JEQ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online 1 March 2006
Published in J Environ Qual 35:680-687 (2006)
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2005.0273
© 2006 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Collick, A. S.
Right arrow Articles by Steenhuis, T. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Collick, A. S.
Right arrow Articles by Steenhuis, T. S.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Collick, A. S.
Right arrow Articles by Steenhuis, T. S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Best Management Practices
Right arrow Animal Waste

Survival of Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts in Calf Housing Facilities in the New York City Watersheds

A. S. Collicka, E. A. Fogartyb, P. E. Zieglerc, M. T. Waltera, D. D. Bowmanb and T. S. Steenhuisa,*

a Department of Biological & Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
b Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
c Department of Population Medicine & Diagnostic Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853


Figure 1
View larger version (33K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. The major basins of the Delaware and Catskill Watersheds located in southeastern New York. The four participating farms are located within the Cannonsville Basin.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (34K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Generalized differences in management techniques employed in solar and conventional calf housing facilities.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (27K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Sentinel chamber used in the study of calf housing facilities.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (44K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. A protective disc securely contained both controls and chambers. Samples were removed by opening one piece of expanded metal with a hand drill.

 

Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 5
Figure 5
View larger version (90K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. The inactivation rates (decrease of oocyst viability) during four sampling seasons on each farm. Farms A103 (a) and C304 (b) utilize solar calf housing and Farms A105 (c) and B205 (d) raise calves in conventional housing. Mean inactivation of chamber oocysts indicated by solid lines and control oocysts by dashed lines, and the individual points are the actual percent viabilities used to determine mean inactivation. Hourly bedding temperature is represented by the dotted line and corresponds to the secondary y axis (right side). Data are unavailable for chamber oocysts in the fourth season on Farm B205.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (29K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 6. Comparison of inactivation rates for chamber (solid lines) and control (dashed lines) oocysts in solar (dark color) and main barn (light color) calf housing facilities. Mean hourly bedding temperature (dotted lines) also provided.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Vadose Zone Journal
Soil Science Society of America Journal Journal of Plant Registrations The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.