Search

Microbial water quality is a major concern in the world, since the ingestion of water contaminated with microorganisms poses risks to human and animal health. The aim of this study was to evaluate the microbiological quality of drinking water on dairy cattle farms. The study was carried out to determine the occurrence of coliforms and enterococcus species in drinking water samples obtained from selected dairy cattle farms located in four different areas of Portugal (north, central, south and islands). A questionnaire was used to collect relevant information regarding farmer demographics, characteristics of the cattle farms, as well as number of animals per herd, number of adult cows, production type, water source, use of disinfectants and pasture area. In this study, a convenience sample of 32 dairy cattle farms was subjected to screening for water quality. The numbers of animals in the study were 8086 cattle, with a mean herd size of 253, of which 51.7% were cows. Coliform and enterococcus bacterial species were identified by performing the membrane filtration method. The occurrence of poor water quality was recorded in 19 (59.4%) cattle farms. Isolated bacteria included Escherichia coli (20.0%), Enterococcus faecalis (25.0%), total coliforms (65.6%) and fecal coliforms (43.8%). Farms that did not routinely perform disinfection had the worst water quality (70.8%) when compared with farms that performed disinfection (25.0%) (p = 0.022). This research revealed the importance of screening the quality of drinking water on cattle farms, which could contribute to improved animal, human and environmental health in a One Heath approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the increase of animal slurry produced from livestock production, the monitoring and mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH 3) emissions represent a major issue. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used to evaluate the long-term environmental effects of applied strategies and technologies on cattle slurry management for mitigation of environmental harmful gases. This study was carried on two main aims: first, the effect of the addition of sulphuric acid (SA), biochar (SBi) or A + Bi to liquid cattle-slurry (treated systems) on gas emissions during storage compared to the untreated system (S) was investigated in a laboratory-controlled experiment; second, the environmental implications of each treated or untreated system were assessed through a LCA approach according to ISO 14040/44. Five CML 2001 impact categories were used: eutrophication potential (EP), acidification potential (AP), global warming potential (GWP), human toxicity potential (HTP) and Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP). Comparisons were based on 1 ton fresh dairy cattle slurry. The environmental profile of untreated system showed lower efficiency in mitigation of total GHG and NH 3 emissions (0.0312 and 0.0001 kg CO 2 -eq respectively), during storage period and greater impact on GWP and HTP categories. The electricity consumption in mechanical separation dominated the environmental impacts. From the three proposed treated systems, SA showed the highest efficiency on mitigation of gas emissions compared to the other treatments, reducing NH 3 , CH 4 and CO 2 emissions respectively in 61%, 98% and 15%, when compared to the SBi system. In all categories, acidified slurry also showed the lowest environmental impact relative to other treated systems and the benefit was more evident when the impacts were expressed per kilogram of nitrogen in the slurry. Therefore, LCA methodology was of great importance to assess the environmental implications of the treatments and acidification can be considered as an effective technique on the mitigation of environmental implications of livestock production and cattle-effluent valorization. Optimization and uniformity of performed studies are essential to validate new strategies to improve the sustainability of this sector in the management of animal wastewater. • All proposed treated systems can be alternatives for mitigation of gas emissions. • Acidification showed the lowest impact in all environmental categories for treated systems. • Acidification showed higher efficiency in mitigation of gas emissions during storage. • Environmental profile among treatments was mainly reflected in GWP, AP and HTP categories. • The environmental profile was dominated by storage phase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decomposition of dairy cows' excreta on housing floor leads to ammonia and greenhouse gases production, yet factors affecting total emissions have not been fully disclosed. This work aimed to assess the impact of lactation stage, feeding system and sampling time on gaseous emission potential of cow's faeces and urine in laboratory chambers systems. Individual faeces and urine were collected from two groups of four cows, at peak and post peak lactation, from three commercial farms with distinct feeding systems: total mixed ration (TMR), total mixed ration plus concentrate at robot (TMR + robot), and total mixed ration plus concentrate in automatic feeders (TMR + AF). Samples were collected before a.m. (T8h), at middle day (T12h), and before p.m. (T17h) milking. In a laboratory chambers system, faeces and urine were mixed in a ratio of 1.7:1, and ammonia and greenhouse gases emissions were monitored during 48-h. Cumulative N–N 2 O emissions were the highest in TMR + robot system, post peak cows and sampling time T17h. An interaction between stage of lactation and sampling time was detected for N–NH 3 and N–N 2 O (g/kg organic soluble N) emissions. Post peak cows also produced the highest cumulative N–NH 3 emissions. Overall results contribute for the identification of specific on-farm strategies to reduce gaseous emissions from cows' excreta. • Feeding systems, stage of lactation and sampling time altered GHG and NH 3 emissions. • Emissions of N–N 2 O were highest at TMR + robot and of N–NH 3 at TMR and TMR + AF systems. • Higher cumulative N–N 2 O and N–NH 3 emissions were observed in post peak lactation. • Excreta collected at T17h led to the highest N–N 2 O cumulative emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]