Hayvansal Üretim Açısından Su Kalitesi ve İki Yönlü Etkileri

Year 2020, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 122 - 129, 29.09.2020

Mesut Yıldırır

https://doi.org/10.21657/topraksu.780468

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Hayvansal üretim için güvenilir ve iyi kalitede içme suyu kullanımı temel gereksinimdir. Hayvansal üretimin çevresel etkileri açısından yüzey akışı ve su kaynaklarını kirletmesi önemlidir. Ankara ilinde üç yıl sürede gerçekleştirilen (2017-2019) toplam 628 adet su analizi hayvansal üretim açısından değerlendirilmiştir. Ayrıca bölgede hayvansal üretim ve gübre yönetimi su kaynaklarına potansiyel etkileri bakımından değerlendirilmiştir. Fiziko-kimyasal özellikleri bakımından sularda; toplam çözünmüş katı madde (TDS), pH, kalsiyum, sodyum, magnezyum, sülfat ve bor değerleri incelenmiştir. Genel TDS ortalaması 1003,07±75,54 mg/l bulunmuştur. TDS değerlerinde riskli olarak bildirilen 3.000 mg/l üzerinde 36 örnek (5.7%) belirlenmiştir. Hayvancılık açısından riskli olacak oranlar; sülfat için %4,9 (>1.000 mg/l); pH için %1,0 (>9,0) ve bor için %7,5 olarak belirlenmiştir. TDS risk grubu açısından oranlar düşük bulunmuştur. Bor oranlarında üst limiti geçen değerler ise yüksektir. Ankara ili için ortalama hayvancılık birimi (LU) Türkiye ortalamasına yakın 0,25 LU/ha ve toplamda Türkiye’nin toplam 16,02 milyon LU birimi içerisinde 560.838 LU olarak belirlenmiştir. Hayvancılık yoğunluğu ilçeler arasında 0,08 LU/ha ile 0,75 LU/ha arasında değişiklik göstermiştir. Özellikle yüksek yoğunluklu alanlarda gübre depoları gözlenmeli, planlama yapılmalı ve su kaynakları üzerinde etkilerinin azaltılması için mecburi önlemler alınmalıdır.

Keywords

Hayvansal yoğunluk,, hayvancılık birimi,, su kalitesi,, su kirliliği

Water Quality and Two-Way Effects in Terms of Animal Production

Abstract

The use of safe, quality water sources as drinking water in livestock production is essential. Effects of livestock production on water sources by potential runoff and contamination is an environmental concern. A total of 628 water quality analyzes, carried out in Ankara province during three years (2017-2019), were evaluated in terms of animal production. In addition, the potential effects of animal production and manure management practices on water resources were evaluated. Water physicochemical properties of; total dissolved solids (TDS), pH, calcium, sodium, magnesium, sulfate and boron were evaluated. Based on the results obtained in the water analyze reports, the possible effects of water quality properties on animal production were discussed. In terms of salinity, the mean concentration of TDS was 1003,07±75,54 mg/l. TDS values above 3.000 mg/l were observed in 36 samples (5,7%) in total above the upper limit recommended for various livestock species. According to livestock requirements water samples of; 4,9% above upper limit of 1.000 mg/l for sulfate; 1,0% was above 9,0 pH, and 7,5% exceed upper limit for boron. It was found that TDS hazards are low, hence the water of the study area is suitable for livestock usage. Excessive boron levels might restrict the usage of the study area for livestock. Ankara province represent around the mean value of livestock unit (LU) in Turkey as 0,25 LU/ha and 560.838 LU in a total of 16,02 million LU in Turkey. Livestock density ranged from 0,08 LU/ha to 0,75 LU/ha between districts. Especially in the high density areas, manure depots should be monitored, planned, necessary precautions should be taken in a way to minimize the effects on water resources and to prevent water contamination. 

Keywords

Animal density,, livestock unit,, water quality,, water pollution

References

• Adams RS, Sharpe WE (1995). Water intake and quality for dairy cattle. Penn State Extension, Publ. 95-8. 11.08.2020
• Anonymous (2014). Farm Water Quality Considerations. New Nouveau Brunswick Canada. https://www2.gnb.ca/. 20.11.2018.
• Anonymous (2020a). Province and district areas. https://www.harita.gov.tr/il-ve-ilce-yuzolcumleri. 01.08.2020.
• Anonymous (2020c). Interpreting drinking water tests for dairy cows. https://extension.psu.edu/interpreting-drinkingwater-tests-for-dairy-cows. 11.08.2020.
• ANZECC (2000). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality volume 1. The Guidelines. No: 4. www.waterquality.gov.au. 11.08.2020.
• Bagley CV, Amacher JK, Poe KF (1997). Analysis of water quality for livestock. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu. 20.11.2018.
• Beede DK (1993). Water nutrition and quality for dairy cattle. Western large herd management conference. Las Vegas Nevada-USA. http://agebb.missouri.edu.10.10.2018.
• Beede DK (2006). Evaluation of water quality and nutrition for dairy cattle. High Plains Dairy Conference. Albuquerque, NM. pp 129-154.
• Beede DK. 2012. What will our ruminants drink? Animal Frontiers 2: 36-43.
• Beede DK (2008). Evaluation of Water Quality and Nutrition for Dairy Cattle. Bucknell Nutrition Conference, Lewisburg, PA, July 15, 2008.
• Braul L, Kirychuk B (2001). Water quality and cattle. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, October 2001, pp.1-6.
• Cammack KM, Austin KJ, Olson KC, Wright KL (2012). Treatment of High-Sulfate Water used for Livestock Production Systems. Final Report. www.uwyo.edu/pdf. 12.10.2018.
• Can ME, Alagöz T (2014). Effects of livestock manure obtained from cattle breeding enterprises on shallow groundwater in Adana province. Çukurova Üniversity Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture. 31 (3): 13-22.
• Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharpley AN, Smith VH (1998). Non-Point Pollution of Surface Waters with Phosphorus and Nitrogen. Ecological Applications. 8 (3): 559-568.
• Carson L (2000). Current knowledge of water quality and safety for livestock. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 16:3, November-2000.
• Çayır M, Atılgan A, Öz H (2012). Examinations of manure condition from cattle barns related to water resources. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Süleyman Demirel Üniversity. 7 (2):1-9.
• Demirulus H, Aydın A (1996). Reducing enviromental pollution by processıng of poultry by products and wastes. Ekoloji Çevre Dergisi, 19: 22-26.
• Dida MF (2017). Review paper on determining stocking rate in tropical countries by the use of tropical animal unit month (Taum). International Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2 (1): 48-51. doi: 10.11648/jijmb.20170201.19.
• EUROSTAT (2020). Agri-environmental indicator - livestock patterns. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics. 11.08.2020.
• FAO (2011). Guidelines for the preparation of livestock sector reviews. Animal Production and Health Guidelines. No. 5. Rome.
• Fairchild BD, Ritz CW (2020). Poultry drinking water primer. UGA Extension Bulletin 1301. https://secure.caes.uga.edu. 11.08.2020.
• German D, Thiex N, Wright C (2008). Interpretation of water analysis for livestock suitability. https://erams.com/pdf.11.08.2020.
• Göncü-Karakök S, Özkütük K, Görgülü M (2008). Sığır yetiştiriciliğinde su gereksinimi ve içme suyu kalitesi. Hasad Hayvancılık. 279: 44-51.
• Harris BL, Hoffman DW, Mazac FJ (1996). Reducing the risk of ground water contamination by improving livestock holding pen management. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, College Station, Texas. 11.08.2020
• Hooda PS, Edwards AC, Andeson HA, Miller A (2000). A review of water quality concerns in livestock farming areas. The Science of the Total Environment 250: 143-167.
• Karaman S (2006). Environmental pollutions caused by animal barns and solution possibilities. KSU, Journal of Science and Engineering. 9: 133-139.
• Kocaman İ, İstanbulluoğlu A, Kurç HC, Öztürk G (2015). Investigation of environmental problems in farms caused by animal wastes in agribusiness of Edirne-Uzunköprü region. Journal of Tekirdağ Agricultural Faculty. 12 (2): 92-98.
• Lardy G, Stoltenow C, Johnson R (2008). Livestock and water. North Dakota State University Extension Service, Fargo, North Dakota 58105. June 2008. 11.08.2020
• Oenema O (2005). Governmental policies and measures regulating nitrogen and phosphorus from animal manure in European Agriculture. Journal of Animal Science, 82: 13.
• Olkowski AA (2009). Livestock water quality, A field guide for cattle, horses, poultry and swine. Agriculture and Agri-Food, Canada.
• Öztürk İ, Ünal HB (2011). Evaluation of Manure Management in Dairy Cattle Farms: The Case of İzmir - Tire (Turkey) Region. Kafkas Unv. Veteriner Fakültesi D. 17 (5):741-747.
• Parish J (2020). Quality water for beef cattle. https://extension.msstate.edu/. 11.08.2020.
• Sangodoyin AY, Ogedengbe K (1991). Subsurface water quality and quantity from the standpoint of irrigation and livestock, International Journal of Environmental Studies, 38:4, 251-262.
• Smith KA, Frost JP (2000). Nitrogen excretion by farm livestock with respect to land spreading requirements and controlling nitrogen losses to ground and surface waters. Part 1: cattle and sheep. Bioresource Technology 71 (2): 173‐181.
• TUIK (2020). Animal production statistics. https://biruni. tuik.gov.tr. 11.08.2020.
• Valente-Campos S, Spry DJ, Palhares JCP, Rudez LMJ, Umbuzeiro GA (2019). Critical issues and alternatives for the establishment of chemical water quality criteria for livestock. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 104: 108-114.
• Waldner DN, Looper ML (2020). Water for dairy cattle. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. ANSI-4275. Available. https://www.landcan.org/pdfs.
• Wright CL (2007). Management of water quality for beef cattle, Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice, 23: 1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2006.12.002.