Thesis (MScAgric)--Stellenbosch University, 2015. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The world demand for animal proteins and profit-driven production has led to producing animal proteins intensively. Intensive pork production systems have traditionally had a poor image with the public, because these production systems are associated with environmental pollution. Currently, pigs are produced on highly specialised farms, and are fed concentrated (often imported) pig feed. The resulting higher production and higher animal densities contribute to an increased pollution of water, soil and air. The aim of this study is to determine the energy balance and emissions of three case studies, and to compare these results with their financial performance. The impacts will be recorded in the following impact categories: global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP) and Energy Use (EU). The case studies are three typical South African pig production facilities selected by the South African pork producer’s organisation (SAPPO). The production inputs, from the feed acquisition to the delivery of one kg of pig at the farm gate, were included. The three farms are located in different areas in South Africa, namely KwaZulu-Natal province (Case study 1), North-West province (Case study 2) and Western Cape province (Case study 3). The functional unit (FU) for this study is defined as 1 kg of South African pig (live-weight) at the farm gate. This study found that the GWP/FU of Case study 2 is 4 and 2 % higher than Case studies 1 and 3 respectively. The EP/FU of Case study 1 is 9 and 6 % higher than Case studies 2 and 3 respectively. The AP/FU of Case study 1 is 4 and 5 % higher than Case studies 2 and 3 respectively. The EU/FU of Case study 3 is 45 % and 16 % higher than Case studies 1 and 2 respectively. The major activities that contributed to the environmental impact categories were the slurry management activity, followed by electricity usage. The financial and environmental performance comparison did show deviations. Therefore, it is recommended that environmental and financial performance measurements be made, in order to create a true reflection of the impacts. The potential for improvement in financial and environmental performance proved to be significant in the productivity of the sow herd, as well as in the management of the piglets. The location of the production facility does not claim to hold have significant environmental or financial implications. Management of the emissions produced by piggeries can offset the impact of the piggery's location. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Nie beskikbaar.

Modern pig farming production may over burden the environment with organic substances, exposure of bacterial pathogens and introduction of resistance gene. This may be caused by the pig’s droppings, lack of seepage management or accidental spillage of seepage which may impact on the environment and its physicochemical parameters. The objective of this study is to determine and assess the level of bacteriological pollution emanating from the pig farm and their impact on the physicochemical parameters of soil and water as well as to identify the presence of antibiotic resistance gene of these prevailing bacteria. Soil and water samples were collected monthly for a period of six months (March- August 2013). Samples were collected at pig enclosures, soil 20 m and 100 m away from pig enclosures, constructed wetland used for treating pig farm wastewater, soil 20m and 100 m away from constructed wetland. Procedure followed for analysing soil and water samples includes physicochemical analyses, viable cell counts of 10-1 to 10-8 dilutions, identification of bacteria using API 20E test kit, antibiotic susceptibility analyses, and identification of resistance gene using molecular procedures. The media that were used for viable cell counts were, Nutrient agar, MacConkey Agar, Xylose Lysine Deoxycholate agar (XLD agar), and Eosin Methylene Blue (EMB). Physicochemical parameters of water showed unacceptable high levels of analysed parameters for BOD (163 mg/L to 3350 mg/L), TDS (0.77 g/L to 6.48 mg/L), COD (210 mg/L to 9400 mg/L), NO3 (55 mg/L to 1680 mg/L), NO2 (37.5 mg/L to 2730 mg/L), and PO43− (50 mg/L to 1427 mg/L) were higher than the maximum permissible limits set by Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). For soil samples TDS (0.01g/L to 0.88 g/L), COD (40 mg/L to 304 mg/L), NO3 (32.5 mg/L to 475 mg/L), and NO2 (7.35 mg/L to 255 mg/L) and PO43- (32.5 mg/L to 475 mg/L ) were observed to be higher than recommended limits set by Federal Ministry for the Environmental (FME). The viable cells in soil samples 30cm depth ranged from 0 cfu/mL to 2.44 x 1010cfu/mL, in soil 5cm depth ranged from 1.00 x 101 cfu/mL to 1.91 x 1010 cfu/mL, and in water samples viable cells ranged from 5.00 x 101 to 5.05 x 109. Pseudomonas luteola (Ps. luteola), Escherichia vulneris (E. vulneris), Salmonella choleraesuis spp arizonae, Escherichia coli 1(E. coli 1), Enterobacter cloacae, Pseudomonas flourescens/putida (Ps. flourescens/putida), Enterobacter aerogenes, Serratia ordoriferal, Pasteurella pneumotropica, Ochrobactrum antropi, Proteus vulgaris group, Proteus vulgaris, Salmonella spp, Aeromonas Hydrophila/caviae/sobria1, Proteus Mirabillis, Vibrio fluvials, Rahnella aquatillis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Ps. aeruginosa), Burkholderia Cepacia, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (St. maltophilia), Shwenella putrefaciens, Klebsiela pneumonia, Cedecea davisa, Serratia liquefaciens, Serratia plymuthica, Enterobacter sakaziki, Citrobacter braakii, Enterobacter amnigenus 2, Yersinia pestis, Serratia ficaria, Enterobacter gergoriae, Enterobacter amnigenus 1, Serratia marcescens, Raoutella terrigena, Hafnia alvei 1, Providencia rettgeri, and Pantoa were isolated from soil and water samples from the pig farm. Isolates were highly resistant to Penicillin G, Sulphamethaxazole, Vancomycin, Tilmocozin, Oxytetracycline, Spectinomycin, Lincomycin, and Trimethoprim. The most resistance genes detected in most isolates were aa (6’)-le-aph (2”)-la, aph (2”)-lb, aph (3”)-llla, Van A, Van B, Otr A and Otr B. Pig farm seepage is causing bacterial pollution which is impacting negatively on the natural environment in the vicinity of pig farm by introducing bacterial pathogens that have an antibiotic resistance gene and is increasing the physicochemical parameters for soil and water in the natural environment at the pig farm. It is therefore recommended that pig farms should consider the need to implement appropriate regulatory agencies that may include the regular monitoring of the qualities of final effluents from waste water treatment facilities. In addition there is a need to limit soil pollution in order to safe guard the natural environment in the vicinity of pig farm from bacteriological pollution and introduction of antibiotic resistance gene. It is also recommended that more advanced technologies should be introduced that will assist pig farms to manages the seepage properly. / Environmental Sciences / M. Sc. (Environmental Sciences)

Modern pig farming production may over burden the environment with organic substances, exposure of bacterial pathogens and introduction of resistance gene. This may be caused by the pig’s droppings, lack of seepage management or accidental spillage of seepage which may impact on the environment and its physicochemical parameters. The objective of this study is to determine and assess the level of bacteriological pollution emanating from the pig farm and their impact on the physicochemical parameters of soil and water as well as to identify the presence of antibiotic resistance gene of these prevailing bacteria. Soil and water samples were collected monthly for a period of six months (March- August 2013). Samples were collected at pig enclosures, soil 20 m and 100 m away from pig enclosures, constructed wetland used for treating pig farm wastewater, soil 20m and 100 m away from constructed wetland. Procedure followed for analysing soil and water samples includes physicochemical analyses, viable cell counts of 10-1 to 10-8 dilutions, identification of bacteria using API 20E test kit, antibiotic susceptibility analyses, and identification of resistance gene using molecular procedures. The media that were used for viable cell counts were, Nutrient agar, MacConkey Agar, Xylose Lysine Deoxycholate agar (XLD agar), and Eosin Methylene Blue (EMB). Physicochemical parameters of water showed unacceptable high levels of analysed parameters for BOD (163 mg/L to 3350 mg/L), TDS (0.77 g/L to 6.48 mg/L), COD (210 mg/L to 9400 mg/L), NO3 (55 mg/L to 1680 mg/L), NO2 (37.5 mg/L to 2730 mg/L), and PO43− (50 mg/L to 1427 mg/L) were higher than the maximum permissible limits set by Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). For soil samples TDS (0.01g/L to 0.88 g/L), COD (40 mg/L to 304 mg/L), NO3 (32.5 mg/L to 475 mg/L), and NO2 (7.35 mg/L to 255 mg/L) and PO43- (32.5 mg/L to 475 mg/L ) were observed to be higher than recommended limits set by Federal Ministry for the Environmental (FME). The viable cells in soil samples 30cm depth ranged from 0 cfu/mL to 2.44 x 1010cfu/mL, in soil 5cm depth ranged from 1.00 x 101 cfu/mL to 1.91 x 1010 cfu/mL, and in water samples viable cells ranged from 5.00 x 101 to 5.05 x 109. Pseudomonas luteola (Ps. luteola), Escherichia vulneris (E. vulneris), Salmonella choleraesuis spp arizonae, Escherichia coli 1(E. coli 1), Enterobacter cloacae, Pseudomonas flourescens/putida (Ps. flourescens/putida), Enterobacter aerogenes, Serratia ordoriferal, Pasteurella pneumotropica, Ochrobactrum antropi, Proteus vulgaris group, Proteus vulgaris, Salmonella spp, Aeromonas Hydrophila/caviae/sobria1, Proteus Mirabillis, Vibrio fluvials, Rahnella aquatillis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Ps. aeruginosa), Burkholderia Cepacia, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (St. maltophilia), Shwenella putrefaciens, Klebsiela pneumonia, Cedecea davisa, Serratia liquefaciens, Serratia plymuthica, Enterobacter sakaziki, Citrobacter braakii, Enterobacter amnigenus 2, Yersinia pestis, Serratia ficaria, Enterobacter gergoriae, Enterobacter amnigenus 1, Serratia marcescens, Raoutella terrigena, Hafnia alvei 1, Providencia rettgeri, and Pantoa were isolated from soil and water samples from the pig farm. Isolates were highly resistant to Penicillin G, Sulphamethaxazole, Vancomycin, Tilmocozin, Oxytetracycline, Spectinomycin, Lincomycin, and Trimethoprim. The most resistance genes detected in most isolates were aa (6’)-le-aph (2”)-la, aph (2”)-lb, aph (3”)-llla, Van A, Van B, Otr A and Otr B. Pig farm seepage is causing bacterial pollution which is impacting negatively on the natural environment in the vicinity of pig farm by introducing bacterial pathogens that have an antibiotic resistance gene and is increasing the physicochemical parameters for soil and water in the natural environment at the pig farm. It is therefore recommended that pig farms should consider the need to implement appropriate regulatory agencies that may include the regular monitoring of the qualities of final effluents from waste water treatment facilities. In addition there is a need to limit soil pollution in order to safe guard the natural environment in the vicinity of pig farm from bacteriological pollution and introduction of antibiotic resistance gene. It is also recommended that more advanced technologies should be introduced that will assist pig farms to manages the seepage properly. / Environmental Sciences / M. Sc. (Environmental Sciences)