DOCSLIB.ORG

Protecting Water Quality from Agricultural Runoff

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Protecting Water Quality EPA 841-F-05-001 from AGRICULTURAL R UNOFF Clean Water Is Everybody’s Business he United States has more than T330 million acres of agricultural What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution? land that produce an abundant supply Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, unlike pollution from point sources of food and other products. Ameri- such as industrial and sewage treatment plants, comes from many can agriculture is noted worldwide for its high productivity, quality, and diffuse sources. Polluted runoff is caused by rainfall or snowmelt efficiency in delivering goods to the moving over and through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks consumer. When improperly managed up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, finally however, activities from working farms depositing them into watersheds through lakes, rivers, wetlands, and ranches can affect water quality. coastal waters, and even our underground sources of drinking water. In the 2000 National Water Quality Inventory, states reported that agricul- Did you know that runoff from farms is the leading source of tural nonpoint source (NPS) pollution impairments to surveyed rivers and lakes? is the leading source of water quality impacts on surveyed rivers and lakes, to reduce pollution also increase In addition, other pollutants like the second largest source of impair- productivity and save farmers and fertilizers, pesticides, and heavy metals ments to wetlands, and a major ranchers money in the long run. are often attached to the soil particles contributor to contamination of sur- and wash into the water bodies, causing There are many government programs veyed estuaries and ground water. algal blooms and depleted oxygen, available to help farmers and ranchers Agricultural activities that cause NPS which is deadly to most aquatic life. design and pay for management pollution include poorly located or Farmers and ranchers can reduce approaches to prevent and control managed animal feeding operations; erosion and sedimentation by 20 to NPS pollution. For example, over 40 overgrazing; plowing too often or at the 90 percent by applying management percent of section 319 Clean Water wrong time; and improper, excessive, or practices that control the volume and Act grants have been used to control poorly timed application of pesticides, flow rate of runoff water, keep the soil NPS pollution from working farms irrigation water, and fertilizer. in place, and reduce soil transport. and ranches. Also, many programs Pollutants that result from farming and funded by the U.S. Department of Nutrients ranching include sediment, nutrients, Agriculture and by states provide pathogens, pesticides, metals, and salts. cost-share, technical assistance, and Farmers apply nutrients such as Impacts from agricultural activities on economic incentives to implement NPS phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium surface water and ground water can pollution management practices. Many in the form of chemical fertilizers, be minimized by using management local organizations and individuals have manure, and sludge. They may also practices that are adapted to local come together to help create regional grow legumes and leave crop residues conditions. Many practices designed support networks to adopt technologies to enhance production. When these and practices to eliminate or reduce sources exceed plant needs, or are water quality impacts caused by applied just before it rains, nutrients agricultural activities. can wash into aquatic ecosystems. There they can cause algae blooms, Sedimentation which can ruin swimming and boating opportunities, create foul taste and The most prevalent source of odor in drinking water, and kill fish by agricultural water pollution is soil removing oxygen from the water. High that is washed off fields. Rain water concentrations of nitrate in drinking carries soil particles (sediment) water can cause methemoglobinemia, and dumps them into nearby lakes a potentially fatal disease in infants, or streams. Too much sediment also known as blue baby syndrome. can cloud the water, reducing the To combat nutrient losses, farmers can amount of sunlight that reaches implement nutrient management plans aquatic plants. It can also clog the that help maintain high yields and save gills of fish or smother fish larvae. money on fertilizers. Animal Feeding Operations alternative sources of water and shade, and Pesticides By confining animals in small areas or lots, promote revegetation of ranges, pastures, Insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides farmers and ranchers can efficiently feed and riparian zones. are used to kill agricultural pests. These and maintain livestock. But these confined Irrigation chemicals can enter and contaminate water areas become major sources of animal waste. through direct application, runoff, and An estimated 238,000 working farms and Irrigation water is applied to supplement atmospheric deposition. They can poison ranches in the United States are considered natural precipitation or to protect crops fish and wildlife, contaminate food sources, animal feeding operations, generating against freezing or wilting. Inefficient and destroy the habitat that animals use for about 500 million tons of manure each irrigation can cause water quality problems. protective cover. To reduce contamination year. Runoff from poorly managed facilities In arid areas, for example, where rainwater from pesticides, farmers should use can carry pathogens such as bacteria and does not carry minerals deep into the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) tech- viruses, nutrients, and oxygen-demanding soil, evaporation of irrigation water can niques based on the specific soils, climate, organics and solids that contaminate concentrate salts. Excessive irrigation can pest history, and crop conditions for a shellfishing areas and cause other water affect water quality by causing erosion, particular field. IPM encourages natural quality problems. Ground water can also transporting nutrients, pesticides, and barriers and limits pesticide use and be contaminated by waste seepage. Farmers heavy metals, or decreasing the amount manages necessary applications to minimize and ranchers can limit discharges by storing of water that flows naturally in streams pesticide movement from the field. and managing facility wastewater and and rivers. It can also cause a buildup of runoff with appropriate waste management selenium, a toxic metal that can harm systems. waterfowl reproduction. Farmers can Farm Bill Conservation Funding reduce NPS pollution from irrigation by Livestock Grazing improving water use efficiency. They can In May 2002 President Bush signed the Overgrazing exposes soils, increases measure actual crop needs and apply only Farm Bill, providing up to $13 billion for erosion, encourages invasion by undesirable the amount of water required. Farmers may conservation programs for six years. plants, destroys fish habitat, and may also choose to convert irrigation systems to This Farm Bill represents an 80 percent destroy streambanks and floodplain higher efficiency equipment. increase above current levels of funding vegetation necessary for habitat and water available for conservation programs quality filtration. To reduce the impacts designed to prevent polluted runoff. of grazing on water quality, farmers and For more information, visit www.usda. ranchers can adjust grazing intensity, keep gov/farmbill. livestock out of sensitive areas, provide Related Publications and Web Sites Funding Sources National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Searchable Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Source Pollution from Agriculture Watershed Protection epa.gov/nps/agmm epa.gov/watershedfunding This technical guidance and reference document is for use Agricultural Management Assistance Database by state, local, and tribal managers in the implementation of www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ama nonpoint source pollution management programs. It contains information on effective, readily available, and economically Clean Water Act Section 319(h) funding (epa.gov/nps/ achievable means of reducing pollution of surface and ground 319hfunds.html) is provided to designated state and tribal agencies water from agriculture. to implement approved nonpoint source management programs. Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Environmental Quality Incentives Program (www.nrcs.usda. Web Site gov/programs/eqip) offers financial, technical, and educational epa.gov/nps/agriculture.html assistance to install or implement structural, vegetative, and management practices designed to conserve soil and other natural This web site features a collection of links to helpful documents, resources. federal programs, partnerships and nongovernmental orrganizations that convey advice and assistance to farmers and Conservation Reserve and Conservation Reserve ranchers for protecting water quality. Enhancement Programs (www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/default. htm) implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center provide financial incentives to encourage farmers and ranchers to epa.gov/agriculture or call toll-free: 1-888-663-2155 voluntarily protect soil, water, and wildlife resources. EPA’s National Agriculture Compliance Assistance Center is the “first stop” for information about environmental requirements that For More Information affect the agricultural community. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nonpoint Source Control Branch (4503T) Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) Web Sites 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW AFO Virtual Information Center: epa.gov/npdes/afovirtualcenter Revised Washington, DC 20460 March 2005 Overview of regulations and helpful links: epa.gov/npdes/afo epa.gov/nps .
Recommended publications
  • What Is the Most Effective Way to Reduce Population Growth And

    What Is the Most Effective Way to Reduce Population Growth And

    Ariana Shapiro TST BOCES New Visions - Ithaca High School Ithaca, NY Kenya, Factor 17 Slowing Population Growth and Urbanization Through Education, Sustainable Agriculture, and Public Policy Initiatives in Kenya Kenya is a richly varied and unique country. From mountains and plains to lowlands and beaches, the diversity within the 224,961 square miles is remarkable. Nestled on the eastern coast of Africa, Kenya is bordered by Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia, and the Indian Ocean. Abundant wildlife and incredible biodiversity make Kenya a favorable tourist attraction, and tourism is the country’s best hard currency earner (BBC). However, tourism only provides jobs for a small segment of the population. 75 percent of Kenyans make their living through agriculture (mostly without using irrigation), on the 8.01 percent of land that is classified as arable (CIA World Factbook). As a result, agricultural activity is very concentrated in the fertile coastal regions and some areas of the highlands. Subsistence farmers grow beans, cassava, potatoes, maize, sorghum, and fruit, and some grow export crops such as tea, coffee, horticulture and pyrethrum (HDR). Overgrazing on the arid plateaus and loss of soil and tree cover in croplands has primed Kenya for recurring droughts followed by floods in the rainy seasons. The increasing environmental degradation has had a profound effect on the people of Kenya by forcing farmers onto smaller plots of land too close to other subsistence farms. Furthermore, inequitable patterns of land ownership and a burgeoning population have influenced many poor farmers to move into urban areas. The rapidity of urbanization has resulted in poorly planned cities that are home to large and unsafe slums.
  • National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

    National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

    National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Potential health effects MCL or TT1 Common sources of contaminant in Public Health Contaminant from long-term3 exposure (mg/L)2 drinking water Goal (mg/L)2 above the MCL Nervous system or blood Added to water during sewage/ Acrylamide TT4 problems; increased risk of cancer wastewater treatment zero Eye, liver, kidney, or spleen Runoff from herbicide used on row Alachlor 0.002 problems; anemia; increased risk crops zero of cancer Erosion of natural deposits of certain 15 picocuries Alpha/photon minerals that are radioactive and per Liter Increased risk of cancer emitters may emit a form of radiation known zero (pCi/L) as alpha radiation Discharge from petroleum refineries; Increase in blood cholesterol; Antimony 0.006 fire retardants; ceramics; electronics; decrease in blood sugar 0.006 solder Skin damage or problems with Erosion of natural deposits; runoff Arsenic 0.010 circulatory systems, and may have from orchards; runoff from glass & 0 increased risk of getting cancer electronics production wastes Asbestos 7 million Increased risk of developing Decay of asbestos cement in water (fibers >10 fibers per Liter benign intestinal polyps mains; erosion of natural deposits 7 MFL micrometers) (MFL) Cardiovascular system or Runoff from herbicide used on row Atrazine 0.003 reproductive problems crops 0.003 Discharge of drilling wastes; discharge Barium 2 Increase in blood pressure from metal refineries; erosion 2 of natural deposits Anemia; decrease in blood Discharge from factories; leaching Benzene
  • Connecting Genetic Diversity and Threat Mapping to Set Conservation Priorities for Juglans Regia L

    Connecting Genetic Diversity and Threat Mapping to Set Conservation Priorities for Juglans Regia L

    fevo-08-00171 June 19, 2020 Time: 17:54 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 23 June 2020 doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.00171 Diversity Under Threat: Connecting Genetic Diversity and Threat Mapping to Set Conservation Priorities for Juglans regia L. Populations in Central Asia Hannes Gaisberger1,2*, Sylvain Legay3, Christelle Andre3,4, Judy Loo1, Rashid Azimov5, Sagynbek Aaliev6, Farhod Bobokalonov7, Nurullo Mukhsimov8, Chris Kettle1,9 and Barbara Vinceti1 1 Bioversity International, Rome, Italy, 2 Department of Geoinformatics, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria, 3 Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Belvaux, Luxembourg, 4 New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand, 5 Bioversity International, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 6 Kyrgyz National Agrarian University named after K. I. Skryabin, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, 7 Institute of Horticulture and Vegetable Growing of Tajik Academy Edited by: of Agricultural Sciences, Dushanbe, Tajikistan, 8 Republican Scientific and Production Center of Ornamental Gardening David Jack Coates, and Forestry, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 9 Department of Environmental System Science, ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), Australia Central Asia is an important center of diversity for common walnut (Juglans regia L.). Reviewed by: We characterized the genetic diversity of 21 wild and cultivated populations across Bilal Habib, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. A complete threat assessment was performed Wildlife Institute of India,
  • Land Degradation and the Australian Agricultural Industry

    Land Degradation and the Australian Agricultural Industry

    LAND DEGRADATION AND THE AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY Paul Gretton Umme Salma STAFF INFORMATION PAPER 1996 INDUSTRY COMMISSION © Commonwealth of Australia 1996 ISBN This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, the work may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source. Reproduction for commercial usage or sale requires prior written permission from the Australian Government Publishing Service. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Commonwealth Information Services, AGPS, GPO Box 84, Canberra ACT 2601. Enquiries Paul Gretton Industry Commission PO Box 80 BELCONNEN ACT 2616 Phone: (06) 240 3252 Email: [email protected] The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the Industry Commission. Forming the Productivity Commission The Federal Government, as part of its broader microeconomic reform agenda, is merging the Bureau of Industry Economics, the Economic Planning Advisory Commission and the Industry Commission to form the Productivity Commission. The three agencies are now co- located in the Treasury portfolio and amalgamation has begun on an administrative basis. While appropriate arrangements are being finalised, the work program of each of the agencies will continue. The relevant legislation will be introduced soon. This report has been produced by the Industry Commission. CONTENTS Abbreviations v Preface vii Overview
  • Paani Foundation Is a Not-For-Profit Organization Which Has Been the Brainchild of Aamir Khan and Kiran Rao

    Paani Foundation Is a Not-For-Profit Organization Which Has Been the Brainchild of Aamir Khan and Kiran Rao

    ANNUAL REPORT PAANI FOUNDATION’S ACTIVITIES IN 2016 Background: Paani Foundation is a not-for-profit organization which has been the brainchild of Aamir Khan and Kiran Rao. The organization was registered in early 2016 in order to work towards creating a drought-free Maharashtra. The idea originated from the television show Satyameva Jayate which was being anchored by Aamir Khan , addressing various social issues . One of the crucial issues that strongly came up was the water scarcity in Maharashtra which was mainly due to the topographical pattern of large areas in existence which are drought prone and face serious lack of rain every year. India is classified globally as a water-adequate nation. It has neither abundance nor scarcity. It has enough for its needs. Yet, increasingly, more and more people do not have water to drink, more and more farmers face drought and starvation, and more and more industries shut down or cannot grow because of a shortage of water. The reason for the Water Crisis: The crisis is largely man-made and has four key causes: 1. Pollution: We have polluted our lakes and rivers. ​ 2. Over-Exploitation: We have recklessly pumped out ground water without bothering ​ to recharge the groundwater table resulting in a catastrophic fall in its level. 3. Irrational Water Management: Can be described well with the example of highly ​ water-intensive sugarcane cultivation in drought-prone areas. 4. Climate Change: Rainfall is getting compressed in both space and time. The number ​ of rain days is decreasing. Rainfall is concentrated in small areas with vast land masses subject to drought.
  • Water Quality Conditions in the United States a Profile from the 1998 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress

    Water Quality Conditions in the United States a Profile from the 1998 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress

    United States Office of Water (4503F) EPA841-F-00-006 Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 June 2000 Agency Water Quality Conditions in the United States A Profile from the 1998 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress States, tribes, territories, and interstate commissions report that, in 1998, about 40% of U.S. streams, lakes, and estuaries that were assessed were not clean enough to support uses such as fishing and swimming. About 32% of U.S. waters were assessed for this national inventory of water quality. Leading pollutants in impaired waters include siltation, bacteria, nutrients, and metals. Runoff from agricultural lands and urban areas are the primary sources of these pollu- tants. Although the United States has made significant progress in cleaning up polluted waters over the past 30 years, much remains to be done to restore and protect the nation’s waters. Findings States also found that 96% of assessed Great Lakes shoreline miles are impaired, primarily due to pollut- Recent water quality data find that more than ants in fish tissue at levels that exceed standards to 291,000 miles of assessed rivers and streams do not protect human health. States assessed 90% of Great meet water quality standards. Across all types of water- Lakes shoreline miles. bodies, states, territories, tribes, and other jurisdictions report that poor water quality affects aquatic life, fish Wetlands are being lost in the contiguous United consumption, swimming, and drinking water. In their States at a rate of about 100,000 acres per year. Eleven 1998 reports, states assessed 840,000 miles of rivers states and tribes listed sources of recent wetland loss; and 17.4 million acres of lakes, including 150,000 conversion for agricultural uses, road construction, and more river miles and 600,000 more lake acres than residential development are leading reasons for loss.
  • 2021 Water Quality Report

    2021 Water Quality Report

    2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT CITY OF NEWARK: SOUTH WELL FIELD TREATMENT PLANT AIR STRIPPER BUILDING Annual Water Quality Report The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Newark meets or exceeds the water quality requires public water suppliers to provide standards of the Delaware Division of Public consumer confidence reports (CCR) to their Health Office of Drinking Water and the customers . These reports are also known as Environmental Protection Agency. The tables on annual water quality reports. The below report pages 4-6 of this report list those substances summarizes information regarding the sources found in our finished water during calendar year used (i.e. rivers, reservoirs, or aquifers), any 2020. detected contaminants, compliance and educational efforts. How the Water is Treated The City’s 317 million gallon reservoir provides a Drinking water, including bottled water, may At the Curtis Water Treatment Plant (CWTP), reliable source of raw water which can be treated reasonably be expected to contain at least small water from the White Clay Creek is clarified with and ready for drinking in times of heavy rain or amounts of some substances. The presence of alum and polymer and then filtered to remove drought. In an effort to keep sediment these substances does not necessarily indicate impurities. Chlorine is added to kill harmful accumulation in our water mains to a minimum, that water poses a health risk. In order to ensure bacteria and viruses. Finally, fluoride is added to we flush the entire system yearly. that tap water is safe to drink, the EPA prescribes the water to protect your teeth.
  • Effectiveness of Virginia's Water Resource Planning and Management

    Effectiveness of Virginia's Water Resource Planning and Management

    Commonwealth of Virginia House Document 8 (2017) October 2016 Report to the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia Effectiveness of Virginia’s Water Resource Planning and Management 2016 JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND REVIEW COMMISSION Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission Chair Delegate Robert D. Orrock, Sr. Vice-Chair Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr. Delegate David B. Albo Delegate M. Kirkland Cox Senator Emmett W. Hanger, Jr. Senator Janet D. Howell Delegate S. Chris Jones Delegate R. Steven Landes Delegate James P. Massie III Senator Ryan T. McDougle Delegate John M. O’Bannon III Delegate Kenneth R. Plum Senator Frank M. Ruff, Jr. Delegate Lionell Spruill, Sr. Martha S. Mavredes, Auditor of Public Accounts Director Hal E. Greer JLARC staff for this report Justin Brown, Senior Associate Director Jamie Bitz, Project Leader Susan Bond Joe McMahon Christine Wolfe Information graphics: Nathan Skreslet JLARC Report 486 ©2016 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission http://jlarc.virginia.gov February 8, 2017 The Honorable Robert D. Orrock Sr., Chair Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission General Assembly Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Delegate Orrock: In 2015, the General Assembly directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to study water resource planning and management in Virginia (HJR 623 and SJR 272). As part of this study, the report, Effectiveness of Virginia’s Water Resource Planning and Management, was briefed to the Commission and authorized for printing on October 11, 2016. On behalf of Commission staff, I would like to express appreciation for the cooperation and assistance of the staff of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and the Virginia Water Resource Research Center at Virginia Tech.
  • Reference: Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Pollution

    Reference: Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Pollution

    PUBLICATION 8084 FWQP REFERENCE SHEET 11.2 Reference: Groundwater Quality and Groundwater Pollution THOMAS HARTER is UC Cooperative Extension Hydrogeology Specialist, University of California, Davis, and Kearney Agricultural Center. roundwater quality comprises the physical, chemical, and biological qualities of UNIVERSITY OF G ground water. Temperature, turbidity, color, taste, and odor make up the list of physi- CALIFORNIA cal water quality parameters. Since most ground water is colorless, odorless, and Division of Agriculture without specific taste, we are typically most concerned with its chemical and biologi- and Natural Resources cal qualities. Although spring water or groundwater products are often sold as “pure,” http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu their water quality is different from that of pure water. In partnership with Naturally, ground water contains mineral ions. These ions slowly dissolve from soil particles, sediments, and rocks as the water travels along mineral surfaces in the pores or fractures of the unsaturated zone and the aquifer. They are referred to as dis- solved solids. Some dissolved solids may have originated in the precipitation water or river water that recharges the aquifer. A list of the dissolved solids in any water is long, but it can be divided into three groups: major constituents, minor constituents, and trace elements (Table 1). The http://www.nrcs.usda.gov total mass of dissolved constituents is referred to as the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration. In water, all of the dissolved solids are either positively charged ions Farm Water (cations) or negatively charged ions (anions). The total negative charge of the anions always equals the total positive charge of the cations.
  • A Public Health Legal Guide to Safe Drinking Water

    A Public Health Legal Guide to Safe Drinking Water

    A Public Health Legal Guide to Safe Drinking Water Prepared by Alisha Duggal, Shannon Frede, and Taylor Kasky, student attorneys in the Public Health Law Clinic at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law, under the supervision of Professors Kathleen Hoke and William Piermattei. Generous funding provided by the Partnership for Public Health Law, comprised of the American Public Health Association, Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, National Association of County & City Health Officials, and the National Association of Local Boards of Health August 2015 THE PROBLEM: DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION Clean drinking water is essential to public health. Contaminated water is a grave health risk and, despite great progress over the past 40 years, continues to threaten U.S. communities’ health and quality of life. Our water resources still lack basic protections, making them vulnerable to pollution from fracking, farm runoff, industrial discharges and neglected water infrastructure. In the U.S., treatment and distribution of safe drinking water has all but eliminated diseases such as cholera, typhoid fever, dysentery and hepatitis A that continue to plague many parts of the world. However, despite these successes, an estimated 19.5 million Americans fall ill each year from drinking water contaminated with parasites, bacteria or viruses. In recent years, 40 percent of the nation’s community water systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act at least once.1 Those violations ranged from failing to maintain proper paperwork to allowing carcinogens into tap water. Approximately 23 million people received drinking water from municipal systems that violated at least one health-based standard.2 In some cases, these violations can cause sickness quickly; in others, pollutants such as inorganic toxins and heavy metals can accumulate in the body for years or decades before contributing to serious health problems.
  • Overgrazing and Range Degradation in Africa: the Need and the Scope for Government Control of Livestock Numbers

    Overgrazing and Range Degradation in Africa: the Need and the Scope for Government Control of Livestock Numbers

    Overgrazing and Range Degradation in Africa: The Need and the Scope for Government Control of Livestock Numbers Lovell S. Jarvis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California, Davis Paper prepared for presentation at International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) October 1984 Subsequently published in East Africa Economic Review, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1991) Overgrazing and Range Degradation in Africa: The Need and the Scope For Government Control of Livestock Numbers Lovell S. Jarvis1 Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California, Davis Introduction Livestock production has been an integral part of farming systems for hundreds of years in many regions of Africa, but there is little evidence on the herd size or range conditions in the pre- colonial period. The great rinderpest epidemic, 1889 to 1896, severely reduced the cattle population and the human population dependent on it. Some estimate that herds fell to 10% or less of their previous level (Sinclair, 1979). This caused the emergence of forest and brush and the invasion of tsetse in some regions, which further harmed the remaining pastoralists. Since that epidemic the livestock and human populations in most of Africa have grown substantially. By the 1920's, some European observers suggested that systematic overgrazing and range degradation might be occurring as a result of common range, and argued that an alternate land tenure system or external stocking controls were essential to avoid a serious reduction in production. These assertions - whether motivated by concern for herder welfare or eagerness to take over pastoralist land -- have been made repeatedly in subsequent years.
  • Late Quaternary Extinctions on California's

    Late Quaternary Extinctions on California's

    Flightless ducks, giant mice and pygmy mammoths: Late Quaternary extinctions on California’s Channel Islands Torben C. Rick, Courtney A. Hofman, Todd J. Braje, Jesu´ s E. Maldonado, T. Scott Sillett, Kevin Danchisko and Jon M. Erlandson Abstract Explanations for the extinction of Late Quaternary megafauna are heavily debated, ranging from human overkill to climate change, disease and extraterrestrial impacts. Synthesis and analysis of Late Quaternary animal extinctions on California’s Channel Islands suggest that, despite supporting Native American populations for some 13,000 years, few mammal, bird or other species are known to have gone extinct during the prehistoric human era, and most of these coexisted with humans for several millennia. Our analysis provides insight into the nature and variability of Quaternary extinctions on islands and a broader context for understanding ancient extinctions in North America. Keywords Megafauna; island ecology; human-environmental interactions; overkill; climate change. Downloaded by [Torben C. Rick] at 03:56 22 February 2012 Introduction In earth’s history there have been five mass extinctions – the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous events – characterized by a loss of over 75 per cent of species in a short geological time period (e.g. 2 million years or less: Barnosky et al. 2011). Although not a mass extinction, one of the most heavily debated extinction events is the Late Quaternary extinction of megafauna, when some two-thirds of large terrestrial mammalian genera (444kg) worldwide went extinct (Barnosky et al. 2004). Explanations for this event include climate change, as the planet went from a glacial to interglacial World Archaeology Vol.