MADISON — A state board denied an appeal challenging a conditional-use permit issued by Jefferson County to Daybreak Foods Inc. for an expansion of its egg-production facility in the Town of Lake Mills.
The Wisconsin Livestock Facility Siting Review Board (LFSRB) met June 13 to consider an appeal filed by Aaron R. Johnson, who claimed that the county had failed to properly consider air quality and odor concerns in issuing the permit.
Under the livestock siting review law, the review board is the citizen group that hears appeals when a local government grants or denies a request for a new or expanded livestock operation. The appeal process is open only to the applicant and property owners or residents within a two-mile radius of the proposed operation.
The LFSRB is scheduled to meet Friday, June 29, at noon, via telephone conference to review and approve the draft decision and meeting minutes.
“The board made its decision,” LFSRB attorney Cheryl Daniels said of the meeting to approve the drafts. “It just has to make sure that what gets written down by the staff is exactly what they want to say. So (the June 29 meeting) is not really a formality, but it is to ensure that the language is correct.”
In March, the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Committee approved the conditional-use permit allowing Daybreak Foods Inc. to expand its egg operation to 2.75 million chickens, consisting of 2 million layers and about 750,000 pullets.
The additional birds will be added to the 1.8 million already at Daybreak’s Creekwood Farms facility. Expansion plans also include modernizing Creekwood, which sits on approximately 182.13 acres off of County Highway A at N5505 and N5344 Crossman Road and W8403, W8458, W8468, W8474 and W8453 Creekwood Lane. Founded in 1965, it is one of the oldest operational layer facilities in the country.
The conditional-use permit was applied for under state administrative code Chapter Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (ATCP) 51: Livestock Facility Siting, and state statute Chapter 93: Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, section 93.90: Livestock facility siting and expansion.
Per those regulations, five worksheets that cover the location of livestock structures, odor and air emissions, nutrient management, waste storage facilities and runoff management must be completed.
Under ATCP 51, regulatory power has been removed from local communities and, if the standards are met within the five worksheets and by the local Land and Water Conservation Department, the Planning and Zoning Committee is required to approve the permit.
The appeal
Johnson began his appeal letter by stating that it was “not mean to prevent Daybreak Foods Inc. from a new or expanded livestock facility.”
“My concern is the air quality that the people surrounding this facility are exposed to, primarily my wife, Lois D. Johnson,” he wrote. “My wife is a lung cancer survivor and has COPD. To extend her expected lifetime requires the best air quality possible. Her doctors at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., continue to advise her to avoid contaminated air.”
Johnson owned Creekwood Farms from 1970-92, after which it was sold to David Staples, who had been a part-owner since 1976. In 2008, it was sold to SBJ Organics LLC, and then to Daybreak in 2010.
Johnson said that, as the farm grew from 30,000 to 700,000 birds, odor became an issue. As a result, a “great deal of effort was put forth” to manage odor, including spending time in Europe, specifically Holland, and various parts of the United States to educate himself on how other large-scale farms and municipalities dealt with odor control.
“I then built a processing facility for dead birds and manure to basically eliminate odors,” Johnson said. “The University of Wisconsin Agriculture Engineering Department was a great help to me on this project.
“When the current owners took over the farm, they found they could reduce cost by eliminating these systems,” he added. “Over a period of time, they have dismantled the entire process to reduce their cost. Hence, the odors began to escalate, primarily caused by rotting dead birds and anaerobic manure.”
According to Daily Union files, in the 1980s, Johnson was faced with at least one appeal regarding the permits issued to him, some of which went all the way to the state appellate court. These were not discussed in Johnson’s appeal regarding Daybreak.
“To improve the success of this expansion, I feel an engineering firm should be involved to design systems to protect our environment,” Johnson said in his appeal. “Daybreak has stated they are the second-largest poultry farm in the United States. This, in my opinion, puts them in the league of people like the (Nestlé Purina) plant in Jefferson and the Redi-Serve food plant in Fort Atkinson.
“Both of these facilities had odor concerns in the past that have been resolved by odor control engineering providers,” he continued. “I don’t think Daybreak’s facility should be built on the owner’s guesswork.”
Johnson said he does not believe the permit should be allowed to go forward until the “engineering of environment odor control” is in place.
He offered to pay the cost, prior to construction, for an engineering firm to “give us direction on how to deal with the environment” that surrounds Creekwood. Johnson noted that he would choose the firm from a list that the state’s Department of Natural Resources or Department of Agriculture would provide.
“By having the environmental engineering firm involved, I would think the Livestock Facility Siting Review Board — as well as the Department of Agriculture, Wisconsin DNR and the Wisconsin Health Department — would feel more comfortable as it pertains to the success of this operation and the well-being of the people living within the two-mile radius of the project,” he concluded.
According to Johnson’s appeal letter, he also had offered to give, at no cost, a residential site to Bobby Harris, vice president of operations at Daybreak Foods, for him to build a home on. The site apparently is on Crossman Road, adjacent to Creekwood Farms.
Both offers were rescinded in an April 26 letter, after approximately three weeks of no response.
In accordance with state law, any resident or landowner within two miles of the proposed facility were given until May 18 to file “statements of position” that addressed specific issues presented in the appeal.
Thirteen statements of position were submitted by residents/landowners. Only one was in support of Daybreak’s expansion.
In addition, the county and Daybreak were allowed to submit statements.
Jefferson County recounted its actions and said it “stands behind” its decision to approve the conditional-use permit.
Daybreak’s response
In Daybreak’s statement, Harris began by reaffirming that the odor score calculations were accurate, based on technologies being implemented at the facility.
He noted that there will be two steps in the manure-handling and treatment process, which will “eliminate a majority of the moisture, along with the odors that are caused by higher moisture poultry litter.”
“Manure generated in the house dries using ambient air through air tubes blowing directly over manure belts,” Harris explained. “The manure moves on a belt within the aviary system in the layer and pullet houses. In the layer housing, the pre-dried manure transfers to a manure drying system designed by Big Dutchman Inc., which consists of multiple tiers of perforated serpentine belts.
“The Big Dutchman Opti-Sec Drying System was developed in the Netherlands and is a state-of-the-art technology regularly used in Europe and in the United States,” he continued. “The dryers are installed in each layer building to provide capacity and redundancy.”
According to Harris, equipment manufacture performance data provided to DATCP shows that, after drying, the manure’s moisture content will be 15- to 35 percent and that the reduction controls odor and lowers the likelihood of the manure becoming anaerobic.
DATCP previously approved similar equipment, he said, citing S&R Egg Farm Inc.’s facility in the Town of Palmyra as an example.
In 2017, S&R was granted a conditional-use permit to expand its facility, Cold Spring Egg Farm Inc., to 50,000 animal units.
Also, Harris pointed to meeting notes from the Livestock Siting Technical Expert Committee that supported the conclusion that the belt-drier system is a “proven technology.”
“As a business decision to further improve odor, Daybreak Foods Inc. also proposes the use of two-stage cremators to dispose of daily moralities (dead birds) as compared to the practice of composting,” Harris said. “Trials with cremators have been effective, and cremators are planned for the new facility to eliminate composting odors.”
Responding directly to Johnson’s comments about needing an environmental engineer, he noted that the company has consulted with Dr. Hongwei Xin regarding building design and odor-reduction technology.
Xin, a distinguished professor at Iowa State University’s Department of Agriculture and Biosystems Engineering, holds a Ph.D. in interdepartmental area of engineering from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He also has a bachelor’s and master’s in agriculture engineering.
Harris also said that Daybreak personnel have visited more than 30 cage-free production facilities and equipment manufacturers in Europe and the U.S. that have utilized technologies similar or identical to those in the proposed cage-free Creekwood Farms design.
“The new farm is specifically designed with a high level of engineering and technology,” Harris emphasized. “Daybreak Foods looks forward to replacing an aged farm and the tangible improvements it will provide to its neighbors and employees in terms of odor, air, bio-security and bird health.”
What they considered
On June 13, the Wisconsin Livestock Facility Siting Review Board considered three issues regarding an appeal of a conditional-use permit granted to Daybreak Foods Inc. by Jefferson County. The issues and conclusions were:
Issue 1: Pursuant to the state statute 93.90 and ATCP 51, did Daybreak Foods Inc. in its application for approval provide sufficient credible information to show that the proposed facility meets the odor standard in ATCP 51?
Conclusion: The evidence in the record shows that the application for local approval was complete and contains credible information and documentation that Daybreak’s proposed facility meets the odor standard as specified in ATCP 51.
Issue 2: Pursuant to state statute 93.90 and ATCP 51, is there sufficient evidence in the record to find, by clear and convincing information or documentation, that the applicant cannot meet the standard in ATCP 51, and therefore the county’s issuance of the conditional-use permit cannot be sustained by the LFSRB?
Conclusion: There is not clear and convincing evidence in the record to conclude that Daybreak failed to meet the standard in ATCP 51.
Issue 3: Are there sufficient grounds to review the conditions placed on Daybreak’s conditional-use permit by Jefferson County?
Conclusion: There are insufficient grounds to review the conditions placed on Daybreak’s conditional-use permit by Jefferson County. The request for review did not raise this issue on appeal. Moreover, the conditions in the conditional-use permit are reasonably related to monitoring compliance of the applicable standards and none of the conditions create new standards.