Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 32, pp 32678–32686 | Cite as

The impact of livestock farming activity on the quality of surface water

  • Laima CesonieneEmail author
  • Midona Dapkiene
  • Daiva Sileikiene
Green Approaches for Materials, Wastes and Effluents Treatment
  • 278 Downloads

Abstract

The most dangerous pollution sources are intensive agricultural activity and livestock farming, whose production waste has a negative impact on soil and water quality. Livestock farming is separated into two systems: indoor (pigs and poultry) and pasture-based (livestock and sheep). Numerous studies aimed at elucidating how different systems affect the environment have been performed. In Lithuania, the biggest environmental problems are caused by 24 farms with more than 5000 pigs, 21 poultry farm with more than 1000 chickens, 2179 cow-cattle farms larger than 50 places, and about 200,000 sheep. We aimed to assess the quality of surface water in the Kaunas region next to the pig and livestock farms. In 2008–2017, seven livestock agricultural companies and seven larger farmers were regarded as potential sources of pollution in the Kaunas region. Half of these sources were pig farms, and the rest were livestock farms. Locations next to potential agricultural pollution sources were chosen to monitor the surface water. The results indicated that although the agricultural areas, number of livestock units, and nitrogen rate per 1 ha were similar between the pig and livestock farms, the activity on the pig farms affected the surface water quality more than that on livestock farms. As the number of livestock units (LU) increased on the farms, the pH decreased and the suspended materials, nitrates, and phosphates increased in the surface water. With increasing nitrogen kg/ha, the pH values decreased, thereby yielding more acidic water. The intensity of agricultural activity did not affect the water quality near the livestock farms, except for livestock units (LU), which affected the pH.

Keywords

Pig Livestock farms Water quality Pollution Surface water Agricultural activity 

References

  1. About the project (2018) http://balticslurry.eu/about-the-project/ (accessed October 09, 2018)
  2. Arhonditsis G, Tsirtsis G, Angelidis MO, Karydis M (2000) Quantification of the effects of nonpoint nutrient sources to coastal marine eutrophication: applications to a semi-enclosed gulf in the Mediterranean Sea. Ecol Model 129:209–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brianm D, Daniel P, Marclos H (2008) Agricultural nonpoint source water pollution policy: the case of California’s central coast. Agric Ecosyst Environ 128:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burkholder J, Libra B, Weyer P, Heathcote S, Kolpin D, Thorne PS, Wichman M (2007) Impacts of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. Environ Health Perspect 115(2):308–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharpley AN, Smith VH (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen X, Liu X, Peng W, Dong F, Huang Z, Wang R (2018) Non-point source nitrogen and phosphorus assessment and management plan with an improved method in data-poor regions. Water 10-1:17Google Scholar
  7. Cooper CM (1993) Biological effects of agriculturally derived surface water pollutants on aquatic systems — a review. J Environ Qual 22:402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dulova N, Trapido M, Dulov A (2011) Catalytic degradation of picric acid by heterogeneous Fenton-based processes. Environ Technol 32-4:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Epold I, Dulova N, Veressinina Y, Trapido M (2012) Application of ozonation, UV photolysis, Fenton treatment and other related processes for degradation of ibuprofen and sulfamethoxazole in different aqueous matrices. J Adv Oxid Technol 15-2:354–364Google Scholar
  10. Hooda PS, Edwards AC, Anderson HA, Miller A (2000) A review of water quality concerns in livestock farming areas. Sci Total Environ 250-1-3:143–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoorman TJ, Hone T, Sudman T Jr, Dirksen T, Iles J, Islam KR (2008) Agricultural impacts on lake and stream water quality in Grand Lake St Marys, Western Ohio. Water Air Soil Pollut 193/ 1–4:309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kronvang B, Jeppesen E, Conley DJ, Søndergaard M, Larsen SE, Ovesen NB, Carstensen J (2005) Nutrient pressures and ecological responses to nutrient loading reductions in Danish streams, lakes and coastal waters. J Hydrol 304:274–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kronvang B, Hans HE, Andersen E, Børgesen Dalgaard CT, Larsen SE, Bøgestrand J, Blicher-Mathiasen G (2008) Effects of policy measures implemented in Denmark on nitrogen pollution of the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Pol 11- 2:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lankoski J, Ollikainen M (2013) Innovations in nonpoint source pollution policy – European perspectives. Choices 28–3:1–5Google Scholar
  15. Lithuanian Republic Ministry of Agriculture (2007) Advanced farming rules and tips, Second revised and expanded edn. Kėdainiai, Vilainiai, (in Lithuanian)Google Scholar
  16. Povilaitis A (2008) Source apportionment and retention of nutrients and organic matter in the merkys river basin in southern Lithuania. J Environ Eng Landsc Manag 16-4:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pranskietis V (2013) Pažangių technologijų ir gerosios praktikos Žemės ūkyje taikymas bei skatinimo Letuvoje, Siekiant išvengti aplinkos taršos iš žemės ūkio Šaltinių, studija. Baigiamoji ataskaitaGoogle Scholar
  18. Rappold KF, Wierl JA, Amerson FU (1997) Watershed characteristics and land management in the nonpoint-source evaluation monitoring watersheds in Wisconsin; U.S. Geological Survey and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: RestonGoogle Scholar
  19. Ruminaite R, Sileika AS, Lukianas A (2009) Analysis of pollution of the Mūša catchment with total nitrogen. Ekologija 55–2:112–120Google Scholar
  20. Strusevičius Z, Strusevičienė MS (2007) Influence of pig compex activities on the Susve pollution with nitrogen compounds. J Water Manag Eng 32–52:124–130 (In Lithuanian)Google Scholar
  21. Strusevičius Z, Kazakevičienė J, Berankienė L (2009) Upės vandens kokybės pokyčiai žemiau kiaulininkystės kompleksų. Water engineering/Vandens ūkio inžinerija 35-55:42–51Google Scholar
  22. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Agricultural management practices for water quality protection, US EPA report, Washington, DC, available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/modules/Agriculture.pdf (accessed June 20, 2014). [Google Scholar]
  23. Vuorenmaa S, Rekolainen S, Lepisto A (2002) Losses of nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural and forest areas in Finland during the 1980s and 1990s. Environ Monit Assess 76:213–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laima Cesoniene
    • 1
    Email author
  • Midona Dapkiene
    • 2
  • Daiva Sileikiene
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Foriest sciences end Ecology, Institute of Environment and EcologyAleksandras Stulginskis UniversityAkademijaLithuania
  2. 2.Faculty of Water and Land ManagementAleksandras Stulginskis UniversityAkademijaLithuania

Personalised recommendations