Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Managing Manure to Minimize Environmental Impact
Or Bugs, Drugs, and Manure
Goal = Create Awareness not Controversy
Trained as Dairy Nutritionist
Moved into whole farm nutrient management
- Work both ends of the cow
• Potassium requirement of the early lactation cow
• Impact of Balancing for Amino Acids on Milk Productionand Environmental Impact
Feed Management
A Key Ingredient in Livestock
and Poultry Nutrient Management
Current Projects
Feed Management
A Key Ingredient in Livestock
and Poultry Nutrient Management
Relationship of manure application and tillage practices in shallow groundwaterNitrate levels.
Removal of phosphorus from liquid dairy manure as struvite
Use of anaerobically digested dairy manure for grass and corn silage production
Development of a decision aid tool for accounting of nutrients, gas production, nutrient removal, carbon credits for community ADs and ADs receiving Added feedstocks. (ADOPT)
Characterization of air and odor issues and ADs
Struvite
[MgNH4PO4.6(H2O)]
Best management practices exist to minimize the impact of manure management on the environment
Take Home Messages
Manure is a valuable source of nutrients for crop production, but can also be a source of pathogens which could raise bio-security and human health concerns
Anaerobic digestion of manure reduces common pathogens in manure by at least 90%
When land applied, anaerobically digested manure has significantly fewer bacteria, both initially and for weeks thereafter
As more manure is moved off-farm for human crop production, greater attention needs to be given to insuring that the manure presents a low risk of contaminating food crops
Go to –
http://www.extension.org/animal+manure+management
Microorganisms
There are over 150 pathogens, or disease-causing microorganisms, in livestock manure which pose a risk to humans
Some, such as E. coli O157:H7 and certain Campylobacter spp., are not pathogenic for the host species from which the manure originated but are for other species exposed to the manure containing the agent.
Land application of dairy manure poses a risk to both humans and grazing animals as pathogens applied in manure are known to survive in soil long after application
Survival Times of Pathogens in Various Media(days)
Micro-organism
Slurry Fecal Paddies
Soil Water
Salmonellasp.
250+ 200+ 150+ 16
E.coli 300+ 200+ 200+ 35
General maxima
1 year
Viruses, maxima
1 year
Protozoan cysts, maxima
180+
Helminth ova
7 years
- Summarized in NRAES -147 – Waterborne Pathogens in Agricultural Watersheds
Pathogens & Indicator Organisms
• Pathogens are present at low levels in the environment, water and foods– Even at low numbers, high risk involved
– Difficult to detect
– Example: E Coli O157:H7 has an infectious dose of only 1 – 10 cells
Slope
Applied
Waste
Seepage & Filtering
Soil Type,
water content
& pH
Vegetative
Cover
Runoff:
concentrated
or sheet flow
Soil Bacteria
Competition
Water Table Soil Organic Matter
Soil Aeration
Air Temperature
Humidity
Freeze-Thaw Cycle
Sunlight
Ultraviolet
RadiationPrecipitation
Barnyard Runoff
Storage System
Leakage
Drying
Dilution
Control Factors
(metals, disinfectants,
antibiotics, pesticides)
Adsorption
Waste
Storage
Figure 1 depicts the factors affecting the viability of pathogens along transportpathways. In general, cool temperatures, moist conditions, and lack of direct-sunlight promotes the survival of microorganisms; while UV light, drying conditions, and limited crop canopy promote die-off of microorganisms
The fate of antibiotics used at concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) has gained recent attention by the regulatory community
Watanabe et al. (2010) reported the occurrence of antibiotics in the environment on two dairies. Samples were collected at the points of use of antibiotics and subsequent points of manure handling.
They observed that although antibiotics had been used for decades on these two dairy farms, the antibiotics seemed to be detectedwithin farm boundaries
Resistance of bacteria to antibiotics continues to be a concern of medical health professionals and veterinarians alike.
West et al., (2010) documented the presence of antibioticresistant bacteria in samples from waterways in close proximity to waste-water treatment plants and CAFOs.
From 830 environmental bacterial isolates, 77.1% were resistant to only ampicillin, while 21.2% were resistant to combinations of antibiotics including ampicillin (A), kanamycin (K), chlorotetracycline (C), oxytetracycline (O), and streptomycin (S).
Multi-drug-resistant bacteria were significantly more common at sites close to CAFO farms.
Numerous studies have documented the presence of hormones in manure and their subsequent fate when manure is stored in manure lagoons or applied to crop land
The general concern is the endocrine disrupting properties that resultfor wildlife and aquatic life when these hormones or conjugates are transported to ground and surface water.
Treatment of manure via anaerobic digestion or composting can decrease the amount of estrogens detected in manure
An excellent webcast for additional information related to the occurrence of antibiotics and hormones in water, and their fate, transport and best management practices (http://www.extension.org/pages/Antibiotics_and_Hormones:_Occurrence_in_Water,_Fate_and_Transport,_and_Best_Management_Practices).
Goals:Prevent/Reduce Organism Movement to Water &
Facilitated Organism Die-off
Channel Vegetation (AC) (322)
Conservation Cover (AC) (327)
Critical Area Planting (AC) (342)
Field Border (FT) (386)
Filter Strip (AC) (393)
Grassed Waterway (AC) (412)
Heavy Use Area Protection (AC) (561)
Pasture and Hay Planting (AC) (512)
Prescribed Grazing (AC) (528A)
Riparian Forest Buffer (AC) (391)
Riparian Herbaceous Cover (AC) (390)
Streambank and Shoreline Protection (FT) (580)
Vegetative Barriers (FT) (601)
Wetland Creation (AC) (658)
Mode of Action: Organism/Sediment
Trapping-Biological
Mode of Action: Organism/Sediment
Trapping-Physical
Mode of Action: Reduced Direct
Access and Subsequent Deposition
Mode of Action:
Structure/Management
Animal Trails and Walkways (AC) (575)
Fence (FT) (382)
Use Exclusion (AC) (472)
Watering Facility (NO.) (614)
Roof Runoff Management (NO.) (558)
Waste Storage Facility (NO.) (313)
Waste Utilization (AC) (633)
Closure of Waste Impoundments (NO) (360)
Composting Facility (NO.) (317)
Manure Transfer (NO) (634)
Waste Treatment Lagoon (NO.) (359)
Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Erosion Control (AC) (450)
Constructed Wetland (AC) (656)
Contour Buffer Strips (332)
Contour Farming (AC) (330)
Contour Stripcropping (AC) (585)
Controlled Drainage (AC) (335)
Deep Tillage (AC) (324)
Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (AC) (548)
Sediment Basin (NO.) (350)
Stripcropping (AC), Field (586)
Subsurface Drain (FT) (606)
Surface Drainage (FT), Field Ditch (607)
Surface Drainage (FT), Main or Lateral (608)
Terrace (FT) (600)
Water and Sediment Control Basin (NO.) (638)
Management Practices for Pathogens
All dairies are required to have a nutrient management plan regardless of size of operation
Community Anaerobic Digester:Fate of Bacteria
Partnership for a Sustainable Future
Qualco Energy:
Tulalip Tribes of NW Washington
Northwest Chinook Recovery
Snohomish-Skykomish Agricultural Alliance
Support environmental projects that maintain
agricultural river corridors.
Shellfish business
Fisheries
Culture
“ I have a responsibility to look out 7 to 10 generations”
Qualco Anaerobic Digester (AD)
• Renewable Energy Production– Methane to Electricity
• Waste Management– Decreased Odor
• Pathogen Reduction• Nutrient Management
– Nutrient transformation– Cycle nutrients back to farm
• Value Added Products– Composted solids– Struvite
So what about bio-security?
And
Can ADs Reduce the Load of Bacteria Applied to Land ?
Provide protection of surface water quality?!
Organism Selection– Generic E. coli
• Indicator organism• High numbers dependably present in bovine fecal waste• Lower thermotolerance
– Salmonella and Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis (MAP)
• Obligate pathogens• Important biosecurity agents• Common enough in dairy herds to have a good chance of finding
them (at least in pre-digestion samples), • Environmentally resistant to a lesser (Salmonella) or greater (MAP)
degree
– Enterococci• Dependably present in bovine fecal waste• Higher thermotolerance• Don’t replicate in the environment
Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis
Enterococcus faecium
Listeria spp.
Salmonella enterica
E. Coli
Campylobacter jejuni
Relative Ranking of Bacteria for Hardiness
Log Generic e-coli Bacteria
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7Lo
g G
ener
ic e
-col
i B
acte
ria
F
e
c
e
s
F
a
r
m
F
l
o
w
F
e
e
d
s
t
o
c
k
s
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
r
E
f
f
l
u
e
n
t
AD
S
o
l
i
d
s
S
e
p
L
i
q
u
i
d
C
a
l
f
B
a
r
n
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
B
e
d
d
i
n
g
32,359
105
77
Log Enterococcus Bacteria
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Log
Ent
ero
cocc
us B
acte
ria
F
e
c
e
s
F
a
r
m
F
l
o
w
F
e
e
d
s
t
o
c
k
s
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
r
E
f
f
l
u
e
n
t
AD
S
o
l
i
d
s
S
e
p
L
i
q
u
i
d
C
a
l
f
B
a
r
n
603
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
B
e
d
d
i
n
g
8511
50
Sampling Location
Campylobacter Listeria Mycobacterium paratuberculosis
Salmonella
On-farm Feces 56% (14/25) 12% (3/25) 84% (21/25) 44% (11/25)
Farm Flow 35% (9/26) 4% (1/26) 78% (21/27) 77% (20/26)
Bedding 0% (0/22) 0% (0/22) 9.5% (2/21) 27% (6/22)
Feedstocks 0% (0/4) 0% (0/4) 33% (0/6) 17% (1/6)*
Receiving Tank 28% (7/25) 0% (0/25) 63% (17/27) 89% (24/27)
Effluent after anaerobic digestion
28% (8/29) 7% (2/29) 71% (22/31) 90% (28/31)
AD Solids 0% (0/23) 9 % (2/23) 32% (8/25) 84% (21/25)
SepLiquid 7 % (3/43) 5 % (2/43) 54 % (24/44) 79% (35/44)
Compost 0% (0/20) 0% (0/20) 0% (0/19) 0% (0/20)
Calf Barn 50% (4/8) 0% (0/8) 33% (2/6) 50% (4/8)
Presence-absence of bacteria in pre- and post-AD materials
6,309,573
25,547
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
Feca
l Bact
eria, log/
100 g
m s
oil
Day After Manure Application
Fecal Bacteria on Soil After Manure Application
July 2009
Broadcast - Post
Broadcast - Pre
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 5 10 15 20 25
E. co
liBact
eria, log/
100 g
m s
oil
Days After Manure Application
E. coli Bacteria on Soil after Manure
Application - July 2009
Broadcast Post
Broadcast Pre
5,248,074
20,892
Take Home Message
As more manure is moved off-farm for human crop production, greater attention
needs to be given to insuring that the manure presents a low risk of contaminating food crops
Frequency of Foodborne Illness in the United States per year
• Total FBI 76 million
• Hospitalizations 325,000
• Deaths 5,000
Foodborne Pathogens & Produce
• Produce outbreaks have increased
• Most common pathogens:– E. coli O157:H7
– Norovirus
– Salmonella
Higher Risk Produce
• Root Crops & Leaf Crops where product touches the soil
• 88% of produce-related outbreaks (Anderberg, 2007)
– Lettuce & Leafy Greens– Tomatoes– Sprouts– Green Onions– Melons
The Silver Lining
• Low pathogen prevalence on most foods
• Produce– 1.6% of domestic produce harbors
pathogens
– 4.4% of imported produce harbors pathogens
Janet Anderberg, 2007
CDC, October 6, 2006
E. coli O157:H7 infection occurrence
Estimated each year in the US:
• 73,000 infections • 61 deaths • 3-5% with Hemolytic
Uremic Syndrome (HUS) die
Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in soil and on carrots and onions grown in
fields treated with contaminated manure composts or irrigation water
Mahbub Islam, Michael P. Doyle, Sharad C. Phatak, Patricia Millner, and Xiuping Jiang
Food Microbiology 22 (2005) 63-70
The Basic Question
• If you use contaminated manures or irrigation water, what is the risk E.Coli O157:H7 surviving on your crops?
Control
Poultry manure
Dairy manure compost
Alkaline stabilized dairy
manure
Contaminated irrigation water Contaminated irrigation water
Alkaline stabilized dairy
manure
Poultry manure
Dairy manure compost
Control
E. coli O157:H7 Inoculation
• 3 composts: 107 cfu/g
• Irrigation water: 105 cfu/ml
Application and planting
• Compost mixed in with soil from plots at a rate of 2 tons/acre– Mixture applied over rows
• Carrots and onions direct seeded next day
• Contaminated irrigation water hand sprayed 3 weeks after carrots and onions were seeded
Sampling
• ~Once/ week for 29 weeks
• 100 g soil from each plot near a plant – 1 inch deep from surface
• Randomly selected plant pulled (every three weeks)– Edible parts used for analysis
• All samples aseptically collected
Survival of E. coli O157:H7 in soil samples: carrots
□ No Compost
■ Poultry manure compost
▲ Dairy cattle manure compost
● Alkaline-stabilized dairy cattle manure compost
○ Contaminated irrigation water
Up to 196 d with dairy
and poultry manure
Survival of E. coli O157:H7 in soil samples: onions
□ No Compost
■ Poultry manure compost
▲ Dairy cattle manure compost
● Alkaline-stabilized dairy cattle manure compost
○ Contaminated irrigation water
E. coli O157:H7 survival in soil
• At least 154 d in all soil
• 196 d in soil where carrots were grown and poultry or dairy compost was applied
E. coli O157:H7 counts on carrots
□ No Compost
■ Poultry manure compost
▲ Dairy cattle manure compost
● Alkaline-stabilized dairy cattle manure compost
○ Contaminated irrigation water
168 d
E. coli O157:H7 counts on onions
□ No Compost
■ Poultry manure compost
▲ Dairy cattle manure compost
● Alkaline-stabilized dairy cattle manure compost
○ Contaminated irrigation water
74 d
E. coli O157:H7 survival on vegetables
• 168 d on carrots (harvested on d 126)
• 74 d on onions (harvested on d 140)
• Cell numbers decreased, but more rapidly on onions
Time between application and harvest
• USDA National Organic Program
• Minimum of 120 days
• E. coli survived 168 d on carrots
Take-Home Messages
• Untreated animal waste may be a source of pathogens
• Proper composting can reduce risk of transmitting pathogens via manure
• Absolute safety of compost or manure is impossible to demonstrate
• Good planning, monitoring, and recordkeeping is essential to demonstrate reasonable precautions made to avoid contamination
