While policy makers are seeking to control sales of pseudoephedrine-containing drugs like Sudafed, experts on campus are taking a different approach to controlling methamphetamine production in Iowa.

The scientists have been working on an additive for anhydrous ammonia, the second key ingredient in meth production, besides pseudoephedrine, for more than four years. Anhydrous ammonia is commonly used as fertilizer by farmers.

ISU scientists found an additive would prevent meth production better than other methods like farmers locking up anhydrous tanks.

“[The additive] will affect a lot of people who make [meth] for their own use,” said George Kraus, university professor of chemistry.

ISU researchers found that calcium nitrate added to ammonia reacts competitively with lithium, the third key ingredient in popular meth production in Iowa. This makes it harder to produce effective meth yields.

Test labs produced a 2 percent yield of meth with the additive-treated ammonia. When more ammonia was added, the yield dropped to zero, said Marvin Van Haaften, director of the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy.

Although test results are promising, it could be at least one year before the additive is used in Iowa.

“There are several barriers, and we’re slowly working on them,” said John Whipple, director of the Iowa Department of Agriculture’s plant management and technology division.

Calcium nitrate, commonly used as fertilizer for horticulture purposes, is safe for agriculture. But logistical questions for other parts of the production chain are still unanswered, Whipple said.

The Iowa Department of Transportation, funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation, is leading research to ensure that the compounds, when added to ammonia, have no effect on holding tanks. Once that testing is complete, Whipple said the next step is to determine how to get the calcium nitrate into ammonia.

“It doesn’t make sense, as far as we’re concerned, to have 150 dealer locations adding calcium nitrate at the prescribed level,” Whipple said. “It needs to go in at the terminal level.”

Tests must also ensure that cross-contamination does not occur. About 80 percent of anhydrous ammonia in the United States is used for refrigeration and industrial purposes, which can only use pure anhydrous ammonia, Whipple said.

The remaining 20 percent of anhydrous ammonia used for agricultural purposes is a target for theft from tanks on farms and ammonia dealer locations. Making ammonia unusable for meth production would reduce theft.

“The fact that anhydrous ammonia is used to make meth is the only reason it’s stolen,” Whipple said. “When thefts go down, public safety issues go away.”

Anhydrous ammonia provides economic benefit to agricultural production, and Iowa directly applies more ammonia than any other state, Whipple said.

“We didn’t have this problem before,” Whipple said. “Ag supply, the ag industry and farmers are the victims in that they have a compound for [productive] uses, and it’s stolen for an illegal use.”

Meth cooks seem to create labs where anhydrous ammonia tanks are available, Van Haaften said.

The number of meth labs seized in Iowa increased in 2004, but in the 26 counties where ammonia tanks were locked up, the number of labs decreased 3 to 5 percent, he said.

Meth cooks use other methods, but the “Nazi method” is most popular. “Nazi” meth, so named because the German government used it in World War II to boost energy in fatigued soldiers, requires the combination of ephedrine, lithium and anhydrous ammonia. More than 97 percent of meth labs in Iowa are “Nazi” labs, but of the 1,451 labs seized in 2004, 40 were red phosphorus labs.

“That’s a red flag waving on the horizon,” Van Haaften said.

These labs create meth by combining pseudoephedrine, iodine crystals, water and red phosphorus, which typically comes from matchbooks.

“It would take about 2,000 matchbooks to scrape off the red strip with a tool to create an ounce [of meth],” Van Haaften said.

Even though the number of red phosphorus labs in Iowa is increasing, Van Haaften said he is more concerned about ammonia.

But experts still question who will pay for the additive.

“There’s around a dollar an acre cost,” Van Haaften said. “Who pays for that? Is it public policy that comes out of drug funding? The farmer? Farm supplier? Chemical company?”