Do Water Contamination Reports Influence Water Use Practices on Feedlot Farms and Rural Households in Southern Alberta?

Acharya, Manju P.; Kalischuk, Ruth Grant; Klein, K. K.; Bjørnlund, Henning

doi:10.4296/cwrj3203213

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was observed that home water treatment devices are very popular among the respondents as a way to protect their water quality, even though most use LNID delivered treated irrigation water [26]. Corkal et al [4] reported that over 4 million Canadians rely on private water supplies, therefore, they do not know whether or not their water sources are safe or suitable for any given use, including non-health-related uses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The farm dugouts are commonly located close to the watercourse. They are either built on a higher elevation or are diked with compacted subsoil to a level 0.6 m higher than water level [28)], to prevent seepage loss under the dike and overtopping of the dike from wave action [26], while also preventing contaminated water from entering the storage facility. The district has return flow channels to carry excess irrigation water back to the river or reservoir, drop structures built at intervals to stabilize the water flow profile, and built-in-check structure to raise and hold water at specific levels and facilitate upstream delivery [29].…”

Section: Study Site Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The district has return flow channels to carry excess irrigation water back to the river or reservoir, drop structures built at intervals to stabilize the water flow profile, and built-in-check structure to raise and hold water at specific levels and facilitate upstream delivery [29]. Gates are used to open and close turnouts and other diversionary structures and trash screens are used to keep gates from clogging [26]. The district also supplies thousands of people with water for domestic use [5].…”

Section: Study Site Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…LNID is home to 160 livestock owners with 219 operations, which includes 80 feedlot operators with 92 operations [26]. Moreover, almost half of those operations are large beef producers that are concentrated in the northern part of this district known as the "Feedlot Alley" [24].…”

Section: Study Site Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Farmstead drinking water sources, concerns and safety practices of livestock farm families in southern Alberta, Canada

Acharya

Kalischuk

Klein

et al. 2008

WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The province of Alberta, like other provinces in Canada, has made considerable progress in increasing supply of good quality water for domestic use and consumption. However, the quality of rural drinking water in southern Alberta has received considerable attention in recent years because of intensive agricultural activities, livestock density, floods and the highest incidence of E coli O157:H7 infection in the country. In fact relevant literature indicates that the region's water sources have high concentration levels of nitrate and/or coliform bacteria that exceed drinking water guidelines thus threatening the health of local farmers and residents. Little information is available on the farmstead drinking water safety practices of livestock farm families in southern Alberta so an inperson survey of feedlot farm families was carried out in Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District (LNID), one of the 13 irrigation districts located in southern Alberta. All respondents strongly agreed that access to safe and clean drinking water is essential for human and animal health and performance and they indicated that they use multiple water sources to avoid health problems. Other drinking water safety practices included the use of bottled water and/or home water treatment technologies for human consumption and the use of LNID monitored irrigation water for feedlot operations and gardens. Regarding the type of home water treatment technology used, a majority (over 70%) used filtered water for cooking, drinking and washing. Only 9% used the city water supply for domestic purposes and 6% depended on the LNID water supply. It was interesting to note that 66% were concerned about their local water source and 67% were concerned about waterborne illnesses and 45% of respondents reported that they tested their water quality annually.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Site Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Site Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Site Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Farmstead drinking water sources, concerns and safety practices of livestock farm families in southern Alberta, Canada

Acharya

Kalischuk

Klein

et al. 2008

WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unprecedented rain events in early June (6-9) brought precipitation throughout much of southern Alberta with a total accumulation more than 220 mm (not including the spring snow melt) [4,5]. In communities such as Granum, Claresholm and Pincher Creek, the total accumulation during this period reached more than 240 mm [6] causing overland flooding, destroying businesses, homes and public facilities, and severely harming farm and livestock operations, especially CLOs [4][5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feedlot operation problems from floods in southern Alberta: a Canadian case study

Acharya¹,

Kalischuk²,

Klein³

et al. 2008

WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the summer of 2005, southern Alberta received the heaviest precipitation in the region's history. Heavy and persistent rains during June and September triggered heavy flooding in Oldman River basin, the principal source of water used in nine of thirteen irrigation districts of southern Alberta. In the fall of 2005, a flood impact survey of feedlot farm families was conducted in the Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District (LNID). The objectives of the survey were to determine the types of feedlot operation problems the farm families encountered during the flooding, their responses to the immediate problems, and their plans to reduce future risks. The analyses revealed that most experienced major flood-related problems on their farm operations. For instance, 97% reported problems associated with feedlot and flood runoff management, animal health and performance, and damages to feed and storage facilities. To reduce the effects of excess contaminated water, a vast majority (85%) of respondents reported that they sprayed contaminated floodwater onto their cropland. A majority (82%) of the respondents treated their sick animals themselves and 39% said that they have no future flood risk reduction plans for their farm operations. However, the majority of them do have plans for reducing the impacts of future floods, to protect the water quality, the health of their animals and their livelihood.

show abstract

Veterinary antimicrobials in cattle feedlot environs and irrigation conveyances in a high-intensity agroecosystem in southern Alberta, Canada

Sura

Larney

Charest

et al. 2022

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB) is considered one of the most intensively farmed regions in Canada, with high densities of livestock and expansive areas of irrigated cropland. We measured concentrations of seven veterinary antimicrobials (VAs) in 114 surface water samples from feedlot environs and 219 samples from irrigation conveyances in the SSRB. Overall, detection frequencies in feedlot environs were 100% for chlortetracycline (CTC) and tetracycline (TC), 94% for monensin (MON), 84% for tylosin (TYL), 72% for lincomycin (LIN), 66% for erythromycin (ERY), and 23% for sulfamethazine (SMZ). For irrigation conveyances, detection frequencies for CTC and TC remained high (94–100%), but dropped to 18% for ERY, 15% for TYL, 10% for MON, and 4% for SMZ. Lincomycin was not detected in irrigation conveyance water. Maximum concentrations of VAs ranged from 1384 µg L−1 (TC) to 17 ng L−1 (SMZ) in feedlot environs while those in irrigation conveyances were 155 ng L−1 (TC) to 29 ng L−1 (ERY). High detection frequencies and median concentrations of VAs in both feedlot environs and irrigation conveyances were associated with high amounts of precipitation. However, an irrigation district (ID) with high livestock density (Lethbridge Northern) did not exhibit higher concentrations of VAs compared to IDs with less livestock, while levels of VAs in irrigation conveyances were less influenced by the degree of surface runoff. The ubiquity of CTC and TC in our study is likely a reflection of its widespread use in intensive livestock operations. Additional investigation is required to link environmental concentrations of VAs with livestock densities and increase our understanding of potential antimicrobial resistance in high-intensity agroecosystems.

show abstract

Do Water Contamination Reports Influence Water Use Practices on Feedlot Farms and Rural Households in Southern Alberta?

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Farmstead drinking water sources, concerns and safety practices of livestock farm families in southern Alberta, Canada

Farmstead drinking water sources, concerns and safety practices of livestock farm families in southern Alberta, Canada

Feedlot operation problems from floods in southern Alberta: a Canadian case study

Veterinary antimicrobials in cattle feedlot environs and irrigation conveyances in a high-intensity agroecosystem in southern Alberta, Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About