Click on “Download PDF” for the PDF version or on the title for the HTML version.
If you are not an ASABE member or if your employer has not arranged for access to the full-text, Click here for options.
Comparison of Five Models for Setback Distance Determination
Published by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan www.asabe.orgCitation: Paper number 014045, 2001 ASAE Annual Meeting. (doi: 10.13031/2013.5534) @2001
Authors: Huiqing Guo, Larry D. Jacobson, David R. Schmidt, Richard E. Nicolai, Kevin A. Janni
Keywords: Odor, Setback Distances, Air Dispersion Model
Different setback estimation models for animal production farms have been developed in European countries and some states and provinces in North America. Five setback models, based on empirical, combination of empirical and odor measurement, or dispersion calculation, were compared for various size swine farms in Minnesota. It was found that the setback distances generated by different models fell into a wide range. The Minnesota OFFSET model gives the occurrence frequency of faint odor at various distances away from an odor source and produces different setback distances according to odor annoyance free frequencies from 91% up to 99%. The Canadian MDS-II model and the Austrian model generated low setback distances that were close to OFFSET’s setbacks at the 91 and 94% levels. The Austrian model also has the handicap that it does not consider outdoor manure storage units. The Purdue model produced medium setback distances similar to 94 to 98% annoyance free level of the Minnesota OFFSET model. Finally, the Williams and Thompson model, from the Warren Spring Laboratory in England, gives setbacks similar to OFFSET 98% odor annoyance free distance. The relative results from the models and the methods used by them to calculate setback distance should be helpful to local government officials or designers when choosing a model to use for land use guidelines or specific case studies.(Download PDF) (Export to EndNotes)