Understanding Livestock Composting as there are few methods to safely dispose of livestock mortality
What did we do?
CWMI has been working on mortality disposal since 1990. Research was completed methodically as new questions arose. We started with large livestock(deadstock) migrated to research on managing animals hit by cars, generally wild animals. Moved to managing disease outbreak and drugs residual that might end up in compost if it does not degrade.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2015. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Seattle, WA. March 31-April 3, 2015. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
A major area of concern with the general public has focused on the potential for antibiotic resistant bacteria that reside in both animal manures and biosolids, due to the potential for subsequent transfer of the resistance to pathogens. Bacteria are prokaryotic organisms with the ability to metabolize and replicate very quickly. They are also very adaptable genetically. When confronted with an antibiotic, there need only be one bacterial cell with a genetic or mutational change that confers resistance to that antibiotic that subsequently allows for the proliferation of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Thus the more that antibiotics are used, the greater the likelihood of antibiotic resistant strains developing. The greatest concern with antibiotic resistance is the potential for human pathogenic strains to become resistant to overused antibiotics, which subsequently cannot contain the infectious agent. As is typical in most niches, commensal bacteria tend to dominate the pathogenic bacteria at levels which are orders of magnitude greater than the pathogens. This creates a haven for antibiotic resistance genes, which all have the potential to transfer to true or opportunistic pathogens. The widespread, sometimes indiscriminant, use of antibiotics has raised the questions: i) “Can antibiotic resistant genes be transferred from nonpathogenic bacteria to human pathogenic strains in the environment?” ii) “Can antibiotic resistance in the environment, via residual land application, be transferred to the public?”
Brooks (2006) evaluated the incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARBs) in biosolids and a variety of other environmental samples and foodstuffs. Table1.docx shows that Class B biosolids did not contain unusually high numbers of ARBs, and that in fact, the relative incidence was less than that found in pristine soil. Interestingly, ARB concentrations were also lower than those found in common foodstuffs such as lettuce. Therefore food itself could be an important route of exposure to ARBs. Rates of gene transfer in soil are thought to be a relatively infrequent event without selective pressure (Neilson et al., 1994), which reduces the risk of antibiotic resistant gene transfer to human pathogenic bacteria. Finally, note that soil itself is the original source of human antibiotics.
Antibiotic use in the livestock and poultry industries has gradually increased over the past three decades in direct relation to the increasing number of CAFOs in operation. Throughout this gradual cultural shift in livestock production, the need for antibiotics has increased as stocking densities and production cycles have increased. The Union of Concerned Scientists predicted the number of antibiotics used in the industries at up to 50 million pounds annually (Chee-Sanford et al., 2009), with nearly half being used as a means to increase production. The Animal Health Institute refutes this number stating that approximately 20.5 million pounds of antibiotic are used annually with approximately 1/10 of these used to increase production (Chee-Sanford et al., 2009). These discrepancies highlight how little is known regarding this topic, and how contentious these issues truly are, particularly with news-cycles reporting increasing antibiotic resistance in our food supply or higher incidences of nosocomial infections. Regardless, livestock industries account for a large amount of antibiotic use in the United States. Antibiotics are used: 1) to treat infections and to prevent diseases; and 2) as a prophylactic, thus increasing production. It is with the latter, that most concern or blame is placed.
In either case, as opposed to human antibiotic use, treating livestock with antibiotics is conducted in a manner that promotes the treatment of non-diseased animals. Typically, CAFO animals are not individually treated for a disease. If there is an outbreak of a disease-causing pathogen, farm managers typically react by not treating just the diseased individuals (perhaps only 100 of 20,000), but by treating the entire flock or herd. This increases the likelihood for antibiotic resistance, as resistance genes can be promoted in healthy as well as diseased members of the host population.
Brooks and McLaughlin (2009a) and Brooks et al. (2010) described the presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in swine and poultry CAFOs. The presence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in swine CAFOs appeared to be influenced by the type of management employed by the producer, specifically; the presence of younger piglets increased the amount of resistance in commensal E. coli. In general, younger piglets led to resistance to an extra class of antibiotics (Brooks and McLaughlin, 2009a). In some instances, regulatory and media pressures have forced industries to reduce antibiotic use, as has been noted in the poultry industry. Brooks et al. (2010) noted the overall lack of antibiotic resistance in poultry CAFO manure, and an overall decrease among staphylococci, enterococci, and E. coli when compared to previous studies (Brooks et al., 2009a).
Ultimately, the concern is for the potential movement of antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes from the “farm to the plate”. Movement from the farm to the product and ultimately the consumer remains a poorly understood area (Marshall et al., 2011). Three potential routes exist for the transfer to occur: 1) via consumption of undercooked food; 2) clonal spread from the occupationally exposed; 3) or from indirect manure contamination onto fresh food crops (e.g. environmental spread). Sufficient evidence exists to support clonal spread from the occupationally exposed (Marshall et al., 2011), while the other two routes are poorly understood. Contamination of fresh food crops either via runoff, land application of manure/biosolids, or feral animal has been hypothesized as a potential sources of contamination (Brooks et al., 2012a). Antibiotic resistance phenotypes have been demonstrated to move via aerosols or runoff, though in very small amounts and over small distances from the CAFO (Brooks et al., 2009b, 2012b; Chinivasagam et al., 2009). Brooks et al. (2009b) demonstrated that runoff from plots receiving litter was more concentrated with antibiotic resistant enterococci, which was characteristic of the litter and thus demonstrated that antibiotic resistant bacteria will transport as readily as any other bacteria.
Modified from Environmental Microbiology, 3rd Ed, Ed. I.L. Pepper, C.P. Gerba, and T.J. Gentry. Chapter 26 “Land application of organic residuals: municipal biosolids and animal manures” by J.P. Brooks, C.P. Gerba, and I.L. Pepper.
Commercial livestock are often reservoirs of zoonotic pathogens (temporarily or permanently), which can be transmitted to the environment in untreated manures. An area of growing interest is airborne pathogens (Table 1) and microbial byproducts (e.g. endotoxins, mycotoxins) generated at confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and during the land application of liquid and solid manures, which can affect the health of livestock, farm workers, and individuals in nearby residences. Bioaerosols are defined as viable or nonviable biological particles, such as bacteria, virus, and fungal spores and their fragments and byproducts that are suspended in the air.
Table 1: Examples of Current and Past Potential CAFO Zoonotic Pathogens
Pathogen
Host
Route
Disease
Brucella spp.
Cattle
Direct, food, inhalation
Brucellosis
Campylobacter jejuni
Poultry, pig
Food, water, direct
Campylobacterioses
Enterohemorrhagic E. coli
Cattle, sheep, pigs
Food, water
Hemorrhagic colitis
Listeria monocytogenes
Cattle, sheep, pigs
Food, water
Listerosis
Mycobacterium bovis & tuberculosis
Pigs, cattle
Inhalation
Tuberculosis
Yersinia enterocolitica
Pigs
Food, direct, water
Yersiniosis
Hepatitis E virus
Pigs, poultry, rats
Fecal-oral, food, water
Hepatitis
SARS coronavirus
Pigs, poultry, others
Inhalation
Severe acute respiratory syndrome
Cryptosporidium parvum
Calves, lambs, others
Direct, food, water
Cryptosporidiosis
Application methods (Figure 1) that launch manures into the air create a potentially hazardous situation as pathogens are aerosolized and transported to downwind receptors. Aerosolized pathogens may be inhaled or ingested after they land on fomites, water sources, or food crops. Manures with a low moisture content (e.g. chicken litter, dewatered feces) are generally land-applied using a manure slinger or spreader. Wastes that have a very low solids content, such as wastewater from flush systems, holding ponds, or lagoons are land applied via furrow irrigation, directly injected (e.g. drag-hose), or sprayed using a tanker or pressurized irrigation systems (e.g. spray gun, center-pivot).
Figure 1: Application methods and activities known to generate aerosols.
Aerosolization is a process where fine droplets evaporate completely or to near dryness and microorganisms in these droplets are transformed into solid or semi-solid particles (i.e. bioaerosols). During spray irrigation events of liquid manures and wastewaters, the water stream is broken up into droplets of various sizes. The size of the droplets is related to the sprinkler head configuration and operating pressure of the irrigation system. Aside from spray irrigation events, bioaerosols generated directly from relatively dry surfaces (e.g. feedlots) and spreading of manure solids can be released as individual or groups of cells or associated with inorganic or organic particular matter.
Airborne microorganisms and their byproducts are generated as a mixture of droplets or particles with aerodynamic diameters ranging from 0.5 to 100 µm. Aerosol particles 1 to 5 µm in diameter are of the greatest concern because they are readily inhaled or swallowed, but the greatest retention in the lung alveoli occurs with the 1- to 2-µm particles.
Airborne microorganisms associated with particles or droplets that evaporate to near-dryness before impacting the ground or vegetation are transported in air currents. When bioaerosols are released from a source, they can be transported short or long distances and are eventually deposited in terrestrial and aquatic environments. The transport, behavior, and deposition of bioaerosols are affected by their physical properties (i.e., size, shape, and density) and meteorological factors they encounter while airborne.
Assessment of bioaerosol transport is generally accomplished by setting liquid impingement or solid impaction systems (Figure 2) at an upwind location (background) and various downwind distances from the source. Samples are then analyzed via culture-dependent or molecular-based (e.g. PCR) assays or microscopically to calculate a microorganism concentration per cubic meter of air.
Figure 2: Common bioaerosol collection instruments.
With most bioaerosol studies, whether conducted at CAFOs, composting facilities, or manure application and wastewater spray irrigations sites, the general trend observed is that the airborne microorganism concentrations decrease with distance from the source. The concentration decrease can be attributed to diffusion, gravitational settling, surface impaction, and loss of viability of the bioaerosols. Unlike microorganisms in soil, water, and manure, aerosolized or airborne microorganisms are very susceptible to a variety of meteorological factors. The most significant factors that affect viability are relative humidity, temperature, and solar irradiance. In general, laboratory and field studies have shown that microorganism viability decreases with decreases in relative humidity and increases in temperature and solar irradiance.
For more details on this topic, please refer to the following publications:
Dungan, R.S. and A.B. Leytem. 2009. Qualitative and quantitative methodologies for determination of airborne microorganisms at concentrated animal-feeding operations. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 25:1505-1518.
Dungan, R.S. 2010. Board-Invited Review: Fate and transport of bioaerosols associated with livestock operations and manures. Journal of Animal Science. 88:3693-3706.
A study was conducted to evaluate the pathogen inactivation on 9 dairy facilities in Wisconsin with a combination of anaerobic digestion and solid/liquid separation technologies. Samples were collected every 2 weeks over the course of eight months to assess dairy pathogen inactivation in full-scale operational digesters and solid/liquid separators. Samples were then analyzed by qPCR for pathogens including protozoa, bacteria. bovine viruses, and indicators.
Preliminary results indicate full-scale anaerobic digesters reduce pathogen levels by 99% to 99.9%. And after digestion and separation of the digestate, the liquid fraction contains the majority of pathogens. Although the solids fraction contained fewer pathogens, the concentration could still be above the infectious dose, particularly for calves. Results have implications for a variety of digestate end uses including bedding and land spreading.
Purpose
Anaerobic digestion and bedding recovery units are increasing in on-farm use around the United States as a component of manure management systems. Nearly all on-farm systems with a digester in the United States have a mechanical solid/liquid separation system following digestion which fractions the digestate into a solid and a liquid product. Processing of manure using digestion and/or a solid/liquid separation process can impact the nutrient and pathogen content of each stream. Lack of data for real world performance has limited the use of end products and has reduced revenues and resulted in operational problems for many dairies in Wisconsin.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fate of pathogens and nutrients through full scale anaerobic digestion and solid liquid separation systems to better understand the impacts of manure processing.
What Did We Do?
In order to assess real world performance of digesters and solid/liquid separation systems, an assessment of 9 on-farm systems was conducted over the course of one year. The study design includes sampling every other week pre and post digestion (if a digester is on-farm) and the solid and liquid portion after separation. This allows for assessment of the digestion process and the separation system. Samples are evaluated for nutrients, solids, pathogens (particularly those associated with herd health) and pathogen indicators. The results indicate impacts to pathogen and nutrient concentrations throughout the system.
What Have We Learned?
Pathogen content from farm to farm and within one farm varies significantly. Performance of digesters on pathogen destruction is extremely variable. Through the solid/liquid separation process the majority of the pathogens within the stream remain in the liquid portion.
Future Plans
To continue evaluation through controlled systems to identify key operational techniques to increase pathogen removal.
Authors
Rebecca Larson, Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin – Madison, ralarson2@wisc.edu
Mark Borchardt, Research Microbiologist, USDA – ARS
Asli Ozkaynak, Post-Doctoral Researcher, University of Wisconsin – Madison
Susan Spencer, Research Microbiologist, USDA – ARS
Additional Information
Data is to be published
Acknowledgements
Funded by the USDA
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The Iowa Manure Management Action Group (IMMAG) was a concept born in 1997 to provide a comprehensive vehicle to deliver manure management information. It is hard to imagine, but at that time web pages were just beginning to be used as vehicles to share information, and even harder to imagine is the fact that while information on manure management existed, it was difficult to access, and it was just not a topic that garnered much positive attention.
IMMAG began as state-level technical committee comprised of public and private-sector entities with the objectives to 1) provide access to comprehensive information on manure management issues; 2) develop relevant educational materials and 3) provide them in a format that could be easily accessible.
Now, 15 years later, what was supposed to be short-term, one-year effort, has turned into a major outreach and education effort for Iowa State University Extension and Outreach and their partners. In addition to the web page, IMMAG has hosted many field days and training workshops over the years as well as coordinated the development of countless fact sheets, newsletters and other educational pieces.
Why Was the IMMAG formed?
As the livestock sector in Iowa changed in the 1990’s it became apparent that a mechanism for information delivery was needed that could quickly evolve to keep livestock producers in tune with changing regulations, up-to-date with current research and understand best management practices to help assure manure’s value as a crop nutrient resource and help protect Iowa’s natural resources.
IMMAG was a concept born in 1997 to provide a comprehensive vehicle to deliver manure management information, develop and deliver educational programs, and design tools and resources that could be used by producers, technical agencies, educational institutions, researchers, consultants and the general public. IMMAG originated as a state-level technical committee under the leadership of the Iowa NRCS that brought together the state agencies, land-grant institution, commodity groups, environmental groups and private sector interests who proceeded to identify challenges and needs for manure management information.
What Did We Do?
After an initial needs assessment was completed, members of IMMAG agreed the highest priority was the development of an integrated Web site for all manure management information. A Web page would allow the most flexibility in keeping materials up-to-date. The members also agreed that producers and others not having internet access would be able to request printed materials from the site made available through the commodity organization. Once all existing materials were organized and included on the IMMAG Web page, a needs assessment was conducted by ISU Extension and the commodity group to determine information gaps and the kinds of new material that needed to be developed. Materials were not limited to print resources, but also included development and delivery of nutrient planning workshops, field days and tools. Along with a needs assessment, the Web site was thoroughly evaluated by members of the environmental groups and the general public to determine how accessible the information was and how easy it was to use and comprehend.
During the past 15 years, the Iowa Manure Management Action Group has distributed monthly newsletters (originally printed, now e-newletters); created 40 fact sheets; hosted over 50 field days and workshops, coordinated 3 multi-day manure clinics for producers and professionals; written over 200 popular press articles, supported and developed material for nearly 600 Extension meetings; and developed 9 video presentations.
What Have We Learned?
The biggest lesson learned from this educational outreach program was and is the success of integrating the state agency, land-grant university and livestock commodity group message to assist livestock producers. This partnership allowed the development of a consistent message among all involved when it came to manure management so producers and their technical staff were using the same recommendations and planning processes across all programs. Other important things learned include 1) longevity of programs are crucial to producer awareness and success; 2) a defined mechanism for intergrating research into extension programming is crucial for producers to make informed choices related to best management practices; 3) leveraging financial support to serve all clients helps level the playing field in terms of client access to educational materials, events and access to technical assistance and 4) when provided with appropriate training and resource materials, it is possible to develop an entire service industry to assist producers with manure nutrient management planning.
Future Plans
Many internal discussions have identified the need to continue to support this effort even with the availability of other national programs that serve as clearinghouses for manure management information. Future needs for program implementation include coordinating long-term financial support for continued programming and a needs assessment that is relevant to current production practices. Future needs for program delivery include more field days and hands-on type experiences for producers and their service providers.
Authors
Angela Rieck-Hinz, Extension Program Specialist, Iowa State University, amrieck@iastate.edu
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Runoff of E. coli and other fecal indicator bacteria from grazing lands has been identified as a significant source of bacterial contamination in need of reductions to improve water quality. Improved management of creek pastures and implementation of on-farm best management practices to address these bacterial issues is critical to the success of watershed restoration efforts. To address this, the impacts of grazing management and providing alternative off-stream water in creek pastures were evaluated to assess their effectiveness for reducing E. coli loading.
Study results showed that there was no difference in runoff E. coli concentrations from ungrazed, properly grazed and heavily grazed pastures and no correlation between stocking rate and E. coli concentrations. It is suspected that the observed rapid decline in E. coli concentrations following rotation and significant contributions by wildlife resulted in this lack of correlation. However, rotational grazing, when timed appropriately, was found to be a very effective practice for reducing E. coli concentrations in runoff. As a result of these findings, it was recommended that, where feasible, creek pastures and other hydrologically connected pastures be grazed during periods when runoff is less likely and that upland sites be grazed during rainy seasons when runoff is more likely to occur.
The study also found that when alternative off-stream water was provided, cattle spent 43% less time in the creek. Despite this significant reduction in the amount of time cattle spent in the creek, the study was not able to document statistically significant E. coli loading reductions from providing alternative water. Nevertheless, providing off-stream water in creek pastures was highly recommended practice for improving water quality due to the reduction in the amount of time cattle spend in the creek documented by this study and the finding of other studies demonstrating reductions in sediment, nutrients and bacteria.
Authors
Kevin Wagner, Texas Water Resources Institute, Texas A&M University klwagner@ag.tamu.edu
Terry Gentry, Ph.D., Texas A&M University, Soil and Crop Sciences Department; Larry Redmon, Ph.D., Texas A&M University, Soil and Crop Sciences Department; R. Daren Harmel, Ph.D., USDA-ARS, Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory; Jamie Foster, Ph.D., Texas A&M University, Soil and Crop Sciences Department; Robert Knight, Ph.D., Texas A&M University, Ecosystem Science and Management Department; C. Allan Jones, Texas A&M University, Spatial Sciences Laboratory
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Livestock GRACEnet is a United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service working group focused on atmospheric emissions from livestock production in the USA. The working group presently has 24 scientists from 13 locations covering the major animal production systems in the USA (dairy, beef, swine, and poultry). The mission of Livestock GRACEnet is to lead the development of management practices that reduce greenhouse gas, ammonia, and other emissions and provide a sound scientific basis for accurate measurement and modeling of emissions from livestock agriculture. The working group fosters collaboration among fellow scientists and stakeholders to identify and develop appropriate management practices; supports the needs of policy makers and regulators for consistent, accurate data and information; fosters scientific transparency and rigor and transfers new knowledge efficiently to stakeholders and the scientific community. Success in the group’s mission will help ensure the economic viability of the livestock industry, improve vitality and quality of life in rural areas, and provide beneficial environmental services. Some of the research highlights of the group are provided as examples of current work within Livestock GRACEnet. These include efforts aimed at improving emissions inventories, developing mitigation strategies, improving process-based models for estimating emissions, and producing fact sheets to inform producers about successful management practices that can be put to use now.
Why Was GRACEnet Created?
The mission of Livestock GRACEnet is to lead the development of livestock management practices to reduce greenhouse gas, ammonia, and other emissions and to provide a sound scientific basis for accurate measurement and modeling of emissions.
What Did We Do?
The Livestock GRACEnet group is comprised of 24 scientists from 13 USDA-ARS locations researching the effects of livestock production on emissions and air quality.
Our goals are to:
Collaborate with fellow scientists and stakeholders to identify and develop appropriate management practices
Support the needs of policy makers and regulators for consistent, accurate data and information
Foster scientific transparency and rigor
Transfer new knowledge efficiently to stakeholders and the scientific community
Success in our mission will help to ensure the economic viability of the livestock industry, vitality and quality of life in rural areas, and provide environmental services benefits.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
Excessive nutrient enrichment in watersheds can create harmful algal blooms (HABs) in aquatic systems, including ponds, which are frequently used to water livestock. Harmful algal blooms are typically dominated by cyanobacteria (commonly referred to as “blue green algae”) many of which produce toxins that can be harmful to fish, wildlife and humans. In May 2012, our laboratory began receiving reports of cattle mortalities associated with HABs. We began an outreach effort to screen and identify algal species and toxins in water samples submitted by private citizens from ponds throughtout Georgia. Prior to this effort, no state or federal laboratories offered such a service. Private laboratories conduct these services, however the collection protocols and analytical costs preclude the average citizen from utilizing them. Rapid detetion of a HAB is critical for farmers so that access to the water source can be restricted. We recognized the need to provide such a service and to educate the public regarding exposure effects, preventative measures, and treatment of HABs.
During Summer 2012 sampling events we commonly encountered Microcystis blooms in both farm ponds used by humans for fishing and recreation (above) and for watering livestock (below).
What Did We Do?
We documented dense blooms of planktonic cyanobacteria, predominantly Microcystis aeruginosa, and extremely high levels of the potent hepatotoxin, Microcystin, in water samples submitted by Georgia cattle producers (Haynie et al. 2013). Many of these samples were submitted by producers who had experienced cattle mortalities, potentially due to algal toxin exposure.
Through a collaborative effort with UGA’s Agriculture and Environmental Services Laboratories, we established a water screening service that includes algal speciation and toxin detection. This service became available to the public in Februrary 2013. This effort included a detailed outreach letter to extension agents, sampling protocol and materials for water sample collection and shipping. This screening service is avalible for either a $30.00 (algal identification) or $45.00 (toxin analysis and algal identification) fee. The submitter will receive an electronic report within 24 hours with results, interpretation, and recommendations.
We have begun promoting this service and educating the public about HABs by participating in various short courses, meetings and outreach opportunities.
What Have We Learned?
We have demonstrated that HABs and cyanotoxins are common in Georgia agriculture ponds. Therefore, the potential for livestock exposure and subsequent effects including mortality are likely to occur. Education and establishment of a rapid toxin detection service is warranted and will be beneficial to producers. The livestock deaths have highlighted an important issue for Georgia farmers and pond owners that will likely be increasingly prevalent under projected climatic models.
Future Plans
We will continue our outreach efforts by participating in University and industry sponsored workshops and meetings. We will use these opportunities to educate and inform the public about the newly available algal screening service. We have included, in recently submitted grants, funding to subsidize testing expenses in order to encourage more farmers/pond owners to use this service. We intend to utilize the testing service to gather spatially referenced data on the prevalence of HABs and toxin levels in GA ponds. This information, which is not currently available, will inform nutrient management plans and BMPs that will ultimately improve nutrient management and water resources in Georgia. We hope that this effort will serve as a model for other states experiencing similar increases in frequency and severity of HABs in agricultural settings.
Authors
Rebecca S. Haynie, Post Doctoral Associate, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 hayniers@uga.edu
Susan Wilde, Assistant Professor, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602
David Kissel, Director and Professor, Agriculture and Environmental Services Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30602-9105
Leticia Sonon, Program Coordinator, Soil, Plant, and Water Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30602-9105
Uttam Saha, Program Coordinator, Feed and Environmental Water Analysis Laboratory, University of Georgia, 2400 College Station Road, Athens, Georgia 30602-9105
Additional Information
Haynie, R. S., J. R. Morgan, B. Bartelme, B. Willis, J. H. Rodgers Jr., A.L. Jones and S. B. Wilde. Harmful algal blooms and toxin production in Georgia ponds. (in review). Proceedings of the Georgia Water Resources Conference. Athens, Georgia. April 2013.
Burtle, G.J. July 2012. Managing Algal Blooms and the Potential for Algal Toxins in Pond Water. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Temporary Publication 101.
Haynie, R.S., J.R. Morgan, B. Bartelme, S. B. Wilde. Cyanotoxins: Exposure Effects and Mangagement Options. Proceedings of the UGA Extension Beef Cattle Shortcourse. Ed. L. Stewart. Athens, Georgia. January 2013.
Drs. Lawton Stewart, Gary Burtle (Animal and Dairy Science, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, UGA) coordinated sample delivery from pond owners to our laboratory. Brad Bartelme, James Herrin and Jamie Morgan (Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, UGA) contributed significant technical assistance with algal screening and sample processing.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) offers several resources to its members and the public regarding various disposal issues encountered by the veterinary community and animal owners. With its veterinary medical expertise, the veterinary profession can be a valuable resource for clients, the general public, regulators, and other stakeholders on carcass and other animal waste disposal issues, especially those involving potential health risks to other animals or the public. The purpose in developing these resources is to further increase awareness by the veterinary profession and its stakeholders of the value, potential hazards, and legal restrictions concerning disposal of animal waste and carcasses.
The AVMA advocates safe and environmentally responsible disposal of animal carcasses, whether on an individual animal basis or during mass mortality events. As such, the AVMA supports increased research and education towards the development of appropriate methods and guidelines for animal carcass disposal.
Animal Carcass Risk in Natural Disasters
Consistent with current scientific literature and the conclusions of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the AVMA recognizes that animals that die from injuries, including massive animal deaths in cases of natural disasters, generally do not represent a health hazard for humans. The presence of dead bodies that result from a disaster, without the presence of another risk factor, is not the cause for the spread of infectious diseases. (1PAHO Manual, Ch 3, Conclusions; p. 81)
1 Management of Dead Bodies in Disaster Situations, Disaster Manuals and Guidelines Series, number 5. Pan American Health Organization, Area on Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Relief, and the World Health Organization, Department for Health Action in Crisis. Washington, DC, 2004.
Animal Agriculture Waste Management
The AVMA supports the basic premises of current federal and state legislation and regulations enacted to prevent negative environmental impacts from wastes generated by terrestrial or aquatic animal productions. Veterinarians should be aware of the value, potential hazards, and legal restrictions concerning animal waste.
Therefore the AVMA supports the following:
Education, outreach, and extension programs to assist producers in meeting or exceeding current federal and state requirements. This includes aid in establishing and implementing nutrient management plans as well as design and construction of effective waste management facilities to prevent contamination of the environment.
Science based research on animal waste management systems and procedures to allow animal waste materials to be utilized as nutrient sources for sustainable agriculture systems.
Scientific studies of the impact of pathogens and chemicals from animal/human waste sources on the environment.
Additionally, the AVMA has developed the microsite, www.avma.org/wastedisposal. Sections of the microsite addressing topics such as “Federal Regulations of Waste Disposal,” “State-based Waste Disposal Resources,” and “AVMA Policies Relevant to Waste Disposal,” are accessible by the general public. Specific “Clinical Resources” pages, such as “Animal Carcass Disposal,” “Animal Waste Disposal,” “Recordkeeping,” and more are accessible only by AVMA members. On a similar note and because of its expertise, the Association was consulted during the development of the Veterinary Compliance Assistance (VetCA) website (www.vetca.org) by the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences under the National Compliance Assistance Centers program. Funding for this latter project has been provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In addition to the pharmaceutical disposal information within the aforementioned resources, the AVMA has partnered with the National Sea Grant Office (NSGO), Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce to combine efforts and develop a joint outreach and educational campaign for veterinary clients regarding proper pharmaceutical disposal. Information and products associated with the collaborative effort are available at www.avma.org/unwantedmeds.
The “Green Veterinary Practices” microsite has also been developed by the AVMA. The web pages provide AVMA members and the public information on sustainable practices. Not only does the site discuss what the AVMA is doing, it also provides resources for integrating eco-friendly features into veterinary practices as well as opportunities for including eco-friendly practices in facility designs. The microsite is available at https://www.avma.org/green-veterinary-practices
In addition to policy and resource development, the AMVA is active in advocacy. Related to waste issues, the Association has weighed in on Federal Register items such as Docket Number [EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0188], the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Reporting Rule and Docket Number [EPA-OW-2011-0466], Draft Recreational Water Quality Criteria and Request for Scientific Views. To see additional topics as well as the AVMA’s comments, please visit https://www.avma.org/advocacy/national-advocacy. In 2012, the AVMA joined the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Coalition urging Congress to support the $325 million for the AFRI in the President’s Fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. To view all of the AVMA’s advocacy information, please click on “Advocacy” from the AVMA’s home page, www.avma.org.
What Have We Learned?
Integrative efforts of multiple disciplines and stakeholders are needed to better enhance the science of waste management as well as to help bridge the gaps between such science and sociopolitical opinions.
Future Plans
As stated in its policies, the AVMA will continue to advocate for safe and environmentally responsible disposal of animal carcasses as well as support:
Education, outreach, and extension programs to assist producers in meeting or exceeding current federal and state requirements
Science based research on animal waste management systems and procedures to allow animal waste materials to be utilized as nutrient sources for sustainable agriculture systems.
Scientific studies of the impact of pathogens and chemicals from animal/human waste sources on the environment.
Authors
Kristi Henderson, DVM, Assistant Director, Scientific Activities Division, American Veterinary Medical Association khenderson@avma.org
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
In an effort to assess the off-site transport of bioaerosols, airborne bacteria, fungi, and endotoxin were collected at a 10,000 cow dairy operation. Compared to background locations, the general trend was that bioaerosol concentrations were higher immediately downwind, then decreased with distance from the animal housing. While bioaerosol concentrations did not follow a seasonal trend, they did significantly correlate with meteorological factors such as temperature and solar radiation. Bioaerosol concentrations were also found to be greatest at night, which can be attributed to changes in animal activity and wind speed and reduced exposure of the microorganisms to UV radiation. An analysis of clones generated from air samples collected downwind from the animal housing and pivots spraying dairy wastewater revealed that none of sequence matches were affiliated with bacteria known to be pathogenic to otherwise healthy humans. Results from ongoing research to better understand bioaerosol formation and drift losses during spray irrigation events of dairy wastewater will also be discussed.
Using glass impingers to capture airborne bacteria at a downwind location from a dairy.
Why Study Bioaerosols at Dairies?
Because confinement of cattle increases the microbioal load at dairy production facilities, there are concerns about on-site and off-site exposures to airborne microorganisms and microbial byproducts. The purpose of this study was to monitor concentrations of airborne bacteria, fungi, and endotoxin at a 10,000 cow open-freestall dairy and fields being irrigated with wastewater to assess their potential to be transported off site. This information is important, as inhalation or ingestion of some bioaerosols can be detrimental to health through infection, allergy, or toxicosis.
Open-face filters for capture of airborne endotoxin.
What Did We Do?
Over a one-year period at the dairy, bioaerosols were collected at upwind (background) and downwind sites using glass impingers, direct impaction on media, and a wetted-wall cyclone. Bacteria and fungi were quantified using culture-dependent techniques, while bacteria were also characterized to the genus and species levels by analyzing a region of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene. Airborne endotoxin were captured on filters, then extracted and subsequenetly quantified using the Limulus amebocyte lysate assay.
Wetted-wall cyclone being used to capture bioaerosols for subsequent identification using PCR-based approach.
What Have We Learned?
Compared to background sites, the general trend was that concentrations of airborne bacteria and endotoxin were higher immediately downwind, then decreased with distance from the animal housing. While bioaerosol concentrations did not follow a seasonal trend, they did significantly correlate with meteorological factors such as temperature, wind speed, and solar radiation. Bacteria and endotoxin concentrations were also found to be greatest at night, which can be attributed to changes in animal activity and wind speed and reduced exposure of the microorganisms to UV radiation. Analysis of cloned 16S rRNA genes generated from air samples collected downwind from the animal housing and pivots spraying dairy wastewater revealed that none of sequences were affiliated with bacteria known to be pathogenic to healthy humans.
Future Plans
Conduct a quantitative microbial risk assessment for zoonotic bacterial pathogens in dairy wastewaters that are land applied using center pivot irrigation systems.
Authors
Robert Dungan, Research Microbiologist, USDA-ARS Northwest Irrigation & Soils Research Laboratory, Kimberly, Idaho, robert.dungan@ars.usda.gov
April Leytem, Soil Chemist, USDA-ARS, Kimberly, Idaho
David Bjorenberg, Agricultural Engineer, USDA-ARS, Kimberly, Idaho
Additional Information
Dungan, R.S. and A.B. Leytem. 2009. Airborne endotoxin concentrations at a large open-lot dairy in southern Idaho. J. Environ. Qual. 38:1919-1923.
Dungan, R.S., A.B. Leytem, and D.L. Bjorneberg. 2010. Year-long assessment of airborne endotoxin at a concentrated dairy operation. Aerobiologia. 26:141-148.
Dungan, R.S., A.B. Leytem, S.A. Verwey, and D.L. Bjorneberg. 2010. Assessment of bioaerosols at a concentrated dairy operation. Aerobiologia. 26:171-184.
Dungan, R.S. and A.B. Leytem. 2011. Ambient endotoxin concentrations and assessment of transport at an open-lot and open-freestall dairy. J. Environ. Qual. 40:462-467.
Dungan, R.S., A.B. Leytem, and D.L. Bjorneberg. 2011. Concentrations of airborne endotoxin and microorganisms at a 10,000 cow open-freestall dairy. J. Anim. Sci. 176:426-434.
Dungan, R.S. 2012. Use of a culture-independent approach to characterize aerosolized bacteria at an open-freestall dairy operation. Environ. Int. 41:8-14.
Acknowledgements
Independent Dairy Environmental Action League (IDEAL)
The authors are solely responsible for the content of these proceedings. The technical information does not necessarily reflect the official position of the sponsoring agencies or institutions represented by planning committee members, and inclusion and distribution herein does not constitute an endorsement of views expressed by the same. Printed materials included herein are not refereed publications. Citations should appear as follows. EXAMPLE: Authors. 2013. Title of presentation. Waste to Worth: Spreading Science and Solutions. Denver, CO. April 1-5, 2013. URL of this page. Accessed on: today’s date.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Purpose 
