically representative. Across all three states, 82% of the respondents indicated a positive WTP for pork products that originated on farms that made extra odor management a priority. The maximum mean willingness to pay was $0.14/ pound of pork meat purchased. Mean WTP differences between the states are not significant. North Carolina consumers expressed the highest mean WTP at $0.16/ pound of pork meat. The consumers expressed low to moderate environmental values when it came to making general food purchasing decisions and moderate label reading behavior, but expressed strong attitudes about odor management at the swine farms that produce their pork. Consumers expressed high concern about air quality around hog facilities in general with Iowa consumers the most concerned. When purchasing meat products, meat quality factors are the most important attributes (freshness and flavor) with price coming in second, yet non-meat attributes such as farming/production methods also are importance. The respondents also showed high familiarity with other kinds of differentiated pork products (i.e. organic or natural pork) but indicated low levels of purchasing such products. Consumer acceptance of the use of shelterbelts specifically for on-farm odor mitigation was higher (statistically significant) than other listed odor control technologies. The order of acceptance is shelterbelts, organic manure additives, mechanical air filtration, organic feed additives, chemical feed/manure additives, the latter two scoring very low in acceptance. Overall and across the three states the socio-demographic variables of income and education show significant but low positive correlations with WTP and number of people in household under the age of 18 show significant but low negative correlations. There seems to be no differences between urban and rural respondents. Also, proximity to pork production and experience with swine odor shows limited influence on WTP. Continued analysis will include various forms of logit regression analysis. The analyses of the producer survey of marketing and management (total completed interviews 587: Iowa=410; North Carolina=141: Washington=36) and the consumer/producer aesthetics focus groups and survey will be completed by May, 2005. The PIs just received the datasets in January, 2005.

Impacts
Results indicate that pork consumers are likely to pay more for meat originating from farms with higher air quality management. Moreover, consumers indicate a preference for the natural look and feel of shelterbelts (of trees) relative to other bio-chemical-mechanical odor control technologies. Shelterbelts are generally accepted as add-on aesthetic or public-relations technology by producers rather than highly effective in controlling odor. Producers and consumers agree that shelterbelts can and should play a role in mitigating swine odor. Some pork producers are willing to explore new ways to capture the extra money that consumers are seemingly willing to spend for fresh air pork through innovative marketing strategies while others value the addition of shelterbelts to farms. Shelterbelts should provide a suite of benefits for the pork industry, producer, consumer, and communities.

Publications

  • No publications reported this period


Progress 01/01/03 to 12/31/03

Outputs
Sample frames for pork producers in Iowa, North Carolina, & Washington State were compiled summer 2003 with aid of the Iowa National Agriculture Statistical Service, Iowa DNR, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, & Washington State Department of Agriculture. The consumer sample was selected using Random Digit Dialing methods. Objective 1 & 2, Tasks 1.3, 2.1, and 2.2 - the pork producer and pork consumer surveying phase of the project - have been initiated and will be complete by the beginning of February 2004. Obj. 1 & 2, Tasks 1.3 & 2.1, the survey phase regarding the pork producers is shifted to improve response rates. Two producer surveys, one dealing with on-farm odor management strategies including use of shelterbelts (Task 2.1) & the other designed to elicit preferred market mechanisms that better connect producers with consumers (Task 1.3) were merged into a combined survey to reduce costs & enhance response rates. We now seek 500 completed producer surveys. To ensure representation among small-scale producers 50 of these producers in IA and NC will be surveyed via the telephone. We eliminated the focus groups in North Carolina and Washington State and substituted a telephone pilot survey to pre-test the producer survey. Twenty-five producers across all states helped to refine the survey instrument. Obj. 2, Task 2.2 & 2.3, the consumer-oriented survey was completed in December ('03) and data analysis is underway. Initial findings (n= 349) include: 82% of respondents across the three states were willing to pay (WTP) a positive level of premium for pork products produced with 'extra' odor management strategies and technologies in place; Mean maximum WTP equaled a premium of $0.14 per pound of pork; Air quality with regard to swine odor was a major concern for consumers across the three states; and shelterbelts and other 'natural' technologies are highly preferred by consumers as an odor mitigation technology to be used by pork producers. Results so far corroborate previous research regarding similar issues. Obj. 2, Task 2.4 - Departure of key personnel (PhD student P. Forsell) caused postponement to Task 2.4 to S'04. Objective 3 & 4- Odor panels continue to provide confirming data that shelterbelts provide bio-physical effectiveness. Several Extension programs were held. Cooperation with the Iowa Pork Producer Association (IPPA) led to an article in their Newsletter, Fall 2003, Vol.2, Num.3.

Impacts
Results suggest that show both pork consumers and producers agree that shelterbelts can and should play a role in mitigating swine odor. This should promote use of trees in the airsheds associated with pork production. Consumers have expressed a distinct interest in being more informed about the pork meat they buy. Consumers are WTP a premium for pork produced on a farm that employs extra odor management strategies.

Publications

  • Tyndall, J. C. 2003. A Biophysical and Socio-Economic Examination of the Use of Shelterbelts for Swine Odor Mitigation. Department of Natural Resource Ecology & Management. Thesis (Ph.D.)--Iowa State University, 2003.


Progress 01/01/02 to 12/31/02

Outputs
Three surveys of pork producers and consumers were developed. Two surveys of pork producers in Iowa, North Carolina, and Washington are for odor control management including shelterbelts and preferred market mechanisms to ensure enhanced price capture by producers from premiums paid by consumers of pork meat with odor control attributes. Another survey, for consumers (administered 2004 ?year 3), focuses on preferred management, attitudes towards shelterbelts and environmental standards of pork production, behavioral intentions and willingness to pay for pork meat with odor-specific attributes attached. We modified the focus group methodology slightly. To ensure validity and accuracy of the surveys, we completed four focus groups of producers (2) and consumers (2) in Iowa. We obtained feedback on both the marketing and management surveys at the same session thus reducing the need for two focus groups solely designed to elicit feedback on either the marketing or management survey. Feedback has resulted in refinements in the three surveys. For example, the producers indicated a need to have more precise information relative to incremental cost of shelterbelts to assist them in answers questions in both the market mechanism and management strategies surveys. Focus groups in North Carolina (1 producer & 1 consumer) and Washington (1 consumer only) will be done in 2003 via telephone to reduce costs and to provide another round of feedback to the more refined survey instruments. The sample list of pork producers in Iowa was started with assistance from the Iowa National Agriculture Statistical Service. Similar lists are being created for Washington and North Carolina. Initial odor panel results were obtained during the August to provide quantification of the bio-physical efficacy of odor mitigation by shelterbelts. The panelist provided response to cotton swatches exposed to odor from an existing 8-year old shelterbelt on a private pork production farm. Assessing producer and consumer perceptions regarding aesthetics of shelterbelts was shifted to Jan ? Mar, 2003, because Dr. Bell moved to Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison. The photo elicitation process and initial focus group was determined by late fall (nb: the first focus group was competed in January, 2003). Based on focus group responses both the pork producers and consumers generally agree that shelterbelts can play role in odor mitigation. Producers expressed the concern that pork mostly is a commodity with narrow profit margins and high volumes. Some are willing to explore niche markets to capture premiums paid by willing consumers for pork meat with high odor control attributes. Consumers bundle the odor control attributes with other environmental quality features of meat. They think that willingness to pay a premium will be a function of the proximity of consumers relative to pork producers. Consumers residing closer to producers will know of and value additional odor control such as from shelterbelts. Both groups voiced 'co-responsibility' between pork meat consumers and producers to solve environmental issues.

Impacts
Both producers and policy makers will benefit from knowing consumer preferences related to 'environmentally friendly' pork meat production and niche market potential including enhanced profitability. Producers and policy makers will gain added scientific information related to shelterbelt efficacy and odor reduction. Consumers are expected to benefit from the ability to purchase pork meat produced with traceable odor control attributes.

Publications

  • Colletti J and J Tyndall. 2002. Shelterbelts: an answer to growing odor concerns? Inside Agroforestry. USDA National Agroforestry Center. Spring, 2002.


Progress 01/01/01 to 12/31/01

Outputs
Several drafts of the management survey were completed with input from the ISU Statistics Lab. Also, progress was made on creating the lists of pork producers in Iowa, North Carolina, and Washington from which the focus group members and samples will be drawn. Assistance from the National Pork Board, state pork producer associations, and various governmental resources was sought.

Impacts
This study should allow pork producers and consumers to become linked in formal market-oriented ways to improve and protect the livestock industry, the environment, and communities. Enhanced knowledge and application of an additional odor control option involving shelterbelts and pork production should result.

Publications

  • No publications reported this period