You are here:
LAGOON WATER FROM CONFINED ANIMAL FEED OPERATIONS AND AMPHIBIAN DEVELOPMENT
Citation:
Dumont, J. N., S. Slagle, AND S R. Hutchins*. LAGOON WATER FROM CONFINED ANIMAL FEED OPERATIONS AND AMPHIBIAN DEVELOPMENT. Presented at 22nd Annual SETAC Meeting, Baltimore, MD, 11/11-15/01.
Description:
Lagoon Water from Confined Animal Feed Operations and Amphibian Development. Dumont, J. N.* and Slagle, S., Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, and Hutchins, S. R., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (NRMRL/SPRD), Ada, OK. There is some evidence that confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are a potential source of various organic and inorganic materials that could be detrimental to ecosystems. We have examined the effects of lagoon water from a swine and beef cattle CAFO on developing amphibians. FETAX studies of swine CAFO lagoon water indicate that it is embryolethal at a concentration of 25%. Abnormal development becomes significant at 15% and at 20% all surviving embryos are abnormal. Beef CAFO lagoon water is less toxic causing only 28% mortality at 100% concentration in FETAX tests. Embryo malformation rates were within normal control limits. Tail resorption studies using older embryos and 30% swine CAFO water show a significant increase in the metamorphic rate. Metamorphosis occured in 23 days following exposure while controls required 41 days. Further, the resulting froglets were significantly larger than the controls. Reasons for this are unclear but the water does contain a large population of bacteria that may have provided an additional food source. Alternatively, some components in the water, e.g.., growth promoters (hormones) or endocrine disruptors (thyroxin), may be present. Water from the beef CAFO lagoon was tested at 100% in the tail resorption studies. Unlike the effects of swine lagoon water, water from the beef CAFO significantly retards metamorphosis. Interestingly, there is little difference in the size of the froglets between test and control groups. Reasons for this effect are unclear. The water contains less bacterial growth and the effects may be simply a matter of the higher toxicity of the water.
Notice: This is an abstract of a proposed presentation and does not necessarily reflect EPA policy.