DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of Air Quality Impacts Resulting from Particle Emissions from Poultry Farms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of Air Quality Impacts Resulting from Particle Emissions from Poultry Farms Environment Defra Review of Air Quality Impacts Resulting from Particle Emissions from Poultry Farms Environment Defra Prepared by: .................Checked by: ................. Sam Pollard Gareth Collins Principal Environmental Scientist Technical Director Approved by: ...................... Michele Hackman Technical Director Review of Air Quality Impacts Resulting from Particle Emissions from Poultry Farms Rev No Comments Checked Approved Date by by 1 Draft for Bureau Veritas Comment GMC MPH July 2011 2 Revised to incorporate initial comments from Bureau Veritas GMC MPH July 2011 3 Revised to incorporate additional comments from Bureau Veritas GMC MPH September 2011 4 Revised to incorporate additional comments from Bureau Veritas GMC MPH September 2012 5 Final version GMC MPH October 2012 6 Final version incorporating BV amendments YV* YB* November 2012 * YV (Yasmin Vawda – Bureau Veritas), YB (Yvonne Brown – Bureau Veritas) 9th & 10th Floors, Sunley House, 4 Bedford Park, CR0 2AP Telephone: 020 8639 3500 Website: http://www.aecom.com Job No 60190372 Reference SJP Date Created November 2012 This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Limited. f:\projects\environmental services - laqm services lot 1\laqm poultry farms\pm emissions from poultry farms 26112.doc Table of Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 PM10 Criteria .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Current Screening Criteria ............................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Environment Agency (EA) and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Regulation ............................... 4 2.2 Local Air Quality Management Technical Guidance .............................................................................................. 4 3 Summary of UK Poultry Industry ..................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Poultry Farming in England ................................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Poultry Farming in Scotland ................................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Poultry Farming in Wales ....................................................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Poultry Farming in Northern Ireland ....................................................................................................................... 8 4 Particulate Emissions from Poultry Farms ..................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Poultry Housing and Ventilation ............................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Sources of Particulate Emissions from Poultry Farms ........................................................................................... 9 4.3 Factors Affecting Particulate Emissions from Poultry Farms ............................................................................... 10 5 Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 12 5.1 Review of Monitoring Studies .............................................................................................................................. 12 5.2 Estimating Poultry Farm Contribution .................................................................................................................. 12 6 Monitoring Studies .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 6.1 Monitoring Studies Undertaken for LAQM Purposes or by the EA ...................................................................... 14 6.2 Estimated Contribution of Poultry Farms to Daily Mean PM10 concentrations ..................................................... 19 6.3 Defra Funded Research Project .......................................................................................................................... 20 7 Emission Factors ............................................................................................................................................................ 23 7.1 Emission Factors Derived from Monitoring Studies ............................................................................................. 23 7.2 Emission Factors from Emissions Inventories ..................................................................................................... 24 7.3 Variation in Emission Rates over Time ................................................................................................................ 24 8 Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 26 8.1 Origins and Suitability of LAQM.TG(09) Screening Criteria ................................................................................. 26 8.2 Further Evidence Provided By Recent Studies .................................................................................................... 26 8.3 Recommendations for updated Guidance ........................................................................................................... 31 8.4 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................... 32 References .................................................................................................................................................................................... 91 Appendix A: Poultry Farm Monitoring Studies ................................................................................................................................ 34 Appendix B: PM10 Increments from Poultry Farms ......................................................................................................................... 50 Appendix C: Terminology ............................................................................................................................................................... 90 Table 1: List of Local Authorities with Poultry Farms in Excess of LAQM.TG(09) Criteria ................................................................6 Table 2: Number of Holdings and Populations of Laying Birds, by Housing Type in 2009 ...............................................................7 Table 3: Poultry Numbers in Northern Ireland, 2010.........................................................................................................................8 Table 4: Location, Method and Duration of Monitoring Undertaken near poultry Farms for LAQM ................................................ 15 Table 5: Location, Method and Duration of Monitoring Undertaken near Poultry Farms by the EA ................................................ 15 Table 6: Poultry Farm Type and Capacity at which LAQM or EA Monitoring was undertaken ....................................................... 16 Table 7: Summary of Results of LAQM and EA Monitoring near UK Poultry Farms ....................................................................... 17 Table 8: Comparison of Monitoring Results to LAQM.TG(09) Screening Criteria ........................................................................... 18 Table 9: Estimated Incremental Contribution of Poultry Farms ....................................................................................................... 19 Table 10: Results of Defra Funded Research Project ..................................................................................................................... 21 Table 11: Estimated Poultry Farm Contribution from Results of Defra Poultry Farm Monitoring Study .......................................... 22 Table 12: Compilation of Emission Factors from Literature (modified from Roumeliotis and Van Heyst) ....................................... 23 Table 13: Estimates of PM10 Emission factors within Emission Inventories .................................................................................... 24 Table 14: Derivation of Scaling Factors from Monitoring Data ....................................................................................................... 28 Table 15: Comparison of Predicted and Measured Results Using Broiler Farm Ratios ................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Is Factory Farming Making Us Sick? IS FACTORY FARMING MAKING US SICK?
    Is Factory Farming making us sick? IS FACTORY FARMING MAKING US SICK? A Guide to Animal Diseases and their Impact on Human Health 1 Photo by Engin Akyurt Contents Introduction 4 Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) 6 Bovine TB 8 BSE 10 Campylobacter 12 E. Coli (O157: H7) 14 Foot and Mouth Disease 16 Johne’s Disease 18 Meningitis 20 MRSA 22 Nipah 24 Q Fever 25 Salmonella 26 Swine Flu 28 Other Zoonotic Diseases 30 We can change 32 References 34 2 Is Factory Farming making us sick? 3 Photo by Ethan Kent Introduction The majority of farmed animals in the UK In recent years, animal farming has are reared intensively, inside crowded, filthy brought us outbreaks of BSE, bovine sheds which are the perfect environment TB, foot and mouth, bird flu, swine flu, for bacteria and viruses to flourish. Stressed campylobacter, salmonella and many by their surroundings and their inability more devastating diseases. No wonder to display natural behaviours, forced to the United Nations Food and Agriculture live in their own excrement alongside sick Organization has warned that global and dying animals, it is not surprising that industrial meat production poses a serious farmed animals are vulnerable to infection. threat to human health3. Their immunity is further weakened by the industry breeding from just a few CREATING ANTIBIOTIC high-yielding strains, which has led to genetic erosion. This makes it easier for RESISTANCE disease to sweep swiftly through a group Instead of protecting of animals, who are likely to share near- ourselves by changing identical genetics with little immunological how we treat animals resistance.
    [Show full text]
  • I- Vegan Consciousness and the Commodity Chain: on the Neoliberal, Afrocentric, and Decolonial Politics of “Cruelty-Free” B
    Vegan Consciousness and the Commodity Chain: On the Neoliberal, Afrocentric, and Decolonial Politics of “Cruelty-Free” By Amie Louise Harper B.A. (Dartmouth College, Hanover) 1998 M.A. (Harvard University, Cambridge) 2007 Dissertation Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Geography In the Office of Graduate Studies Of the University of California Davis Approved: ____________________________________ (Dr. Kimberly Nettles-Barcelon), Chair ____________________________________ (Dr. Wendy Ho) ____________________________________ (Dr. Psyche A. Williams-Forson) Committee in Charge 2013 -i- Acknowledgments There are many people I would like to thank who made the completion of this manuscript possible. My dissertation committee of Dr. Kimberly Nettles-Barcelon, Dr. Psyche A. Williams- Forson and Dr. Wendy Ho: Thank you for your comments and patience, as well as directing me towards the path of rigorous scholarship. My husband Oliver Zahn: Thank you for your years of support. My parents Patricia Harper and Bob Harper: When I was 12 years old, I told you that I wanted to get a PhD. You told me that there is no reason why this should not be possible. Thanks for the never-ending encouragement. My twin brother Talmadge Harper: Like mom and dad, you kept on telling me that I could do it. Sister Jayne Simon: Thank you for the endless conversations and being an amazing mentor and spiritual godmother to me. Tseday Worku: I appreciate the hours of ‘free’ child-care that you provided for my babies so I could complete this manuscript. Marian Swanzy-Parker: Our hours of dialogues about race, class, gender, and power were amazingly helpful and inspiring.
    [Show full text]
  • Poultry Litter/Manure Management Practices in Intensively Managed Poultry Farms in Portharcourt
    IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS) e-ISSN: 2319-2380, p-ISSN: 2319-2372. Volume 8, Issue 3 Ver. II (Mar. 2015), PP 53-58 www.iosrjournals.org Poultry Litter/Manure Management Practices in Intensively Managed Poultry Farms in Portharcourt Ekenma Kalu Department Of Veterinary Public Health And Preventive Medicine. Micheal Okpara University Of Agriculture, Umudike. Abstract: The investigation to determine the different litter/manure management practices of poultry farmers was carried out in Port Harcourt urban area. A well structured questionnaire was administered to 30 randomly selected poultry farmers in the study area by one on one interview and observation of the environment. The results revealed that poultry farming is on the increase. Majority of these farmer’s management practices showed that they have little knowledge about proper disposal of litter/manure resulting from their farm operations. 53.3% sell their waste immediately after clearing their farms while 43.3% store them for later use and 3.4% applied theirs directly to nearby farm lands. During the period of study, 96.7 % of the farmers had not heard of manure treatment before disposal while 3.3% have heard of it but did not practice it. It was also noted that improper handling of poultry production from start to finish could lead to environmental hazards. Keywords: Intensively managed, Poultry farms, Litter/manure, Port Harcourt. I. Introduction Poultry is one of the most developed animal industries in Nigeria. Historically, the growth of poultry industry began as a result of its high level of energy and protein, rapid turnover rate and short incubation period (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Nutrition of Pigs Kept Under Low and High Sanitary Conditions Effects on Amino Acid and Energy Metabolism and Damaging Behaviour
    Nutrition of pigs kept under low and high sanitary conditions Effects on amino acid and energy metabolism and damaging behaviour Yvonne van der Meer Nutrition of pigs kept under low and high sanitary conditions Effects on amino acid and energy metabolism and damaging behaviour Yvonne van der Meer Thesis committee Promotor Prof. Dr W. J. J. Gerrits Personal chair at the Animal Nutrition Group Wageningen University & Research Co-promotors Dr A. J. M. Jansman Senior researcher, Animal Nutrition Wageningen University & Research Dr A. Lammers Researcher, Adaptation Physiology Group Wageningen University & Research Other members Prof. Dr J. Keijer, Wageningen University & Research Dr E. Labussière, INRA, Rennes, France Prof. Dr C.M. Nyachoti, University of Manitoba, Canada Prof. Dr S.A. Edwards, University of Newcastle, United Kingdom This research was conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Wageningen Institute of Animal Science (WIAS) Nutrition of pigs kept under low and high sanitary conditions Effects on amino acid and energy metabolism and damaging behaviour Yvonne van der Meer Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of doctor at Wageningen University by the authority of the Rector Magnificus, Prof. Dr. A. P. J. Mol, in the presence of the Thesis Committee appointed by the Academic Board to be defended in public on Friday 7 July 2017 at 4 p.m. in the Aula. Yvonne van der Meer Nutrition of pigs kept under low and high sanitary conditions Effects on amino acid and energy metabolism and damaging behaviour,
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Critical Perspectives on Animals in Society
    Proceedings of the Conference Critical Perspectives on Animals in Society held at the University of Exeter, UK 10 March 2012 © CPAS convenors, editors and individual named contributors, 2013 Some rights reserved Copyright in contributions to these proceedings rests with their respective authors. Copyright to the overall collection and arrangement and to any other material in this document rests with the convenors of CPAS and the editors of its proceedings. In the spirit of open-access publishing and with a commitment to the intellectual commons, reuse and distribution of these proceedings for non-commercial purposes is permitted and encouraged, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution± NonCommercial±NoDerivs 2.0 UK: England & Wales licence, which can be read at: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/ Amongst other things, this licence requires that you attribute material you reproduce to its author, and make clear to those you share it with that they too may reproduce it under the terms of the licence. Anything outside the licence, especially commercial use, requires the express permission of the editors and conference convenors, or of individual authors. Requests to the former should be directed to: [email protected] Edited by Chris Calvert and Jessica Gröling Contents Introduction by the editors 5 Chris Calvert and Jessica Gröling — Contributions in brief — About CPAS — Acknowledgements — Conference programme Campaigning techniques 11 Keynote address by Dr Richard D. Ryder Animal rights: moral crusade or social
    [Show full text]
  • Air Quality and Odor (H)
    Please note that this document has been reformatted and the electronic version may visually appear different than the original printed version. All the content has remained the same, except that the Tables of Contents of certain chapters have been simplified to make all chapters uniform and that the portions of certain chapters relating to comments from the GEIS Citizens Advisory Committee and responses to those comments have been deleted. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture: A Summary of the Literature Related to Air Quality and Odor (H) Prepared for the Environmental Quality Board Prepared by: Larry D. Jacobson, Roger Moon, Jose Bicudo, Kevin Janni, Sally Noll, Dept. of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, Gerald Shurson, Dept. of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, Jun Zhu, David Schmidt, Charles McGinley, Engineer, McGinley and Associates, Philip Goodrich, Richard Nicolai, Charles Clanton, Kenneth Davis, Lisa Brosseau, Jill Bruns, Public Health Nurse, Renville County, Minnesota, Carlos Pijoan, Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Thomas Blaha, Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota Beverly Durgan, UM Project Leader, Associate Dean for Research, COAFES Kathryn Draeger, UM Project Manager, Environmental Ground Inc. Unless otherwise noted all of the team members are associated with the University of Minnesota, College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences. H-i MH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD September, 1999 To Interested Minnesotans: The GEIS on Animal Agriculture is a statewide study authorized and funded by the 1998 Minnesota Legislature and ordered by the EQB. The Legislature directs the EQB to “. .examine the long-term effects of the livestock industry as it exists and as it is changing on the economy, environment and way of life of Minnesota and its citizens.” The intent of the GEIS is twofold: 1) to provide balanced, objective information on the effects of animal agriculture to future policymakers; and 2) to provide recommendations on future options for animal agriculture in the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Title: Thinking Different - Encouraging the Transfer of Knowledge in the Poultry Sector
    A Report for Ireland’s Nuffield Scholarship Trust 2014 Title: Thinking Different - Encouraging the Transfer of Knowledge in the Poultry Sector Scholar: Alo Mohan Sponsor: FBD Trust Date: September 2014 Countries Visited: Canada, Australia, Belgium, Netherlands, UK Objective: To investigate the opportunities and threats to the effective transfer of knowledge in the poultry sector. Findings: The technologies and methodologies of the transfer of knowledge are well documented - the industry needs strong & effective leadership from farmers & other stakeholders to join up the dots. We must always think Different. Thinking Different - Encouraging The Transfer of Knowledge In The Poultry Sector 1 Contact Details Alo Mohan Drumkeenan Redhills Co Cavan tel +353 (0)87 629 2456 [email protected] Thinking Different - Encouraging The Transfer of Knowledge In The Poultry Sector 2 Thinking Different Encouraging The Transfer Of Knowledge In The Poultry Sector Disclaimer This publication has been prepared in good faith. The opinions expressed in this report are my own and are not necessarily those of the Nuffield Farming Scholarships trust, or of my sponsor, or of any other sponsoring body. All pictures used have been sourced by myself Alo Mohan and permission granted for their use. Thinking Different - Encouraging The Transfer of Knowledge In The Poultry Sector 3 Contents Table of Contents 4 1 Executive Summary 5 2. List of Tables & Figures 6 3 Personal Introduction 7 4 Acknowledgements 9 5. Thinking different 11 6 Knowledge at Farm Level 15 7 World
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 IMPACT REPORT a Message from President and CEO Dr
    2019 IMPACT REPORT A Message from President and CEO Dr. Robin Ganzert For 142 years, American Humane has been leading the • Worked to improve the lives of farm animals – way in the humane movement, protecting animals and approaching one billion – by helping ensure humane strengthening the healing power of the bond between living conditions and treatment through our American people and animals. Our First to Serve® success stories Humane Farm Program. have happened wherever animals needed rescue, shelter, protection or security. This year of accomplishments is • Saved, sheltered and fed more than 200,000 animals in no different. desperate need during Hurricanes Florence and Michael, the California wildfires and major cruelty Our organization has a rich history, an impressive, cases, with the American Humane Rescue team solutions-oriented present – which you will read about in deploying until the crises were over. this Impact Report – and an expanded global vision for • Trained and provided, free of charge, service dogs for the future. military veterans with post-traumatic stress (PTS) and It’s been said that “vision without action is merely a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Reunited retiring military dream. Action without vision just passes the time. Vision working dogs with their former handlers. with action can change the world.” It’s our vision at American Humane has a long and trusted record of using American Humane to lead and encourage people to make our precious resources effectively for the benefit of our every choice in their life, from the food they eat and the most vulnerable. More than 91 cents of every dollar spent entertainment they watch to the zoos and aquariums goes directly into our life-changing, life-saving programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Being a Bad Vegan
    Edith Cowan University Research Online ECU Publications Post 2013 1-1-2019 Being a bad vegan Lelia Green Edith Cowan University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworkspost2013 Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Green, L. (2019). Being a bad vegan. M/C Journal, 22(2). http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/ issue/view/vegan This Journal Article is posted at Research Online. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworkspost2013/7577 Green http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/rt/printerFriendl... M/C Journal, Vol 22, No 2 (2019) Being a Bad Vegan Lelia Green Abstract According to The Betoota Advocate (Parker), a CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) paper has recently established that “it takes roughly seven minutes on average for a vegan to tell you that they’re vegan” (qtd. in Harrington et al. 135). For such a statement to have currency as a joke means that it is grounded in a shared experience of being vegan on the one hand, and of encountering vegans on the other. Why should vegans feel such a need to justify themselves? I recognise the observation as being true of me, and this article is one way to explore this perspective: writing to find out what I currently only intuit. As Richardson notes (516), writing is “a way of ‘knowing’—a method of discovery and analysis. By writing in different ways, we discover new aspects of our topic and our relationship to it. Form and content are inseparable” (qtd.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs
    PREPUBLICATION COPY ADVANCE COPY Not for public Release Before 3:00 pm, EST, Thursday, December 12, 2002 Final Report Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs This prepublication version of Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs has been provided to the public to facilitate timely access to the committee’s findings. Although the substance of the report is final, minor editorial changes may be made throughout the text and citations will be checked prior to publication. The final report is anticipated to be available in February 2003. PREPUBLICATION COPY Final Report Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs This prepublication version of Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs has been provided to the public to facilitate timely access to the committee’s findings. Although the substance of the report is final, minor editorial changes may be made throughout the text and citations will be checked prior to publication. The final report is anticipated to be available in February 2003. Ad Hoc Committee on Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations Committee on Animal Nutrition Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology Division on Earth and Life Studies THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • How Safe Is Chicken Litter for Land Application As an Organic Fertilizer?: a Review
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Review How Safe is Chicken Litter for Land Application as an Organic Fertilizer?: A Review Margaret Kyakuwaire 1,2,*, Giregon Olupot 2, Alice Amoding 2, Peter Nkedi-Kizza 3 and Twaha Ateenyi Basamba 2 1 Department of Agriculture, Kyambogo University, P.O. Box 1, Kyambogo, Kampala 759125, Uganda 2 Department of Agricultural Production, School of Agricultural Sciences, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala 759125, Uganda; [email protected] (G.O.); [email protected] (A.A.); [email protected] (T.A.B.) 3 Department of Soil and Water Sciences, University of Florida, 2181 McCarty Hall, P.O. Box 110290, Gainesville, FL 32601-0290, USA; kizza@ufl.edu * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 2 August 2019; Accepted: 26 August 2019; Published: 20 September 2019 Abstract: Chicken litter application on land as an organic fertilizer is the cheapest and most environmentally safe method of disposing of the volume generated from the rapidly expanding poultry industry worldwide. However, little is known about the safety of chicken litter for land application and general release into the environment. Bridging this knowledge gap is crucial for maximizing the benefits of chicken litter as an organic fertilizer and mitigating negative impacts on human and environmental health. The key safety concerns of chicken litter are its contamination with pathogens, including bacteria, fungi, helminthes, parasitic protozoa, and viruses; antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant genes; growth hormones such as egg and meat boosters; heavy metals; and pesticides. Despite the paucity of literature about chicken litter safety for land application, the existing information was scattered and disjointed in various sources, thus making them not easily accessible and difficult to interpret.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Short-Term Storage on the Quantity of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase–Producing Escherichia Coli in Broiler Litter Under Practical Conditions
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Institutional Repository of the Freie Universität Berlin Impact of short-term storage on the quantity of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Escherichia coli in broiler litter under practical conditions Paul Siller,*,1 Katrin Daehre,*,y Nadine Thiel,z Ulrich Nubel,€ z,x,# and Uwe Roesler* *Institute for Animal Hygiene and Environmental Health, Freie Universit€at Berlin, Berlin, Germany; yDepartment of Food, Feed and Commodities, Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, Berlin, Germany; zDepartment of Microbial Genome Research, Leibniz Institute DSMZ-German Collection of Miroorganisms and Cell Cultures, Braunschweig, Germany; xBraunschweig Integrated Center of Systems Biology (BRICS), Technical Uni- versity, Braunschweig, Germany; and #German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner site Hannover-Braunschweig, Germany ABSTRACT Applying broiler litter containing until 72 h and qualitatively until the end of the trial in extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)–producing winter. In summer detection was possible quantitatively Escherichia coli (E. coli) to arable land poses a potential up to 36 h and qualitatively until 72 h. For surface litter risk for humans to get colonized by contact with samples a qualitative detection of ESBL-producing E. contaminated soil or vegetables. Therefore, an inactiva- coli was possible in all samples taken in both trials. In the tion of these bacteria before land application of litter is deep samples a significant decrease in the bacterial crucial. We performed 2 short-term litter storage trials counts of over 2 Log10 was observed for total E. coli in the (one in summer and winter, respectively), each covering winter and for total E.
    [Show full text]