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.

Exposure 267Table 7.2 Notable studies: Areas with livestock impacts – indicator monitoring.Location Organism Results Comments ReferenceHong Kong E. coliEnterococciGeo. mean: 978 cfu/100 mLGeo. mean: 144 cfu/100 mLUSA Faecal coliforms Day 2 (leading edge): >1 × 10 6UK E. coliEnterococciE. coliEnterococcicfu/100 mLDay 14: 100–1000 cfu/100 mLRiver 1: 56–8300 cfu/100 mLRiver 1: 9.5–810 cfu/100 mLRiver 2: 120–19000 cfu/100 mLRiver 2: 17–3300 cfu/100 mLUSA Faecal coliforms Monthly samples: 50–17,400cfu/100 mLSpring high flow: 30–3480cfu/100 mLAutumn low flow: 30–4480cfu/100 mLCanada E. coli Daily geo. mean: 14–2189cfu/100 mLSeasonal geo. mean: 32–186cfu/100 mLTwo beaches impacted bylivestock wastes (mainlyswine)River – Accidental swine wastespillTwo rivers: Livestockpredominate in catchments;outflows near bathingbeaches. High flow samplesstatistically higher than lowflow samples.<strong>Water</strong>shed – Pasture 60% of l<strong>and</strong>use; cattle have free access tostream at many locations.Bathing beach – located at mouthof river draining mainlyagricultural area. 1999–2008seasonal data.Cheung et al.1990Burkholderet al. 1997Crowther et al.2003Graves et al.2007Huron County<strong>Health</strong> Unit2008(Continued)

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!