IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

Research article
erd

Evaluation of Dust Generation from Animal Farm Activities
BARRY N. NOLLER*
The University of Queensland, Centre For Mined Land Rehabilitation, Queensland 4072,
Australia
Email: b.noller@uq.edu.au
Received 7 January 2018

Accepted 10 May 2018(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Dust generated in feedlots from roads, animal activity in pens, and equipment canhave detrimental effects on air quality for animals, workers and surrounding communities.
Controlling dust in cattle feedlots requires an understand of the key sources and processes
needed to better manage dust generation and associated activities. There is growing
recognition internationally that dust sources from the agricultural sector may contribute toregional sources with both local and area wide effects on the population, animals and otherbiota in the environment. Monitoring of fine 10 micron-sized particulate matter (PM10 air
particulate matter) over the last decade shows that agricultural activities can contribute toregional dust generation from diffuse sources such as from farms and feedlots. The basic
features and processes of manure generation at feedlots and storage with water are dried to
become a source of dust but other subtle phenomena associated with interaction of
conditions and constituents are being identified. In the Central Plains of the United States
antibiotic residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria absorbed on particles have been
observed. By understanding the processes of dust generation from feedlots as diffuse
sources, it should be possible to identify risks to the population, animals and other biota inthe environment. Sustainable production systems rely on keeping soil in place and in good
health, efficient use of water, minimizing nutrient loss and maintaining or enhancing
biodiversity. This is primarily achieved through management of the pasture base (native,
naturalized and sown) in a highly variable and changing climate. This review provides asummary of the significant advances in dust suppression technologies and strategies tosuppress dust generated from farms. It also identifies that emerging issues including thedispersion of antibiotics, antibiotic-resistant genes and human-pathogenic bacteria on dust
particles from feedlots require managing.
Keywords dust generation, animal feedlots, sustainable, management

INTRODUCTION
Dust generated in feedlots from roads, animal activity in pens, and equipment is recognised ashaving detrimental effects on air quality for animals, workers and surrounding communities(Galvin et al., 2005). For satisfactory suppression and control of dust in cattle feedlots it isnecessary to understand the key sources and processes to give better management of dust
generation and associated activities. In Australia, National guidelines were adopted in 1992 forbeef cattle feedlots but the regulations vary from state to state (ARMCANZ, 2003).
The scale of feedlot dust generation is related to their number; for example, in Australia there
are over 400, with a nominal estimate of over 1,000,000 cattle fluctuating with drought conditions(Jones et al., 2017). The cost of feedlot dust generation was estimated to be more than AUD5
billion nationally per annum (Jones et al., 2017). Management techniques typically centre on
regular pen cleaning, watering of roads, and use of in-pen sprinklers during peak times of dustgenerating behaviour. Whilst National guidelines identify basic requirements for managing feedlots,
they don’t indicate all interactive factors that are associated with feedlot management (Galvin et al.,2005). In addition, there is growing recognition of dust sources from the agricultural sector which
may contribute to regional sources with both local and area wide effects on the population, animals
and other biota in the environment.
Ⓒ ISERD

88

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

Particulate matter (PM) is categorized according to various diameters or sizes based on thephysical property of airborne material (NEPC, 2002). The measurement of ambient 24-hr average
air concentrations of air particulates may cover the following categories: (i) Total suspended
particulates (TSP, <50 μm in diameter); (ii) PM10 suspended particulates (<10 μm in diameter); (iii)
PM2.5 suspended particulates (<2.5 μm in diameter, “respirable”); and (iv) Particle identification in
the TSP fraction of the dust. No data on typical dust fall levels for Australian beef cattle feedlots
was confirmed (Jones et al. 2017) and no guidelines exist for dust fallout. However, theQueensland recommended guideline for fallout dust is 120 mg/m2/day for nuisance soiling ofproperty and is adopted from the NSW guideline (DEHP, 2013).
Monitoring of fine air particulate matter (<10 µm in diameter or PM10 suspended particulates)
over the last decade shows that agricultural activities can contribute to regional dust generationfrom diffuse sources such as from farms and feedlots (NPI, 2001). Whilst manure needs to be dried
to become a source, there are subtle phenomena associated with interaction of conditions andconstituents that are being identified (Wilson et al., 2002). In the Central Plains of the United States,
antibiotic residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria absorbed on particles are identified as hazardousand may be dispersed by wind (McEachran et al., 2015).
By understanding the processes of dust generation from feedlots as diffuse sources, it should
be possible to identify if uncontrolled processes are risks to the population, animals and other biota
in the environment that may be causing undescribed effects. The significance of this step is inbeing able to properly describe any risks associated with dust generation that may be shown to be
detrimental to the population, animals and other biota in the environment. Sustainable production
systems rely on keeping soil in place and in good health, efficient use of water, minimising nutrient
loss and maintaining or enhancing biodiversity. This is primarily achieved through management of
the pasture base (native, naturalised and sown) in a highly variable and changing climate.
This review provides a summary of the significant advances in dust suppression technologies
incorporating strategies to detect when dust-load is problematic, available technologies andstrategies to suppress pen and road dust, animal health impacts, occupational health and safety
impacts, air quality impacts on surrounding neighbours, recommendations to limit exposure of dust
to animals, workers and neighbours. The review also identifies emerging issues including thedispersion of antibiotics and related compounds on dust particles from feedlots.
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this paper are: (i) to review and summarize advances in control of dust fromanimal feedlot activities that can impact on air quality impacts on surrounding areas; and (ii)identify emerging issues including the dispersion of antibiotics on dust particles from feedlots.
METHODOLOGY
Published papers, reports and other sources including internet and suppliers of dust collection
equipment were collated, reviewed and summarized.
Monitoring data for PM10 air particulates (covering the period 2003 – 2012 at 8 sites) and for
fall out dust (covering the period 2009 – 2011 at 24 sites), were collected on the Darling Downs,
the main grain-growing area in Australia, 30-50 km west of Toowoomba, Queensland (Noller andZheng, 2013). Collection of PM10 (Standards Australia 2003a) followed the National Environment
Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (Air NEPM) standards, the uniform standards forambient air quality in Australia (NEPC, 2002). Fall out dust monitoring was undertaken using dust
deposition gauges described by the Australian dust sampling method (Standards Australia, 2003b).
The extracted data was placed in EXCEL spread sheets. The PM10 and dust deposition data was set
out in a statistical format giving the mean, seventy-five and ninety-five percentile values.
Monitoring data for fall out dust from a large cattle feedlot study site located on the Darling
Downs (Galvin et al., 2005) was examined to compare with the data described above. The fall out
dust data were converted from units of g/m2/month to mg/m2/day.
Ⓒ ISERD

89

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The dusty conditions of feedlots have been found to result from fine dry material being dispersed
by wind and mechanical action (Galvin et al., 2005). Studies on feedlot dust sources have shownthat the largest contributor of dust was manure (Huang et al., 2013). Apart from its physical nature
manure is a valuable agricultural resource. This value is even though it contains high numbers of
microorganisms, that include a large variety of organisms capable of causing disease in animals
and farm workers (Milinovich and Klieve, 2011). Dust from road traffic could also be a major
source of dust at drier locations like Texas (Wanjura et al., 2004). Dust from roads can be finer
than that generated by material handling due to the repeated pulverizing of road materials into
smaller fragments and the resultant creation of fine particles which can easily become airborne(Cox and Isley, 2012). The production of fine particles at feedlots has been shown to arise fromcattle hooves causing dry manure to be pulverized (Jones et al., 2017). In general, dust emitted
from an emission source consists of a range of particle sizes that is dependent on the source
characteristics.
The introduction of the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) handbook for beef cattle feedlots inAustralia in 1999 resulted in some feedlots reporting emissions of particulate matter <PM10 (NPI,
2001). Emission rates for feedlots based on US data for feedlots were demonstrated to overestimate
the actual emissions from US feedlots (Galvin et al., 2005). However limited dust monitoring data
has been available in Australia and elsewhere to the current time.
Dust generation is a recognized issue for many Australian and other feedlots because it has thepotential to impact on the health and safety of livestock, employees and the surrounding
community. Significant advances are required in dust suppression technologies incorporating
strategies (Jones et al., 2017): (i) To detect when dust-load is problematic, (ii) To improve available
technologies and strategies to suppress pen and road dust, (iii) Deal with animal health impacts,
occupational health and safety impacts, (iv) Air quality impacts on surrounding neighbours and (v)Make recommendations to limit exposure of dust to animals, workers and neighbours feedlots. The
review of the issues regarding dust generation by Meat and Livestock Australia (Jones et al., 2017)
gave the following key findings: (i) There is growing recognition of dust sources from theagricultural sector which may contribute to regional sources with both local and area wide effects
on the population, animals and other biota in the environment; (ii) Monitoring of fine dust (PM10suspended particulates) over the last decade shows that agricultural activities can contribute toregional dust generation from diffuse sources such as from farms and feedlots; and (iii) Whilst
manure needs to be dried to become a source, there are subtle phenomena associated withinteraction of conditions and constituents that are being identified.
A hierarchy of hazard control was recommended to minimize or eliminate exposure to hazards
from feedlot dusts (Jones et al., 2017). The hazard controls in the hierarchy, in order of decreasing
effectiveness described by Jones et al. (2017), are: Elimination, the most effective means of hazard
control such as sealing of feedlot roads to eliminate dust generation by traffic; Substitution that
may involve replacement with something that does not produce a hazard, e.g preparing feed
rations offsite to eliminate feed-related dust; Engineering and other physical controls that do noteliminate hazards but isolate workers and livestock from hazards by using barriers placed between
personnel and hazards; Administrative controls that change the way people work; and Personal
protective equipment for farm workers such as gloves, respirators, hard hats, safety glasses, highvisibility clothing and safety footwear.
Plots of Darling Downs monitoring data for air particulates (PM10) and dust fall are shown in
Figs. 1 and 2 and the summary data is given in Table 1. Comparison of the Australian National
Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (Air NEPM) standard (NEPC, 2002) for
PM10 (50 µg/m3 for an averaging period of 1 month) with the data in Table 1 shows there were no
exceedances of PM10 with the guideline (Fig. 1), excepting for one site (6) during 3-4 November
2011 that had the maximum value (71 μg/m3) out of PM10 monitoring data for all 8 sites. The
fallout monitoring data (Fig. 2) is compared against the level of 120 μg/m2/day for soiling that is
adopted in Queensland (DEHP, 2013); the exceedances of this level were historical and not themost recent for the monitoring period up to 2012.
Ⓒ ISERD

90

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

Fig. 1 PM10 (µg/m3) monitoring record during 2003 – 2012 at Darling Downs

Fig. 2 Dust fallout (mg/m2/day) monitoring record during 2006 – 2011 at Darling Downs
Fig. 2 gives the overall picture of historical exceedances of fall dust; however, some of thelarge exceedances for fall out monitoring data were related to bird and frog activity and a long dry
dusty period associated with drought (Noller and Zheng, 2013). The data set for all fall out dust
monitoring (Table 1) shows that the mean and 75th percentile did not exceed the level of 120
mg/m2/day, while the 95th percentile did. When the data set for fall out dust monitoring values<120 mg/m2/day (Table 1) were examined, the mean of 38 mg/m2/day was a representative
background level for the farming activity on the Darling Downs during 2006-2011.
Table 1 Background levels of PM10 air particulates and dust deposition at Darling Downs
Category
PM10 air particulate(µg/m3)
Dust deposition
all monitoring(mg/m2/day)Dust deposition<120mg/m2/day only
(mg/m2/day)Time frame
2003-2012

75th Percentile
17

Mean
14

2006-2011

95th Percentile
26

1
103

89

365

52

93

3
38

Source and explanation: Data from Noller and Zheng (2013)Ⓒ ISERD

91

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

Table 2 shows the range of fall out dust was 107 - 923 mg/m2/day for the beef cattle feedlot
study at the Darling Downs (2003-2004) with the highest dust deposition being near roads in andaround the feedlot (Galvin et al. 2005). Comparison of the dust deposition monitoring data in
Tables 1 and 2 shows that the dust deposition for all monitoring mean was 103 mg/m2/day (Table 1)
and was almost the same as 107 mg/m2/day at the dust deposition at intermediate sites located onedges of feedlot pen (Table 2). In addition, dust deposition near roads in and around feedlot (923
mg/m2/day) and dust deposition at background sites (417 mg/m2/day) (Table 2) exceeded the 95th
percentile for dust deposition all monitoring (365 mg/m2/day) given in Table 1. Dust deposition
within a feedlot (320 mg/m2/day) in Table 2 was marginally lower than 365 mg/m2/day (Table 1),
but indicated that the cattle feed lot data (Table 2) was collectively very dusty.
Table 2 Dust deposition at beef cattle feedlot Darling Downs (2003-2004)
Category
Dust deposition near roads in and aroundfeedlot (mg/m2/day)Dust deposition at background sites(mg/m2/day)Dust deposition within a feedlot(mg/m2/day)Dust deposition at intermediate sites
located on edges of feedlot pen areas(mg/m2/day)

Mean
923
417
320
107

Source and explanation: Data from Galvin et al. (2005) converted from g/m 2/month to mg/m2/day

Table 2 does not include air PM10 data for the beef cattle feedlot study at the Darling Downs(2003-2004). The concentration of PM10 was measured at the feedlot and ranged from 29 μg/m3 to204 μg/m3 with a mean of 100 μg/m3 (Galvin et al., 2005) and far exceeded the air NEPM guidelineof 50 µg/m3 (NEPC, 2002) and the mean background levels of PM10 air particulates given in Table
1. Thus, the feedlot was demonstrated as emitting PM10 particulates. Although total concentrationsof dust and PM10 can be measured and compared against guidelines, the manure-derived dust could
not be distinguished from manure-derived dust (Galvin et al., 2005).
In addition to the organic matter in manure is the management of zoonotic diseases and means
to treat and eliminate them remains a critical issue (Milinovich and Klieve, 2011). McEachran et al.
(2015) identify that the reported half-lives of tetracycline antibiotics in soil and soil-slurry mixes
are sufficiently long for these antibiotics to remain active during aerial transport and after
deposition onto soil, water or other surfaces for days to weeks. The measured concentrations
antibiotics found in airborne PM and in cattle manure by McEachran et al. (2015) were also similar
to those inside large-scale swine production facilities. The use of antibiotics and other related
substances for maintaining animal health and growth require further understanding. Dust issues are
relevant to other species of domestic animal production apart from beef cattle.
CONCLUSION
This review has provided a summary of the significant advances in dust suppression technologies.
The review also identifies emerging issues including the management of manure and dispersion of
antibiotics and related compounds on dust particles. Thus, by understanding the processes of dust
generation from feedlots as diffuse sources, it should be possible to identify if uncontrolled
processes are risks to the population, animals and other biota in the environment that may becausing undescribed effects.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgement is made to Dr. Jiajia Zheng for assistance with data analysis.
Ⓒ ISERD

92

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

REFERENCES
ARMCANZ. 2003. Primary industries standard committee national guidelines for beef cattle. SCARM
Report 47, 2nd Edition, CSIRO Publishing Collingwood, Victoria.
Cox, J. and Isley, C. 2012. Generation, measurement and control of dust emissions from unsealed haul roads.
Stage One Report, ACARP Project C20023, PAE Holmes, Glenvale QLD 4350.
DEHP. 2013. Guideline: Model mining conditions. Version 4 Issued 26, June 2013, Queensland Departmentof Environment and Heritage Protection, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Galvin, G., Skerman, A.G. and Gallagher, E.M. 2005. Dust emissions from a beef cattle feedlot on the
Darling Downs. FLOT. 325, Final Report, ISBN 9781741918045, Meat & Livestock Australia Limited,
North Sydney NSW 2059, 1-76.
Huang, Q., McConnell, L.L., Razote, E., Schmidt, W.F., Vinyard, B.T., Torrents, A., Hapeman, C.J.,
Maghirang, R., Trabue, S.L., Prueger, J. and Ro, K.S. 2013. Utilizing single particle Raman microscopy
as a non-destructive method to identify sources of PM10 from cattle feedlot operations. Atmospheric
Environment, 66, 17-24.
Jones, B., Wockner, K., Sullivan, K., Richardson, Sullivan, T. and Watts, P. 2017. Feedlot dust suppression
revierw. B.FLT.0398, Final Report, Meat & Livestock Australia Limited, North Sydney NSW 2059, 1103.
McEachran, A.D., Blackwell, B.R., Delton Hanson, J., Wooten, K.J., Mayer, G.D., Cox, S.B. and Smith, P.N.
2015. Antibiotics, bacteria and antibiotic resistance genes, Aerial transport from cattle feed yards via
particulate matter. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123 (4), 33-343.
Milinovich, G.J. and Klieve, A.V. 2011. Manure as a source of zoonotic pathogens. Chapter 3 in Zoonotic
Pathogens, In the Food Chain, Eds Krause, D. and Hendrick, S., CAB International, 59-83.
NEPC. 2002. Ambient air quality standards. National Environment Protection Council, AustralianGovernment.
NPI. 2001. Emission estimation technique manual for intensive livestock, Beef cattle version 2. National
Pollutant Inventory. Australian Government. Canberra.
Noller, B.N. and Zheng, J. 2013. Review of air monitoring data. Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, The
University of Queensland. Unpublished report.
Standards Australia. 2003a. Australian standard 3580.9.6, Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air,Determination of suspended particulate matter, PM10 high volume sampler with size-selective inlet,
Gravimetric method. Standards Australia International Ltd. Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Standards Australia. 2003b. AS/NZS 3580.10.1. Methods for sampling and analysis of ambient air,Determination of particulate matter, Deposited matter, Gravimetric method. Standards Australia
International Ltd. Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Wanjura, J.D., Parnell, C.B., Shaw, B.W. and Lacey, R.E. 2004. A protocol for determining a fugitive dust
emission factor from a ground level source. 2004 ASAE/CSAE Annual international meeting, ASAE/
CSAE, Ontario, Canada.
Wilson, S.C., Morrow-Tesch, J., Straus, D.C., Cooley, J.D., Wong, W.C., Mitlohner, F.M. and McGlone, J.J.
2002. Airborne microbial flora in a cattle feedlot, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 3238-3242.

Ⓒ ISERD93