This document summarizes water quality monitoring research being conducted near a hog farm in the Buffalo River Watershed in Arkansas. Key findings so far include: - Monitoring of nutrient and bacteria levels in surface runoff from fields where hog waste is applied has found concentrations of phosphorus and solids below levels of concern. - Monitoring upstream and downstream of the farm has not found any consistent trends in nutrient or bacteria levels that could be attributed to the farm. Natural variability and hydrologic legacies make conclusive impacts difficult to determine. - The researchers plan to continue monitoring for over 4 more years to account for variability and gain more conclusive results on potential water quality impacts. They note that transparency is important but can lead to data

1. o
Assessing the Impact of Farm
Management on Water Quality:
Can Science Really Change
Public Perceptions?
Andrew Sharpley & Mike Daniels

2.  Farm established in Buffalo River Watershed in
early 2013
 Capacity for 6,500 hogs; operating at 2,500
piglets
 State legislature obligated $350,000 to monitor
impact of farm on area water quality
C&H Hog Operation

3. Chert formation
St. Joe formation
Boone formation
Chattanooga
formation
Sink holes
Dissolution channels
Springs

4. Point (rapid)
infiltration
Diffuse (slow)
infiltration
Flow
conduits
Water flow pathways &
residence times are
highly variable
Surface runoff

5. 4/15: Moratorium On New Industrial Hog
Farms Near Buffalo River Extended
2/14: Pig Farm Threatens Buffalo River
4/14: E. Coli Soars in Big Creek
6/14: EPA Finds No Issues at C&H Hog
Farms

6. • In the Buffalo River
Watershed
• Nation’s first Scenic
River – 1972
• In 2014, 1.5 m tourists
spent $47 m locally
• Anti-factory/industrial
farming movement
• Right-to-farm
• All planning
requirements met
• Helps local rural
economy
• Provides jobs

7. Big Creek
Watershed
Big Creek
Hog barns

8. Spring
Ephemeral stream
Big Creek
Field 5a
Field 1
Field 12
Field runoff sites

9.  Storm & weekly sampling of base
flow in Big Creek & springs
 Nutrients, sediment, bacteria
 Field runoff & leaching sampling on
application fields
 Grid-soil sampling & forage yields
 Manure treatment evaluation
Measurements taken

11. Downstream site

12. Flow Nitrate-N

13. ISCO sampler
Flume

14. What have we found so far?

15. #
events
Slurry,
gals/acre
Soil test
P, mg/kg
Diss. P Total P Solids
Field 1 13 3,000 59 0.356 0.571 38
Field 12 2 3,030 63 0.435 0.660 49
Field 5a 5 0 45 0.580 0.927 41
Mean concentration in surface runoff April,
2014 to June 2015, mg/L
~0.10 inches slurry applied; ~15 kg P/ha

16. 0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Upstream of farm
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
9/1/2013 12/1/2013 3/1/2014 6/1/2014 9/1/2014 12/1/2014 3/1/2015 6/1/2015
Downstream of farm
Storm flow
Base flow
Storm flow
Base flow
Slurry
applications start

17. -0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
9/1/2013 12/1/2013 3/1/2014 6/1/2014 9/1/2014 12/1/2014 3/1/2015 6/1/2015
Greater downstream
Greater upstream
Storm flow
Base flow

18. 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Storm flow
Base flow
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
9/1/2013 12/1/2013 3/1/2014 6/1/2014 9/1/2014 12/1/2014 3/1/2015 6/1/2015
Storm flow
Base flow
Upstream of farm
Downstream of farm

19. -0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
9/1/2013 12/1/2013 3/1/2014 6/1/2014 9/1/2014 12/1/2014 3/1/2015 6/1/2015
Greater downstream
Greater upstream
Storm flow
Base flow

20. -1,000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
9/1/2013 12/1/2013 3/1/2014 6/1/2014 9/1/2014 12/1/2014 3/1/2015 6/1/2015
Greater downstream
Greater upstream
Storm flow
Base flow

21. Had vandalism at one site but decided
not to pursue relocating it
Respect local’s privacy
Word gets around Mt Judea darn quick
Karst features 15 to 30’ below surface
Natural nutrient & bacteria variability
No consistent water quality trends yet
We plan for >4 more years of monitoring

22.  System variability due to hydrologic &
nutrient legacies creates uncertainty
 Transparency critical but leads to data misuse
 A lot of rhetoric comes from outside
watershed, even outside the State
 Farm management must adapt to findings
 Science will be used by permitting &
regulatory agencies
 Those at the extremes of opinion will likely
not be swayed

23. Big Creek
With permission:
Barbara Hinton,
Prof. Emeritus, U of A