Animal Waste, Water Quality and Human Health

Exposure 265Table 7.1 Notable studies: Areas with livestock impacts – pathogen monitoring.Location Organism Results Comments ReferenceJapan C. parvum Overall: 50% of sitesDairy farming areas: 88% of sitesHorse-rearing areas: 0% of sitesUSA Cryptosporidiumspp.0–40% of sites36% of samplesJapan C. parvum 37–100% of sites1.4–2.4 oocysts/20 LRivers – significant dairy farming andhorse rearing.Watershed with small, concentrateddairy industry; drinking watersource.Rural sites, varying livestockpopulations (cattle, swine, poultry)Swaziland E. coli O157 12 of 81 (15%) of samples River – Heavy rains, cattle faeces,outbreak from untreated drinkingwater.NewZealandCampylobacter (3 beaches) 85, 74, 52% of samplesMedian: 0.84, 0.36, 0.12/100 mLMalaysia Giardia spp.Cryptosporidiumspp.Canada CampylobacterE. coli O157:H7GiardiaCryptosporidiumspp.4–23% of samples; 1.3–9.0 cysts/L12–21% of samples; 0.7–240oocysts/L50% samples;Med: 63 /100 mL (1.2–1.2 × 10 6 )6.7% samples;Med: 100/100 mL (100 to 110)35% samples;Med: 22/100 L (2–1.0 × 10 4 )37.9% samplesPredominantly agricultural catchment,levels higher during summermonths.Rivers near cattle farms with potentialbathing/swimming uses.River watershed – Site with highlivestock density. Weakcorrelations between pathogensand faecal indicators reported.Tsushima et al.2001Sischo et al.2000Ono et al. 2001Effler et al.2001Eyles et al.2003Farizawati et al.2005Dorner et al.2007(Continued)