Chemical, biological, and DNA markers for tracing slaughterhouse effluent
Introduction
When industrial and agricultural operations are situated alongside residential land, conflicts arise from the different needs and expectations of land users (Fowler and Shi, 2016, James and O'Neill, 2016, Pribadi and Pauleit, 2016, Wei et al., 2016). Animal husbandry and slaughter facilities are frequently the subject of community complaints and environmental investigations by regulatory authorities, with claims of pollution often vigorously rebutted (e.g. Bienkowski, 2015 and Heaney et al., 2015). Poultry processing facilities are frequently investigated as they produce significant volumes of contaminated waste water that can adversely impact the adjacent environment (Gan and Hu, 2016).
To implement more effective and costly pollution management, the primary hurdle is concurrence from industry that practices need to change. Typically, this requires sufficient proof that the target pollutants are linked to industrial or agricultural sources. In this regard, it can be difficult to establish definitive evidence, which is particularly important when major changes to a polluter's operations are required to bring it in line with licence arrangements or public expectations. This hurdle can be overcome in two main ways: (a) using a weight of evidence derived from a suite of biological, chemical and physical environmental measures and their spatial-temporal associations with respect to a possible polluter; (b) the production of evidentiary material to show an unequivocal causal link between indices of pollution and known activities at a site.
In addressing the challenges of identifying the source of pollution, this current study sets out the application of a forensic, multiple lines of evidence approach to identify the source of environmental pollution that has been previously linked, but never proven, to a livestock (chicken) slaughtering and processing facility (the facility) located in the rural the outskirts of northern Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. The facility adjoins semi-rural residential allotments (~ 5 ha) and light agricultural activities. It is situated at the top of a small headwater catchment with runoff passing through several adjoining properties before entering an ecologically sensitive national park (Fig. 1).
The facility and its operations are licenced under a New South Wales Environment Protection Authority (NSW EPA) environment protection licence (NSW EPA, 2016b). The NSW EPA is an independent statutory authority whose role, inter alia, is to ‘work with the community, business, industry and government to maintain a balance between protecting the environment, managing competing demands on the environment and supporting sustainable growth’ (NSW EPA, 2016a). Like most EPAs, one of its key roles as set out by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) (POEO Act), is to manage and regulate pollution via environment protection licences (NSW EPA, 2016a). Community feedback about environmental problems, often through the NSW EPA's Environment Line, is used to help inform it in executing compliance with respect to environmental protection licence requirements (NSW EPA, 2013, EPA, 2015). The facility's environmental licence permits irrigation of its effluent water at a set number of adjoining allotments (Fig. 1) at a rate such that does not result in off-site discharge.
The environmental impact and management practices of the facility examined here have been the subject of debate including controversial discussion in the NSW Parliament and local media (e.g. Cordina, 2000; Gallacher, 2000; Hornsby Advocate, 1998, Hornsby, 2000a, Hornsby, 2000b; Howard, 2000; Inshaw, 2000, Inshaw, 2001; Rhiannon, 2000, Ward, 2000a, Ward, 2000b). The facility has received numerous non-compliance notifications over the period of its operating licence (EPA, 2015). It appears that the NSW EPA has not had sufficient evidentiary material to unequivocally confirm the link between the facility activities as the source of water pollution and the consequent deleterious geochemical and biological impacts on the adjoining environment.
This study uses a range of conventional (e.g. faecal coliform analysis, total phosphorus and nitrogen) and novel (e.g. arsenic speciation and chicken DNA detection) environmental markers to decipher the source(s) of the environmental pollution around the facility. In doing so, this study examines the utility of applying a suite of conventional and alternative environmental markers for resolving environmental pollution problems.
Section snippets
Methods and approach
The field setting for this study is complex in that there are a number of separate watercourses and an above-ground pipe network that conveys discharge from the facility to domestic lots as well as to lots listed on the slaughter facility's licence as its effluent utilisation zone (Fig. 1). A targeted sampling strategy was used to: (a) sample suspected run-off from the facility; (b) assess the quality of water piped to domestic lots and the effluent utilisation zone; (c) sample discharge in
Results and discussion
Given that samples were only collected from flowing water when there was available run-off, some sites are absent of data at times due to an absence of discharge (Fig. 1; Table 1).
Samples (n=4) collected on 7 October 2014 reflect the baseline flow conditions through the upper catchment watercourses (mean values: faecal coliforms 118 cfu/100 mL; ammonia 17 µg/L; nitrogen 3100 µg/L; phosphorus 1310 µg/L; Fig. 1; Table 1). Site J, which is downstream of a small dam located on a residential property
Conclusions
Regulators and researchers attempting to source apportion pollution face multiple hurdles with respect to compiling unequivocal evidence. This study's application of a multiple lines of evidence approach using chemical, biological, DNA and PCR markers for tracing slaughterhouse effluent offers a reliable and robust framework for delineating pollution sources and evaluating extant environmental management practices. Specifically, in this example, the application of analytical tools not used
Acknowledgements
P.J. Harvey is funded by a Macquarie University Research Excellence Scholarship (MQRES) (2012195) associated with an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship awarded to H. K. Handley (FT120100440). M.R. Gillings is supported by the Australian Research Council. At the time of writing, M.P. Taylor was undertaking a Review of the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority's (NSW EPA) Management of Contaminated Sites, which was commissioned by the NSW Minister for the Environment. One of
References (54)
- et al.
The Effect of Dietary 3-nitro-4-Hydroxyphenylarsonic acid (roxarsone) on the total arsenic level in broiler excreta and broiler litter
J. Appl. Poult. Res.
(2001) - et al.
Photodegradation of roxarsone in poultry litter leachates
Sci. Total Environ.
(2003) - et al.
Controls on roxarsone transport in agricultural watersheds
Appl. Geochem.
(2005) - et al.
An ecological perspective on US industrial poultry production: the role of anthropogenic ecosystems on the emergence of drug-resistance bacteria from agricultural enviroments
Curr. opiion Microbiol.
(2011) - et al.
Source tracking swine fecal waste in surface water proximal to swine concentrated animal feeding operations
Sci. Total Environ.
(2015) - et al.
Fate of arsenic compounds in poultry litter upon land application
Chemosphere
(2006) - et al.
Species-specific PCR for the identification of ovine, porcine and chicken species in meat and bone meal (MBM)
Mol. Cell. Probes
(2001) - et al.
Arsenic species in poultry feather meal
Sci. Total Environ.
(2012) - et al.
Peri-urban agriculture in Jabodetabek Metropolitan Area and its relationship with the urban socioeconomic system
Land Use Policy
(2016) - et al.
Environmental, economic and social analysis of peri-urban pig production
J. Clean. Prod.
(2016)