In Canada, livestock (swine, cattle) and poultry are now more often concentrated and confined in large operations. Millions of tons of waste are produced annually and spreading of manure has never been closer to urban developments. In 2006, the Canadian livestock industry produced about half a million tons of manure daily. Although manure spreading benefits crop production, it can be a source of pollution with impacts on the environment as well as human and animal health. For example, bacteria found in manure have been detected in drinking water supplies. The use of manure as a crop fertilizer has also been associated with odour nuisances and gases as well as the contamination of fruits and vegetables with foodborne pathogens. Public concern has consequently increased regarding the impact of manure spreading on human and animal health. Even if underestimated, there is a significant health risk associated with the fugitive emissions following manure spreading. Human and animal pathogens and antibiotic-resistant bacteria are present in wastes and may potentially be aerosolized in large quantities when spreading on agricultural lands. Once airborne, these contaminants can then affect the health of workers, animals, and surrounding rural communities.
Many regulatory authorities dictate minimal setback distances for manure spreading near houses or other buildings. However, these requirements are generally based on nuisances for the surrounding populations and do not take into account the health risks associated with manure spreading.
A variety of contaminants from animal husbandry have been identified due to their potential to be present at sufficient concentrations to affect human health: ammonia (NH3), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), odours, respirable dust, and bioaerosols. These contaminants are generally associated with animal buildings, but they can also be emitted in large quantities following manure spreading. NH3, H2S, and certain odorous compounds can be irritant or even toxic for humans. NH3 also contributes to the formation of fine particulate matter (PM) that is linked to human respiratory problems. For NH3, H2S, and dust, most governments impose strict limits on workplace exposures. These concentration recommendations are often exceeded in livestock buildings, and they must be measured during manure spreading operations to make sure they don’t exceed the acceptable limits. Furthermore, these limits do not consider the cumulative effect of these contaminants, which can increase the health risks for workers and rural populations.
Odours can also have various psychological effects on rural populations, such as tension, depression, anger, and a decrease in vigour, fatigue and confusion. The cumulative and synergistic effects of contaminants (gases, dust, and microorganisms) and odours can represent increased risks, however still misunderstood, for rural populations. The nuisance and the perceived health risks associated with agricultural odours can seriously undermine the social acceptability of the livestock industry.
Regarding airborne microorganisms, a few zoonotic agents are considered in the literature to be of concern following manure spreading on agricultural lands: Campylobacter sp., Clostridium perfringens, verotoxigenic Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp. and Yersinia enterocolitica. Symptoms of nausea, abdominal cramps, vomiting or diarrhea are usually associated with these foodborne pathogenic agents, but morbidity and mortality can occur in some infected humans or animals.
The potential risks are greatly increased when the resilience of some of these pathogens is considered. For example, the persistence of Salmonella can be counted in months in slurry and soils and in aquatic environments for the pathogenic agent Campylobacter. As a spore-forming organism, Clostridium perfringens is likely to be a long-time survivor in manure. E. coli O157: H7 may persist up to 2 months in manure. For Listeria monocytogenes, its ability to grow at low temperature (e.g. 4oC) in high (up to 12%) salt concentrations and at a range of pH from 5.5 to 9.0 contributes to its environmental persistence.
Even if understudied, manure is considered as a vehicle to disseminate animal viruses such as the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), the foot-and-mouth disease virus, the bovine viral diarrhea virus, the swine influenza virus, and the porcine parvovirus. All these animal viruses represent an economic burden for the Canadian livestock industry.
Inside livestock operations, aerosolization of zoonotic agents, antibiotic-resistant bacteria and viruses from manure are possible and have been demonstrated. However, notwithstanding the risks described here with the contaminants found in manure, there is a lack of knowledge on airborne contaminants associated with manure spreading and the risks are not well understood. Moreover, the few studies that have evaluated the emission of pathogenic agents used culture-dependent approaches or low volume air samplers, not suitable for outdoor sampling, and did not quantify emissions in standardized or environmentally-controlled conditions (e.g. using a portable wind tunnel). Furthermore, the type of manure spreading equipment (solid manure, splash plate or dribble bar for liquid manure) plays an important role in airborne emissions by influencing the exchange rate between manure and air. Once the risks are quantified, solutions limiting emissions from manure spreading can be put in place to protect the health of workers, animals and neighbours.
Aims of Project
The specific aims of this project:
- Quantify emissions of airborne contaminants following manure spreading.
- Evaluate the health risks associated with these fugitive emissions for workers, animals, and rural communities.
- Determine the best strategies to mitigate the risks and test the performance of these strategies in field conditions.
The results from this project will fill the gap in knowledge regarding airborne emissions from manure spreading activities and provide solutions to reduce the risk to human health.
For further information about this project, please contact Program Manager Nadia Smith at 306-966-1648 or by email at email@example.com
Bille, J., Doyle, M.P. 1991. Listeria and Erysipelothrix. Manual of Clinical Microbiology. Am. Soc. Microbiol., Washington, DC.
Bøtner, A., Belsham, G.J. 2012. Virus survival in slurry: analysis of the stability of foot-and-mouth disease, classical swine fever, bovine viral diarrhea and swine influenza viruses.Vet Microbiol. 157(1-2):41-9.
Bougouin, A., Leytem, A., Dijkstra, J., Dungan, R.S., Kebreab, E., 2016. Nutritional and Environmental Effects on Ammonia Emissions from Dairy Cattle Housing: A Meta-Analysis. J. Environ. Qual. 45, 1123–1132
CNESST - Répertoire toxicologique. 2017. Hydrogen sulfide (available from http://www.csst.qc.ca/prevention/reptox/ Pages/fiche-complete.aspx?no_produit=4143&no_seq=1) and ammonia (available from http://www.csst.qc.ca/ prevention/reptox/Pages/fiche-complete.aspx?no_produit=94060&no_seq=4) (both accessed on September 7th 2017).
D’Allaire, S., Goulet, L., Brodeur, J., Roch, G. 1999. Literature review on the impacts of hog production on public health. Symposium of the Hog Environmental Management Strategy (HEMS), Canadian Pork Council and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Earth Tech Inc. 2001. Final Technical Work Paper for Human Health Issues - Animal Agriculture GEIS. 93 pages. Available from www.leg.state.mn.us/edocs/edocs?oclcnumber=47810986 (accessed on September 7th, 2017)
Faculté de médecine vétérinaire of the Université de Montréal (FVM). 2007. Formation et recherche en santé animale : Préparer l’avenir de l’agriculture et de l’agroalimentaire québécois. Commission sur l’avenir de l’agriculture et de l’agroalimentaire québécois. 14p.
Godbout, S., J. H. Palacios, S. Sakka, F. Pelletier and S. Fournel. 2014. Étude concernant les paramètres gouvernementaux destinés à atténuer les inconvénients d’odeurs liés à certaines activités d’élevage animale. Final report. IRDA. 81 pages.
Guingand, N. (2003) Qualité de l’air au bâtiment et stades physiologiques. Techni-porc, Vol 26(3): 17-24.
Hofmann, N. 2006. A geographical profile of livestock manure production in Canada, 2006. Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2008004/article/10751-eng.htm#n2 (accessed on September 6th, 2017)
Hutchison, M.L., Avery, S.M., Monaghan, J.M. 2008. The air-borne distribution of zoonotic agents from livestock waste spreading and microbiological risk to fresh produce from contaminated irrigation sources. J Appl Microbiol. 105(3):848-57.
Jonges, M., van Leuken, J., Wouters, I., Koch, G., Meijer, A., Koopmans, M. 2015. Wind-Mediated Spread of Low-Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus into the Environment during Outbreaks at Commercial Poultry Farms. PLoS One. 10(5):e0125401.
Just, N.A., Létourneau, V., Kirychuk, S.P., Singh, B., Duchaine, C. 2012. Potentially pathogenic bacteria and antimicrobial resistance in bioaerosols from cage-housed and floor-housed poultry operations. Ann Occup Hyg. 56(4):440-9.
Kaarakainen, P., Rintala, H., Meklin, T., Kärkkäinen, P., Hyvärinen, A., Nevalainen, A. 2011. Concentrations and Diversity of Microbes from Four Local Bioaerosol Emission Sources in Finland. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 61(12):1382-1392.
Létourneau, V., Nehmé, B., Mériaux, A., Massé, D., Cormier, Y., Duchaine, C. 2010. Human pathogens and tetracycline-resistant bacteria in bioaerosols of swine confinement buildings and in nasal flora of hog producers. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 213(6):444-9.
Lindvall T., O. Noren and L. Thyselius. 1974. Odour reduction for liquid manure systems. Transactions of the ASAE, 17: 508-512.
Linhares, D.C., Torremorell, M., Joo, H.S., Morrison, R.B. 2012. Infectivity of PRRS virus in pig manure at different temperatures. Vet Microbiol. 160(1-2):23-8.
Lipsitch M., Singer, R.S., Levin, B.R.. 2002. Antibiotics in agriculture: when is it time to close the barn door? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99:5752-5754
Loi québécoise sur la santé et la sécurité du travail. 2017. Chapitre S-2.1, règlement 13 – Règlement sur la santé et la sécurité du travail. Available from http://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/ShowDoc/cr/S-2.1,%20r.%2013/ (accessed on September 7th 2017).
McEwen, S., 2002. Uses of antimicrobials in food animals in Canada: impact on resistance and human health. Report of the Advisory Committee on Animal Uses of Antimicrobials and Impact on Resistance and Human Health. Health Canada, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Miner, J.R. 1995. An executive summary: A review of the literature on the nature and control of odours from pork production facilities, Report for the National Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IO; Bioresource Engineering Dept., Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR.
MSSSQ (Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec). 2000. Les risques à la santé associés aux activités de production animale. Rapport du Comité de santé environnementale, 38 p.
Murayama, M., Kakinuma, Y., Maeda, Y., Rao, J.R., Matsuda, M., Xu, J., Moore, P.J., Millar, B.C., Rooney, P.J., Goldsmith, C.E., Loughrey, A., McMahon, M.A., McDowell, D.A., Moore, J.E. 2010. Molecular identification of airborne bacteria associated with aerial spraying of bovine slurry waste employing 16S rRNA gene PCR and gene sequencing techniques. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 73(3):443-7.
Nehme, B., Létourneau, V., Forster, R.J., Veillette, M., Duchaine, C. 2008. Culture-independent approach of the bacterial bioaerosol diversity in the standard swine confinement buildings, and assessment of the seasonal effect. Environ Microbiol. 10(3):665-75.
Schiffman, S.S., E.A. Sattely Miller, M.S. Suggs and B.G. Graham. 1995. The effect of environmental odors emanating from commercial swine operations on the mood of nearby residents. Brain Research Bulletin 37(4): 369-375.
Shiffmann, S.S. 1998. Livestock Odors: Implications for Human Health and Well-being. Journal of Animal Science. 76. pages 1343-1355.
Strauch, D., Ballarini, G. 1994. Hygienic aspects of the production and agricultural use of animal wastes. J. Vet. Med. Ser. B 41:176.
Verreault, D., Létourneau, V., Gendron, L., Massé, D., Gagnon, C.A., Duchaine, C. 2010. Airborne porcine circovirus in Canadian swine confinement buildings. Vet Microbiol. 141(3-4):224-30.
Wang, G., Zhao, T., Doyle, M.P. 1996. Fate of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 in bovine feces. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62:2567.
2019 - 2020 Year 1 Update
Manure spreading on agricultural lands is a common practice but carries health risks for workers, livestock and rural communities. Dust, gases, odours and bioaerosols such as human and animal pathogens and antibiotic-resistant bacteria are present in manure and may potentially be emitted in large quantities following manure spreading. Once airborne, these contaminants can then affect the health of workers, animals, and surrounding rural communities. The overall goal of this project is to assess the risks associated with manure spreading and determine the best strategies to mitigate these risks.
In Year 1, the IRDA research team developed passive flux samplers (PFS) to capture nitrous oxide (N2O) and to measure emissions. The PFS is comprised of two tubes with a hole in between to make sure the air velocity inside the sampler matches the outside wind velocity. A sorbent is placed in the tubes to capture all the target gas during the sampling period. Once gases are captured by the PFS, they are desorbed and measured in the laboratory. The research team began work on a PFS design to sample ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxide (N2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2). However, there is still work to do before the samplers are ready to test in the field. The Quebec Heart and Lung Institute (CRIUCPQ) team has extensive expertise in environmental air sampling with high volume samplers combined with molecular biology and high throughput sequencing. Once the bioaerosol samples are collected, a thorough microbiological analysis will be carried out for total bacteria, human pathogens, animal pathogens and antimicrobial resistance genes to help identify the hazards resulting from the aerosolization of manure emissions.
Work was started on the construction of a field-scale wind tunnel to be used for validation of new sampling techniques in comparison to traditional sampling methods. The wind tunnel consists of a plastic tarp fitted over a metal frame and installed securely to the ground to prevent the loss of emissions from the sides. The environmental conditions (wind speed, temperature and humidity) will be closely monitored in the tunnel. Standard equipment for gas sampling and analysis will be installed on the site to analyze the gases (H2S, NH3, N2O and CO2, CH4), particulate and odour concentrations at the inlet and the outlet of the wind tunnel. The airflow rate will be used to calculate emissions.
An informational bulletin was also produced under the CANFARMSAFE publication The Scoop on Spreading Poop.