11.07.2015 Views

Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health

Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health

Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Transport of livestock-derived pathogens within catchments 239discharged to watercourses (see: design manual for CFWs in Scotl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong>Northern Irel<strong>and</strong> (Carty, 2008)). They are typically used for more lightlycontaminated runoff, such as drainage from roofs <strong>and</strong> yards that are usedinfrequently by cattle, rather than heavily contaminated, slurry-rich, daily yard<strong>and</strong> milking parlour washings associated with dairy activity. Since CFWsrepresent a form of wetl<strong>and</strong> habitat creation or restoration, they enhance thel<strong>and</strong>scape <strong>and</strong> biodiversity. Indeed, the integrated constructed wetl<strong>and</strong>s (ICWs)concept, which was first pioneered in Irel<strong>and</strong>, specifically promotes asustainable approach to natural resource management (Harrington, 2005,Harrington, 2007, Harrington, 2009). In <strong>Water</strong>ford, Irel<strong>and</strong>, 12 ICWs wereestablished in 1999/2000, ranging from 0.3–2.2 ha in extent (approximately1.4 × the size of the associated steading). These have led to reductions in meanEC concentrations in yard runoff from 8.3 × 10 5 to 5.0 × 10 2 cfu 100 ml −1 (i.e.3.22 log 10 reduction) (Carty 2008), with a log 10 reduction as high as 4.51 (from9.6 × 10 5 to 3.0 × 10 1 cfu 100 ml −1 ) in one 4-cell ICW (Mustafa 2009). Otherreported rates of EC or FC attenuation in CFWs range from 1.61–3.56 log 10(excluding the site in SE Scotl<strong>and</strong> where Gouriveau (2008) reports an increasein FC due to faecal inputs from wild birds), <strong>and</strong> Knox, Tate et al. (2007) reportlower rates of EC attenuation at higher flow rates in irrigated beef cattle pasturein California. For municipal/domestic wastewater treatment the reported rangeis from 1.29–3.00 log 10 for raw wastewater to 0.19–3.30 log 10 for secondary ortertiary treatment. Although few data are available on pathogen attenuation inrunoff from livestock units, Duggan, Bates et al. (2001) report log 10 attenuationrates for Campylobacter spp. from poultry waste of 3.13 <strong>and</strong> 2.96, respectively,for sequential <strong>and</strong> continuous loading to a SSF reedbed. Drewe, Mwangi et al.(2009) report complete removal of Mycobacterium avium (causal agent of aviantuberculosis) within a reedbed treatment system for captive wildfowl waste.Wider ranges of attenuation have been reported for the treatment ofmunicipal/domestic wastewaters: coliphages (0.67–2.64 log 10 ), enterovirus(0.33–1.82 log 10 ), Clostridium (0.28 log 10 –complete), Giardia (0.43 log 10 –complete), Cryptosporidium (0.28 log 10 –complete) <strong>and</strong> helminths (complete).Overall, the median microbial attenuation for CWs is 1.27 log 10 (Figure 2).6.5.3 Control of livestock on farml<strong>and</strong>Streambank fencing <strong>and</strong> bridging. Where livestock have access to watercourses,faecal contamination can occur as a result of direct voiding <strong>and</strong> contaminantsbeing washed from their hooves <strong>and</strong> lower legs. The flux of FIOs <strong>and</strong> pathogenswill also be enhanced by disturbance of bed sediments, which are oftencontaminated with faecal material (Muirhead, Davies-Colley et al. 2004).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!