In 1998, the State of Minnesota identified the need for a Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (GEIS) on animal agriculture. The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) was directed
by the Legislature to examine the long-term effects of the livestock industry, as it exists and as it
is changing, on the economy, environment and way of life of Minnesota and its citizens.
Minnesota has always had a very aggressive environmental regulation program and in many areas
has been a national pioneer and leader. This paper examines air quality and odor impacts from
animal agriculture facilities in Minnesota (EarthTech 2001). The general trends discussed are
similar in all Minnesota livestock facilities. This paper focuses on the swine industry, which has
shown the most dynamic and controversial changes in the decade 1990 to 2000.
As farm size and animal concentration increase, there is a greater potential for odor and air
quality concerns to be raised by members of the local community. Increase in the size and
concentration of animal operations does not necessarily mean that more odor and air quality
concerns will result. Management practices are essential to controlling and reducing odor and air
quality problems regardless of facility size. However, citizens are becoming much more vocal
about their environmental concerns, even items that were formerly regarded as minor or normal
aspects of farming operations. In some cases activist groups are organizing grass-roots efforts to
promote more stringent control of nuisances from livestock animal operations.
Little has been done to date by the United States (US) federal government to address air quality
and odor issues from animal agriculture facilities. Consequently, state and local governments
have been essentially left on their own to develop programs addressing air quality. This trend
toward greater regulation by state governments is occurring despite a lack of definitive
information on the sources and quantities of air emissions from animal agricultural operations.
These factors have led to substantial variability in the extent and stringency of rules and
guidelines in those states that have developed programs.