Agricultural pollution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

 
Jump to: navigation, search

Agricultural pollution refers to biotic and abiotic byproducts of farming practices that result in contamination or degradation of the environment and surrounding ecosystems, and/or cause injury to humans and their economic interests. The pollution may come from a variety of sources, ranging from point source pollution (from a single discharge point) to more diffuse, landscape-level causes, also known as non-point source pollution. Management practices play a crucial role in the amount and impact of these pollutants. Management techniques range from animal management and housing to the spread of pesticides and fertilizers in global agricultural practices.

Water pollution due to dairy farming in the Wairarapa area of New Zealand (photographed in 2003)

Aboitic sources[edit]

Pesticides[edit]

Pesticides and herbicides are applied to agricultural land to control pests that disrupt crop production. Soil contamination can occur when pesticides persist and accumulate in soils, which can alter microbial processes, increase plant uptake of the chemical, and also cause toxicity to soil organisms. The extent to which the pesticides and herbicides persist depends on the compound’s unique chemistry, which affects sorption dynamics and resulting fate and transport in the soil environment.[1] Pesticides can also accumulate in animals that eat contaminated pests and soil organisms. In addition, pesticides can be more harmful to beneficial insects, such as pollinators, and to natural enemies of pests (i.e. insects that prey on or parasitize pests) than they are to the target pests themselves.[2]

'

Pesticide leaching[edit]

Pesticide leaching occurs when pesticides mix with water and move through the soil, ultimately contaminating groundwater. The amount of leaching is correlated with particular soil and pesticide characteristics and the degree of rainfall and irrigation. Leaching is most likely to happen if using a water-soluble pesticide, when the soil tends to be sandy in texture, if excessive watering occurs just after pesticide application, or if the adsorption ability of the pesticide to the soil is low. Leaching may not only originate from treated fields, but also from pesticide mixing areas, pesticide application machinery washing sites, or disposal areas.[3]

Fertilizers[edit]

Leaching, runoff, and eutrophication[edit]

The nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) applied to agricultural land (via synthetic fertilizers, composts, manures, biosolids, etc.) can provide valuable plant nutrients. However, if not managed correctly, excess N and P can have negative environmental consequences. Excess N supplied by both synthetic fertilizers (as highly soluble nitrate) and organic sources such as manures (whose organic N is mineralized to nitrate by soil microorganisms) can lead to groundwater contamination of nitrate. Nitrate-contaminated drinking water can cause blue baby syndrome. Together with excess P from these same fertilizer sources, eutrophication can occur downstream due to excess nutrient supply, leading to anoxic areas called dead zones.

Organic contaminants[edit]

Manures and biosolids contain many nutrients consumed by animals and humans in the form of food. The practice of returning such waste products to agricultural land presents an opportunity to recycle soil nutrients. The challenge is that manures and biosolids contain not only nutrients such as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, but they may also contain contaminants, including pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). There a wide variety and vast quantity of PPCPs consumed by both humans and animals, and each has unique chemistry in terrestrial and aquatic environments. As such, not all have been assessed for their effects on soil, water, and air quality. The US EPA has surveyed sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plants across the US to assess levels of various PPCPs present.[4]

Heavy metals[edit]

The major inputs of heavy metals (e.g. lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury) into agricultural systems are fertilizers, organic wastes such as manures, and industrial byproduct wastes. Some farming techniques, such as irrigation, can lead to accumulation of selenium (Se) that occurs naturally in the soil.[5] This can result in downstream water reservoirs containing concentrations of selenium that are toxic to wildlife, livestock, and humans.[6] This process is known as the “Kesterson Effect,” eponymously named after a reservoir in the San Joaquin Valley (California, USA), which was declared a toxic waste dump in 1987 (see: Kesterson Reservoir).

Land management[edit]

Tillage and nitrous oxide emissions[edit]

Natural soil biogeochemical processes result in the emission of various greenhouse gases, including nitrous oxide. Agricultural management practices can affect emission levels. For example, tillage levels have also been shown to affect nitrous oxide emissions.[7]

Soil erosion
Soil erosion: soil has washed from a ploughed field through this gate and into a watercourse beyond.

Soil erosion and sedimentation[edit]

Agriculture contributes greatly to soil erosion and sediment deposition through intensive management or inefficient land cover.[8] It is estimated that agricultural land degradation is leading to an irreversible decline in fertility on about 6 million ha of fertile land each year.[9] The accumulation of sediments (i.e. sedimentation) in runoff water affects water quality in various ways.[10] Sedimentation can decrease the transport capacity of ditches, streams, rivers, and navigation channels. It can also limit the amount of light penetrating the water, which affects aquatic biota. The resulting turbidity from sedimentation can interfere with feeding habits of fishes, affecting population dynamics. Sedimentation also affects the transport and accumulation of pollutants, including phosphorus and various pesticides.

Biotic sources[edit]

Greenhouse gases from fecal waste[edit]

The United Nations, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) predicted that 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gases come directly or indirectly from the world’s livestock. This report also suggested that the emissions from livestock were greater than that of the transportation sector. While livestock do currently play a role in producing greenhouse gas emissions, the estimates have been argued to be a misrepresentation. While the FAO used a life cycle assessment of animal agriculture (i.e. all aspects including emissions from growing crops for feed, transportation to slaughter, etc.), they did not apply the same assessment for the transportation sector.[11]

Biopesticides[edit]

Biopesticides are pesticides derived from natural materials (animals, plants, microorganisms, certain minerals).[12] As an alternative to traditional pesticides, biopesticides can reduce overall agricultural pollution because they are safe to handle, usually do not strongly affect beneficial invertebrates or vertebrates, and have a short residual time.[12] Some concerns exist that biopesticides may have negative impacts on populations of nontarget species, however.[13]

In the United States, biopesticides are regulated by the Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) established in 1955. Because biopesticides are less harmful and have fewer environmental effects than other pesticides, the EPA does not require as much data to register their use. Many biopesticides are permitted under the National Organic Program, United States Department of Agriculture, standards for organic crop production.[12]

Introduced species[edit]

Invasive species[edit]

Yellow Star Thistle.
Centaurea solstitialis, an aggressively invasive weed, was probably introduced to North America in contaminated fodder seed. Agricultural practices such as tilling and livestock grazing aided in its rapid spread. It is toxic to horses, prevents native plants from growing (decreasing biodiversity and degrading natural ecosystems), and is a physical barrier to the migration of indigenous animals.

The increasing globalization of agriculture has resulted in the accidental transport of pests, weeds, and diseases to novel ranges. If they establish, they become an invasive species that can impact populations of native species[14] and threaten agricultural production.[2] For example, the transport of bumble bees reared in Europe and shipped to the United States and/or Canada for use as commercial pollinators has led to the introduction of an Old World parasite to the New World.[15] This introduction may play a role in recent native bumble bee declines in North America.[16] Agriculturally introduced species can also hybridize with native species resulting in a decline in genetic biodiversity [14] and threaten agricultural production[2] (see also invasive species).

Habitat disturbance (ecology) associated with farming practices themselves can also facilitate the establishment of these introduced organisms. Contaminated machinery, livestock and fodder, and contaminated crop or pasture seed can also lead to the spread of weeds.[17]

Quarantines (see biosecurity )are one way in which prevention of the spread of invasive species can be regulated at the policy level. A quarantine is a legal instrument that restricts the movement of infested material from areas where an invasive species is present to areas in which it is absent. The World Trade Organization has international regulations concerning the quarantine of pests and diseases under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. Individual countries often have their own quarantine regulations. In the United States, for example, the United States Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS) administers domestic (within the United States) and foreign (importations from outside the United States) quarantines. These quarantines are enforced by inspectors at state borders and ports of entry.[12]

Biological control[edit]

The use of biological pest control agents, or using predators, parasitoids, parasites, and pathogens to control agricultural pests, has the potential to reduce agricultural pollution associated with other pest control techniques, such as pesticide use. The merits of introducing non-native biocontrol agents have been widely debated, however. Once released, the introduction of a biocontrol agent can be irreversible. Potential ecological issues could include the dispersal from agricultural habitats into natural environments, and host-switching or adapting to utilize a native species. In addition, predicting the interaction outcomes in complex ecosystems and potential ecological impacts prior to release can be difficult. One example of a biocontrol program that resulted in ecological damage occurred in North America, where a parisitoid of butterflies was introduced to control gypsy moth and browntail moth. This parasitoid is capable of utilizing many butterfly host species, and likely resulted in the decline and extirpation of several native silk moth species.[18]

International exploration for potential biocontrol agents is aided by agencies such as the European Biological Control Laboratory, the United States Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service (USDA/ARS), the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, and the International Organization for Biological Control of Noxious Plants and Animals. In order to prevent agricultural pollution, quarantine and extensive research on the organism’s potential efficacy and ecological impacts are required prior to introduction. If approved, attempts are made to colonize and disperse the biocontrol agent in appropriate agricultural settings. Continual evaluations on their efficacy are conducted.[12]

Genetically modified organisms (GMO)[edit]

 Top: Lesser cornstalk borer larvae extensively damaged the leaves of this unprotected peanut plant. (Image Number K8664-2)-Photo by Herb Pilcher. Bottom: After only a few bites of peanut leaves of this genetically engineered plant (containing the genes of the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacteria), this lesser cornstalk borer larva crawled off the leaf and died. (Image Number K8664-1)-Photo by Herb Pilcher.
(Top) Non transgenic peanut leaves showing extensive damage from European corn borer larvae. (Bottom) Peanut leaves genetically engineered to produce Bt toxins are protected from herbivory damage.

Genetic contamination and ecological effects[edit]

GMO crops can, however, result in genetic contamination of native plant species through hybridization. This could lead to increased weediness of the plant or the extinction of the native species. In addition, the transgenic plant itself may become a weed if the modification improves its fitness in a given environment.[2]

There are also concerns that non-target organisms, such as pollinators and natural enemies, could be poisoned by accidental ingestion of Bt-producing plants. A recent study testing the effects of Bt corn pollen dusting nearby milkweed plants on larval feeding of the monarch butterfly found that the threat to populations of the monarch was low.[2]

The use of GMO crop plants engineered for herbicide resistance can also indirectly increase the amount of agricultural pollution associated with herbicide use. For example, the increased use of herbicide in herbicide-resistant corn fields in the mid-western United States is decreasing the amount of milkweeds available for monarch butterfly larvae.[2]

Regulations and policies towards genetically modified organisms vary based on the type of organism and the country concerned (see Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms).

GMO as a tool of pollution reduction[edit]

While there may be some concerns regarding the use of GM products, it may also be the solution to some of the existing animal agriculture pollution issues. One of the main sources of pollution, particularly vitamin and mineral drift in soils, comes from a lack of digestive efficiency in animals. By improving digestive efficiency, it is possible to minimize both the cost of animal production and the environmental damage. One successful example of this technology and it’s potential application is the Enviropig.

The Enviropig is a genetically modified Yorkshire pig that expresses phytase in its saliva. Grains, such as corn and wheat, have phosphorus that is bound in an naturally indigestible form known as phytic acid. Phosphorus, an essential nutrient for pigs, is then added to the diet, since it can not be broken down in the pigs digestive tract. As a result, nearly all of the phosphorus naturally found in the grain is wasted in the feces, and can contribute to elevated levels in the soil. Phytase is an enzyme that is able to break down the otherwise indigestible phytic acid, making it available to the pig. The ability of the Enviropig to digest the phosphorus from the grains eliminates the waste of that natural phosphorus (20-60% reduction), while also eliminating the need to supplement the nutrient in feed.[19]

Animal management[edit]

Manure management[edit]

One of the main contributors of air, soil and water pollution is animal waste. According to a 2005 report by the USDA, more than 335 million tons of "dry matter" waste (the waste after water is removed) is produced annually on farms in the United States.[20] Animal feeding operations produce about 100 times more manure than the amount of human sewage sludge processed in US municipal waste water plants each year. Diffuse source pollution from agricultural fertilizers is more difficult to trace, monitor and control. High nitrate concentrations are found in groundwater and may reach 50 mg/litre (the EU Directive limit). In ditches and river courses, nutrient pollution from fertilizers causes eutrophication. This is worse in winter, after autumn ploughing has released a surge of nitrates; winter rainfall is heavier increasing runoff and leaching, and there is lower plant uptake. The EPA suggests that one dairy farm with 2,500 cows produces as much waste as a city with around 411,000 residents.[21] The National Research Council has identified odors as the most significant animal emission problem at the local level. Different animal systems have adopted several waste management procedures to deal with the large amount of waste produced annually.

The advantages of manure treatment are a reduction in the amount of manure that needs to be transported and applied to crops, as well as reduced soil compaction. Nutrients are reduced as well, meaning that less cropland is needed for manure to be spread upon. Manure treatment can also reduce the risk of human health and biosecurity risks by reducing the amount of pathogens present in manure. Undiluted animal manure or slurry is one hundred times more concentrated than domestic sewage, and can carry an intestinal parasite, Cryptosporidium, which is difficult to detect but can be passed to humans. Silage liquor (from fermented wet grass) is even stronger than slurry, with a low pH and very high biological oxygen demand. With a low pH, silage liquor can be highly corrosive; it can attack synthetic materials, causing damage to storage equipment, and leading to accidental spillage. All of these advantages can be optimized by using the right manure management system on the right farm based on the resources that are available.

Manure treatment[edit]

Composting[edit]

Composting is a solid manure management system that relies on solid manure from bedded pack pens, or the solids from a liquid manure separator. There are two methods of composting, active and passive. Manure is churned periodically during active composting, whereas in passive composting it is not. Passive composting has been found to have lower green house gas emissions due to incomplete decomposition and lower gas diffusion rates.

Solid-liquid separation[edit]

Manure can be mechanically separated into a solid and liquid portion for easier management. Liquids (4-8% dry matter) can be used easily in pump systems for convenient spread over crops and the solid fraction (15-30% dry matter) can be used as stall bedding, spread on crops, composted or exported.

Anaerobic digestion and lagoons[edit]

Anaerobic digestion is the biological treatment of liquid animal waste using bacteria in an area absent of air, which promotes the decomposition of organic solids. Hot water is used to heat the waste in order to increase the rate of biogas production (Cornell University Manure Waste Management). The remaining liquid is nutrient rich and can be used on fields as a fertilizer and methane gas that can be burned in an engine generator to produce electricity and heat.[22][23] Methane is about 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, which has significant negative environmental effects if not controlled properly. Anaerobic treatment of waste is the best method for controlling the odor associated with manure management.[23]

Biological treatment lagoons also use anaerobic digestion to break down solids, but at a much slower rate. Lagoons are kept at ambient temperatures as opposed to the heated digestion tanks. Lagoons require large land areas and high dilution volumes to work properly, so they do not work well in many climates in the northern United States. Lagoons also offer the benefit of reduced odor and biogas is made available for heat and electric power.

Studies have demonstrated that GHG emissions are reduced using aerobic digestion systems. GHG emission reductions and credits can help compensate for the higher installation cost of cleaner aerobic technologies and facilitate producer adoption of environmentally superior technologies to replace current anaerobic lagoons.[24]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Environmental Databases | Pesticides | US EPA". Epa.gov. 2006-06-28. Retrieved 2013-07-24. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f Gullan, P.J. and Cranston, P.S. (2010) The Insects: An Outline of Entomology, 4th Edition. Blackwell Publishing UK: 584 pp.
  3. ^ (British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/pesticides/c_2.htm)
  4. ^ "Biosolids: Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey Report - Overview | Biosolids | US EPA". Water.epa.gov. Retrieved 2013-07-24. 
  5. ^ Ganje, T. J. Selenium. 1966. In: Chapman, H. D., ed. Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and Soils: 394-404.
  6. ^ Wu, Lin. 2004. Review of 15 years of research on ecotoxicology and remediation of land contaminated by agricultural drainage sediment rich in selenium. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 57(3): 248-257.
  7. ^ MacKenzie, AF et al. 1998. Nitrous oxide emission in three years as affected by tillage, corn-soybean-alfalfa rotations, and nitrogen fertilization. Journal of Environmental Quality 27:698-703.
  8. ^ Committee on Long-Range Soil and Water Conservation, National Research Council. 1993. Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.
  9. ^ Dudal, R. 1981. An evaluation of conservation needs. Pp. 3-12 in Soil Conservation, Problems and Prospects, R. P. C. Morgan, ed. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
  10. ^ Hangsleben, M and D Suh. 2006. Sediment pollution. Retrieved from http://www3.abe.iastate.edu/tsm424/TSM424TermProj2006/HangslebenSuhFinalPaper.pdf
  11. ^ Pitesky, ME et al. Clearing the Air: Livestock's Contribution to Climate Change. In Donald Sparks, editor: Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 103, Burlington: Academic Press, 2009, pp. 1-40.
  12. ^ a b c d e L. P. Pedigo, and M. Rice. 2009. Entomology and Pest Management, 6th Edition. Prentice Hall: 816 pp.
  13. ^ Montesinos, E. 2003. Development, registration and commercialization of microbial pesticides for plant protection. International Microbiology 6(4): 245-252.
  14. ^ a b Mooney, H. A., and E. E. Cleland. 2001. The evolutionary impact of native species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(10): 5446-5451.
  15. ^ "Bombus franklini (Franklin's Bumble Bee)". Iucnredlist.org. 2008-01-01. Retrieved 2013-07-24. 
  16. ^ Thorp, R.W. and M.D. Shepherd. 2005. Profile: Subgenus Bombus Lateille 1802 (Apidae: Apinae: Bombini). In: M.D. Shepherd, D.M. Vaughan, S.H. Black (eds.). Red list of pollinator insects of North America. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR.
  17. ^ "Weeds in Australia home page". Weeds.gov.au. 2013-06-12. Retrieved 2013-07-24. 
  18. ^ Louda, S. M., R. W. Pemberton, M. T. Johnson, and P. A. Follett. 2003. Nontarget effects- the Achilles-heel of biological control?: Retrospective analyses to reduce risk associated with biocontrol introductions. Annual Review of Entomology 48: 365-396.
  19. ^ Golovan SP, Meidinger RG, Ajakaiye A, et al. (August 2001). "Pigs expressing salivary phytase produce low-phosphorus manure". Nature Biotechnology 19 (8): 741–5
  20. ^ USDA Agricultural Research Service. "FY-2005 Annual Report Manure and Byproduct Utilization, 31 May 2006
  21. ^ US Environmental Protection Agency.2004 ""Risk Management Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations." US EPA National Risk Management Laboratory:7
  22. ^ GAO http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99205.pdf
  23. ^ a b Cornell University Manure Management, http://www.manuremanagement.cornell.edu/Pages/General_Docs/Fact_Sheets/Evaluating_Need_for_Manure_Treatment_System_factsheet.pdf
  24. ^ Vanotti M.B., Szogi A.A.,2008.Greenhouse gas emission reduction and environmental quality improvement from implementation of aerobic waste treatment systems in swine farms. Waste Management.