Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 2290–2302 | Cite as

A new method to treat farm dairy effluent to produce clarified water for recycling and to reduce environmental risks from the land application of effluent

  • Keith C. CameronEmail author
  • Hong J. Di
Soils, Sec 3 • Remediation and Management of Contaminated or Degraded Lands • Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

There is increasing public concern about the amount of fresh water used on New Zealand dairy farms and the adverse impacts that farm dairy effluent (FDE) has on the environment. FDE mainly consists of fresh water (99%) with a small amount of solid material (1%). There is an opportunity to treat FDE to remove the colloidal solid material and recycle the water to wash the farm yard.

Materials and methods

A new method of treating FDE has been developed. The method uses a coagulant to flocculate and settle the colloidal particles in the FDE and thus produce the clarified water for recycling. The research and development programme involved three stages: (i) standard laboratory jar tests to establish the amount of coagulant required to treat the FDE, (ii) large tank tests to confirm the effectiveness of the coagulant at a larger scale and (iii) construction and testing of two pilot plants. A pasture field trial was conducted to test the effect of the clarified water and treated effluent on plant production.

Results and discussion

The new method of treating FDE was highly successful in removing the colloidal material and producing clarified water that can be recycled to wash the farm yard. The average turbidity of the clarified water from the first pilot plant was 52 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) (a 97% reduction in NTU compared to the original FDE) and the average Escherichia coli concentration was 9 cfu per 100 mL (a 99.99% reduction compared to the original untreated FDE). The average total-phosphorus (P) concentration of the clarified water was 1.8 g m−3 (94% reduction), dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) was < 0.1 g m−3 (99% reduction) and total nitrogen (N) was reduced by > 70% (from 200 to 61 g m−3). The average turbidity of the clarified water from the second pilot plant was < 20 NTU (a 99.5% reduction). There was no adverse impact from the land application of the clarified water or the treated FDE on plant growth.

Conclusions

A new method for treating farm dairy effluent was successfully developed that produced clarified water that could be recycled to wash the farm yard and had a lower potential risk of environmental impacts when applied to land than untreated FDE. Land application of the clarified water or the treated FDE had no adverse impact on plant growth.

Keywords

Clarified water Coagulation Farm dairy effluent Polyferric sulphate Water treatment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ravensdown and Lincoln University for funding the research programme. We thank Carole Barlow, Steve Moore and Roger Atkinson for their excellent technical assistance, and Dave Saville (Saville Statistics Ltd) for statistical analysis. We thank Jamie Thompson of Ravensdown, Sam Logan of WaterForce Ltd., Angus McLean of Reid & Harrison Ltd., and James Hardisty of Control Focus Ltd. for their input and construction of the pilot plants.

References

  1. Aislabie J, Smith JJ, Fraser R, McLeod M (2001) Leaching of bacterial indicators of faecal contamination through four New Zealand soils. Aust J Soil Res 39:1397–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. APHA (2012) American Public Health Association Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater: 9223 B Enzyme substrate coliform test; 4500-Norg D (modified); 4500-NH3 F (modified); 4500-P B & E (modified); 4500-P G (modified), 22nd edn. American Public Health Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTM (2013) Standard practice for coagulation-flocculation jar test of water, ASTM D2035–13. ASTM International, West Conshohocken www.astm.org. Accessed 25 July 2018
  4. Cameron KC, Di HJ, McLaren RG (1997) Is soil an appropriate dumping ground for our wastes? Aust J Soil Res 35:995–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell AG, Coup MR, Bishop WH, Wright DE (1974) Effect of elevated iron intake on the copper status of grazing cattle. N Z J Agric Res 17:393–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen S, Di HJ, Cameron KC, Podolyan A, Shen JP, He J (2018) Effect of treated farm dairy effluents, with or without animal urine, on nitrous oxide emissions, ammonia oxidisers and denitrifiers in soil. J Soils Sediments (this issue)Google Scholar
  7. Close M, Dann R, Ball A, Pirie R, Saville M, Smith Z (2008) Microbial groundwater quality and its health implications for a border-strip irrigated dairy farm catchment, South Island, New Zealand. J Water Health 6:83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins R, McLeod M, Donnison A, Close M et al (2007) Best management practices to mitigate faecal contamination by livestock of New Zealand waters. N Z J Agric Res 50:276–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Culley JLB, Phillips PA (1982) Bacterial quality of surface and subsurface runoff from manured sandy clay loam soil. J Environ Qual 11:155–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DairyNZ (2014) Reducing nitrogen loss: a guide to good management practices. DairyNZ, Hamilton https://wwwdairynzconz/media/1237817/reducing-nitrogen-losspdf. Accessed 27 July 2018Google Scholar
  11. FDA (2017) Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Chapter 1b, part 184 Direct food substances affirmed as generally recognized as safe, Sec. 184.1307 Ferric sulfate. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=184.1307. Accessed 8 June 2018
  12. Fenlon DR, ogden ID, Vinten A, Svoboda I (2000) The fate of E. coli and E. coli 0157 on cattle slurry after application to land. J Appl Microbiol 88:1495–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerba CP (1996) Pathogens in the environment. In: Pepper IL, Gerba CP, Brusseau ML (eds) Pollution science. Academic Press, New York, pp 279–294Google Scholar
  14. Grey CW, McLaren RG (2005) The effect of ryegrass variety on trace metal uptake. N Z J Agric Res 48:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hendrich S, Fan M, Sung S, Brown R, Lebepe-Mazur S, Myers R, Osweiler G (2001) Toxicity evaluation of polymeric ferric sulphate. Int J Environ Tech and Manag 1:464–471Google Scholar
  16. Hewitt A (2010) New Zealand soil classification. Landcare Research Science Series No. 1, 3rd edn. Manaaki Whenua Press - Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd., LincolnGoogle Scholar
  17. Houlbrooke DJ, Monaghan RM (2009) The influence of soil drainage characteristics on contaminant leakage risk associated with the land application of farm dairy effluent. Report prepared for Environment Southland. http://envirolink.govt.nz/assets/Envirolink/694-ESR219-Soil-drainage-and-contaminant-leakage-risk.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2018
  18. Houlbrooke DJ, Horne DJ, Hedley MJ, Hanly JA, Scotter DR (2004a) Minimising surface water pollution resulting from farm-dairy effluent application to mole-pipe drained soils. 1. An evaluation of the deferred irrigation system for sustainable land treatment in the Manawatu. N Z J Agric Res 47:405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houlbrooke DJ, Horne DJ, Hedley MJ, Hanly JA, Snow VO (2004b) A review of literature on the land treatment of farm-dairy effluent in New Zealand and its impact on water quality. N Z J Agric Res 47:499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laurenson S, Monaghan R, Orchiston T, Dalley D (2017) Assessing the environmental implications of applying dairy cow effluent during winter using low rate and low depth application methods. N Z J Agric Res 60:449–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Longhurst RD, Roberts AHC, O’Connor MB (2000) Farm dairy effluent: a review of published data on chemical and physical characteristics in New Zealand. N Z J Agric Res 43:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDowell RW, Nash D (2012) A review of the cost-effectiveness and suitability of mitigation strategies to prevent phosphorus loss from dairy farms in New Zealand and Australia. J Environ Qual 41:680–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McLaren RG, Cameron KC (1996) Soil science sustainable production and environmental protection. Oxford University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  24. McLeod M, Aislabie J, Ryburn J, McGill A (2008) Regionalising potential for microbial bypass flow through New Zealand soils. J Environ Qual 37:1959–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ministry for Primary Industries (2017) Operational code NZCP1: design and operation of farm dairies 19 may 2017. Animal Products Group, Regulation and Assurance, Ministry of Primary Industries, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. Ministry for the Environment (2017) A draft guide for swimming, E. coli and the national targets under the national policy statement for freshwater management 2014. Ministry for the Environment, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Monaghan RM, Smith LC (2004) Minimising surface water pollution resulting from farm-dairy effluent application to mole-pipe drained soils. II. The contribution of preferential flow of effluent to whole-farm pollutant losses in subsurface drainage from a West Otago dairy farm. N Z J Agric Res 47:417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Monaghan RM, de Klein CAM, Muirhead RW (2008) Prioritisation of farm scale remediation efforts for reducing losses of nutrients and faecal indicator organisms to waterways: a case study of New Zealand dairy farming. J Environ Manag 87:609–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oliver DM, Clegg CD, Haygarth PM, Heathwaite AL (2005) Assessing the potential for pathogen transfer from grassland soils to surface waters. Adv Agron 85:1–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Randall S, Harper D, Brierley B (1999) Ecological and ecophysical impacts of ferric dosing in reservoirs. Hydrobiologia 395(396):355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts AHC, Longhurst RD, Brown MW (1994) Cadmium status of soils, plants and grazing animals in New Zealand. N Z J Agric Res 37:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to soil taxonomy, 12th edn. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Waikato Regional Council (2012) Water take rules for dairy shed use (June 2012) Information for farmers in the Waikato. https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/assets/PageFiles/21822/2200849.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2018
  34. Wang H, Magesan GN, Bolan NS (2004) An overview of environmental effects of land applications of farm effluents. N Z J Agric Res 47:389–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang XM, Di HJ, Cameron KC. (2018) Effect of treated farm dairy effluent on E. coli, phosphorus and nitrogen leaching and greenhouse gas emissions: a field lysimeter study. J Soils Sediments (this isse)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Soil and Environmental ResearchLincoln UniversityLincolnNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations