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.

246<strong>Animal</strong> <strong>Waste</strong>, <strong>Water</strong> <strong>Quality</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Human</strong> <strong>Health</strong>avoidance of lagoon overflow, elimination of steading runoff, prevention of cattleaccess to streams, prevention of soil compaction in cattle congregation areas –each of which was shown to reduce the output load of EC from the catchment.6.8 SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONSIdeally, agencies responsible for the design <strong>and</strong> implementation of POMs toattenuate the transport of livestock-derived pathogens <strong>and</strong> FIOs withincatchments require accurate empirical data characterising the rates of attenuationassociated with each BMP. Unfortunately, the effectiveness of certain measuresis overwhelmingly site-dependent. For example, the reductions in microbialfluxes resulting from the containment of steading or feedlot runoff that waspreviously transmitted to a watercourse, or from streambank fencing/bridging,are both critically dependent upon levels <strong>and</strong> patterns of usage by livestock,which will vary from farm-to-farm <strong>and</strong> field-to-field. In other cases, discreteinfluent <strong>and</strong> effluent waters associated with a particular BMP cannot readily beidentified <strong>and</strong> monitored (e.g. practices relating to the location <strong>and</strong> timing ofgrazing <strong>and</strong> manure applications to avoid areas <strong>and</strong> times of high pollution risk).The situation is further complicated by the fact that a BMP may eliminate onesource of faecal contamination, yet create a potential secondary source(s), forexample, containment of steading runoff creates a need for treatment of thecontaminated water, with resultant effluent fluxes, or disposal to l<strong>and</strong> withattendant risks of microbes being transported to watercourses via surface runoff<strong>and</strong>/or bypass flow through soils.In the present chapter, datasets presented for six BMPs have shown each to beeffective in attenuating microbial fluxes within catchments. As would beanticipated from the nature of the data reported, all six measures exhibit verymarked variability (Figure 2). The median values also differ quite markedly,with values ranging from 0.67 (VBSs)–1.59 log 10 (ISPs). Interestingly,somewhat higher median rates of attenuation (≥1.12 log 10 ) are recorded for thethree BMPs that include ponding of water <strong>and</strong>/or wetl<strong>and</strong>s. A median reductionof 1.08 log 10 is recorded for WCs, though this is based on just two data values.By comparison, a lower median log 10 attenuation is recorded for the twosystems based on dry-l<strong>and</strong> vegetative systems for attenuating microbial fluxes insurface flows: VTAs (0.67) <strong>and</strong> VBSs (1.00). In addition, a range of othermeasures identified in the chapter needs to be considered in the design ofPOMs. Some, such as streambank fencing/bridging <strong>and</strong> the containment ofsteading <strong>and</strong> feedlot runoff that would otherwise discharge to streams, willclearly have a direct <strong>and</strong> immediate impact, whereas the effectiveness of othersis less easily quantified.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!