A cross-disciplinary toolkit to assess the risk of faecal indicator loss from grassland farm systems to surface waters

Oliver, David M.; Fish, Robert; Hodgson, C. J.; Heathwaite, A. Louise; Chadwick, D. R.; Winter, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.10.019

Cited by 32 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such data are needed to inform and parameterize farm scale risk assessment tools for FIO (e.g. Oliver et al. 2009) to target management and mitigation strategies to effectively protect watercourses from microbial contamination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Establishing relative release kinetics of faecal indicator organisms from different faecal matrices

Hodgson

Bulmer

Chadwick

et al. 2009

Letters in Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPF: 01.64 RONO: 2480 6260A laboratory assay for comparative characterization of various faecal matrices with respect to faecal indicator organism (FIO) release using artificial rain water. Fresh sheep and beef-cattle faeces, dairy cattle slurry and beef cattle farm yard manure (FYM) were collected from commercial units in south-west England and applied to 20 randomized 1 m2 plots established on permanent grassland. Representative samples from each faecal matrix (n=5) were collected on four occasions over 16 days. One gram of each sample was transferred to a sterile vial to which 9 ml of standard local rain was carefully pipetted. The vial was then rotated through 360 degrees, 20 times in 60 seconds to simulate a standardized interaction of the faecal material with rainfall, providing an assay of comparative release potential. Appropriate decimal dilutions were prepared from the eluent. Following agitation, with a sterile spatula, the remaining faecal material and eluent in the vials were vortex mixed for 60 seconds before decimal dilutions were prepared from the resulting mixture, providing a quantitative assessment of the total FIO in the sample from which percentage release could be determined. Bacterial concentrations were enumerated in duplicate by membrane filtration following standard methods for FIO. Significant differences in release kinetics of Escherichia coli and enterococci from each of the faecal matrices were determined. Differences in release from each faecal substrate and between FIO type (E. coli and intestinal enterococci) were observed in this laboratory study. The order of release of E. coli from the faecal matrices (greatest to least, expressed as a percentage of the total present) was dairy cattle slurry gt than beef cattle FYM gt than beef-cattle faeces gt than sheep faeces. For intestinal enterococci the order of percentage release was dairy cattle slurry gt than beef-cattle faeces gt than beef cattle FYM gt than sheep faeces. This laboratory-based method provides the first data on the relative release kinetics of FIO from different faecal matrices in rain water. This is fundamental information needed to parameterize laboratory-based microbial models and inform approaches to field and catchment risk assessment.Peer reviewe

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there are few risk indexing tools that address the impacts of diffuse microbial pollution from agriculture (e.g. Oliver et al. 2009), which is perhaps surprising considering that FIO have been established for a considerable time as a surrogate measure of infection risk to humans (Kay et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing relative release kinetics of faecal indicator organisms from different faecal matrices

Hodgson

Bulmer

Chadwick

et al. 2009

Letters in Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Farm groundwater is rarely treated in South Africa. Therefore, if farm effluent and manure is disposed of in an inappropriate manner, faecally derived pathogens and nitrates may be introduced into groundwater which, in turn, may pose a risk to human health when the water is used as drinking water and in dairy activities (Harter et al, 2002;Oliver et al, 2009). Faecal contamination of groundwater has been linked to outbreaks of various water-borne infections (Krolik et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundwater quality on dairy farms in central South Africa

Esterhuizen¹,

Fossey²,

Potgieter³

2016

WSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dairy farms in central South Africa depend mostly on groundwater for domestic needs and dairy activities. Groundwater samples were collected from 37 dairy farms during 2009 and 2013. Sixteen water quality parameters were tested and compared to the standard. Four parameters in 2009 and six in 2013 exhibited 100% compliance with the standard. Nitrate, Escherichia coli and total coliforms showed relatively low compliance across farms and years. Almost all farms were noncompliant for hardness in both sampling years. T-tests revealed significant changes from 2009 to 2013 for pH (t = 2.580; p = 0.006), hardness (t = 2.197; p = 0.016) and potassium (K) (t = 1.699; p = 0.0468). For hardness, approximately 45% of the farms in 2009, and 57% in 2013, posed a health risk to sensitive consumers. More than 50% of the farms in both years demonstrated levels of nitrates that could pose a health risk, particularly for babies. High levels of coliforms and E. coli were found, indicating a health risk for clinical infections in consumers. The number of farms presenting 3 or more parameters with a health risk more than doubled from 13.5% in 2009 to 27.0% in 2013.

show abstract

“…Whilst specific pathogens are of key interest in terms of human health, it is the indicator species of E. coli and Intestinal Enterococci, known as faecal indicator organisms (FIOs) on which legislation is based (CEC 2006). The risks of FIO losses from livestock farms to watercourses has been explored (Chadwick et al 2008b), and are greater from farms with a greater number of livestock, steeply sloping land, and limited slurry storage capacity (Oliver et al 2009). However, risks are also affected by farmer attitudes.…”

Section: Environmental Impacts Of Dairy Farmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunities for reducing environmental emissions from forage-based dairy farms

Misselbrook¹,

Prado²,

Chadwick³

2013

AFSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern dairy production is inevitably associated with impacts to the environment and the challenge for the industry today is to increase production to meet growing global demand while minimising emissions to the environment. Negative environmental impacts include gaseous emissions to the atmosphere, of ammonia from livestock manure and fertiliser use, of methane from enteric fermentation and manure management, and of nitrous oxide from nitrogen applications to soils and from manure management. Emissions to water include nitrate, ammonium, phosphorus, sediment, pathogens and organic matter, deriving from nutrient applications to forage crops and/or the management of grazing livestock. This paper reviews the sources and impacts of such emissions in the context of a forage-based dairy farm and considers a number of potential mitigation strategies, giving some examples using the farm-scale model SIMS DAIRY . Most of the mitigation measures discussed are associated with systemic improvements in the efficiency of production in dairy systems. Important examples of mitigations include: improvements to dairy herd fertility, that can reduce methane and ammonia emissions by up to 24 and 17%, respectively; diet modification such as the use of high sugar grasses for grazing, which are associated with reductions in cattle N excretion of up to 20% (and therefore lower N losses to the environment) and potentially lower methane emissions, or reducing the crude protein content of the dairy cow diet through use of maize silage to reduce N excretion and methane emissions; the use of nitrification inhibitors with fertiliser and slurry applications to reduce nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate leaching by up to 50%. Much can also be achieved through attention to the quantity, timing and method of application of nutrients to forage crops and utilising advances made through genetic improvements.Key words: ammonia, diffuse water pollution, farm-scale model, greenhouse gas, mitigation IntroductionThe dairy sector, in common with other agricultural sectors, currently faces a great challenge to meet rising global food demands, particularly for livestock-derived food products, in a sustainable way (Godfray et al. 2010). There are important interactions between food production and other ecosystem services, including climate regulation, air and water quality, nutrient cycling, soil erosion, biodiversity and landscape quality, as discussed by Pilgrim et al. (2010) for temperate grassland systems, and the sustainable intensification of production relies on a good understanding of these interactions and our ability to identify potential 'win-win' strategies.The assessment of such interactions for given management or mitigation scenarios on forage-based dairy farms was the primary aim of the development of the farm-scale SIMS DAIRY model (del Prado et al. 2011). SIMS DAIRY integrates all of the major components of a dairy farm into a modelling framework using a system-based approach. It consists of modules dealing with overall farm management, he...

show abstract

A cross-disciplinary toolkit to assess the risk of faecal indicator loss from grassland farm systems to surface waters

Cited by 32 publications

References 35 publications

Establishing relative release kinetics of faecal indicator organisms from different faecal matrices

Establishing relative release kinetics of faecal indicator organisms from different faecal matrices

Groundwater quality on dairy farms in central South Africa

Opportunities for reducing environmental emissions from forage-based dairy farms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About