April 17 2015
i

April 17 2015
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... ii
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1
Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 2
Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Water on the farm ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Surface water on the farm .............................................................................................................. 3
1.2 How the farmers use surface water in the operation of their farms/importance of surface water quality ................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 How farm activities impact surface water ...................................................................................... 4
1.4 Current knowledge of water quality on their farms ....................................................................... 5
2. New water quality tests ........................................................................................................................ 6
2.1 How the new water quality tests could be of use to the farmers and potential drawbacks of the tests to the farmers............................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Preferred process for addressing problems detected by the water quality tests .......................... 8
2.3 Farm practices that could potentially be changed if they were detected as impacting water quality; support/resources that would be needed to implement these changes ................................ 9
2.4 Evidentiary needs to accept the validity of the tests .................................................................... 10
2.5 How farmers would prefer to receive results of the water quality tests ..................................... 11
2.6 General comments about water quality and testing .................................................................... 11
Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................................................................ 12
Appendix 1. Farmers’ Interview Guide ................................................................................................... 13
Table 1. Activities on participating farms ................................................................................................... 2
Table 2. Surface water on participating farms ............................................................................................ 3
Table 3. Impact of farm activities on surface water and steps taken by farm to minimize impact ............. 4
Table 4. Benefits and drawbacks to farmers from the new water quality tests .......................................... 6
Table 5. Preferred methods of test result notification ............................................................................... 10 ii

April 17 2015
Background: Headed by scientists at the BC Public Health Microbiology and Reference Laboratory
(BCPHMRL), new tests are being developed to assess microbial water quality in watersheds. The new water tests aim to use “metagenomic profiling” 1 to detect fecal contamination by looking for the presence of a wide range of bacteria, protozoa and viruses in watershed water. If fecal contamination is identified then a microbial source tracking (MST) test, also under development at the BCPHMRL, may be used to determine the animal species that are the source of the contaminants, such as geese or cows.
To increase the likelihood that the tests will be accepted and used by stakeholders, input was received from a wide-range of individuals 2 who could potentially be users of the test or affected by the test results. Farmers constitute one group who may be affected by the test results because farming activities could be identified as contributing to the presence of fecal matter in watersheds and because the quality of surface water may be important to the operation of their farms. Consequently, farmers were interviewed to provide their perspectives on issues such as the importance of surface water quality for farm activities, how their farms may impact water quality and the practices currently undertaken to minimize these impacts, what they see as the benefits and drawbacks of the new water quality tests for farmers, and the process by which identified water quality problems should be addressed.
Methods: Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 10 farmers in British Columbia.
Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded and descriptively analysed.
Key findings: Among the farmers who participated in the interviews, surface water was rarely, if ever, used in the operation of the farm. Consequently, concern about the quality of this water was low. The farmers seemed committed to using responsible farming practices and most took measures to minimize fecal contamination of water (surface and ground). If the new water quality tests identified the farms as impacting the water in or around their farms, most of the farmers would want to take measures to reduce the impact provided that the resources required to make the changes were not overly burdensome.
The farmers felt strongly that the test results should be used by the farmers themselves to address identified problems. If support was needed to encourage farmers to make changes or help them identify how to make changes then this support should be provided by farming associations. Government involvement should come as a last resort if an offending farmer refused to address the cause of the contamination. The farmers did not want to see the test results used as the foundation for further industry regulations.
1 Metagenomics is the genetic sequencing of microbes sampled directly from their natural environment and allows for a study of the relationship among microbes and between microbes and their habitat (Wooley, Godzik and
Friedberg 2010).
2 Stakeholders providing input included: policy makers, laboratory managers, watershed managers, water utility operators, farmers and the public. i

April 17 2015
The new tests were seen to have potential benefits for farmers by identifying water quality problems of which they may not be aware and the farms from which the fecal contamination originates. This information could be used by a farmer to change his own farming practices or to approach neighbouring farmers with the evidence needed to encourage the other farmers to modify their practices. Farmers were concerned that the tests could be used to target the farming industry as water contaminators rather than looking broadly at all the possible sources of contamination. Depending on the test results, farmers thought the tests could either vindicate the industry by demonstrating that farms are not the source of fecal contamination in source water or the industry’s reputation could be tarnished if even a small number of farms were determined to be contaminating watersheds.
ii

April 17 2015
Headed by scientists at the BC Public Health Microbiology and Reference Laboratory (BCPHMRL), new tests are being developed to assess microbial water quality in watersheds. The new water tests aim to use “metagenomic profiling”
1
to detect fecal contamination by looking for the presence of a wide range of bacteria, protozoa and viruses in watershed water. From a human health perspective, detecting fecal pollution is important because pathogenic fecal matter poses a serious threat to human health and is associated with dysentery, viral and bacterial gastroenteritis, hepatitis A, typhoid fever and ear infections ( Wikipedia 2014).
If fecal contamination is identified then a microbial source tracking (MST) test, also under development at the BCPHMRL, may be used to determine the animal species that are the source of the contaminants, such as geese or cows.
For several reasons the new tests would be more accurate and complete than water quality tests that are currently used. The new tests aim to:
 create a water quality profile based on the identification of many kinds of microbial contaminants that indicate the presence of feces. The test is more likely to identify fecal contamination than tests that rely only on the presence of E. coli or other indicator bacteria;

identify a fecal pollution event as it is occurring by testing at the source, thus allowing for identification of contamination more quickly than tests that take place at the tap; and
 help identify the source of contamination. While we know that waterborne outbreaks can originate from animals living in a watershed catchment area, the existing methods have no way of identifying which species are the sources of the problem. Knowing the source of fecal pollution could help considerably to respond quickly to an event and, over the longer term, to help change practices to reduce the risk of future contaminations.
The tests aim to provide a “profile” of water quality, which provides a picture of watershed health.
Consequently, the new test is relevant for assessing both the safety of drinking water as well as the health of ecosystems. If developed as intended, the new test would yield results faster than current tests with a processing time of approximately 4 hours rather than the current testing time for E. coli samples of 18-48 hours.
To increase the likelihood that the tests will be accepted and used by stakeholders, input was received from a wide-range of individuals 3 who could potentially be users of the test or affected by the test results. The findings from these stakeholders will be integrated into knowledge translation plans, test characteristics, and policy briefs. Farmers constitute one group who may be affected by the test results because farming activities could be identified as contributing to the presence of fecal matter in watersheds and because the quality of surface water may be important to the operation of their farms.
Consequently, farmers were interviewed to provide their perspectives on issues such as the importance
3 Stakeholders providing input included: policy makers, laboratory managers, watershed managers, water utility operators, farmers and the public.
1

April 17 2015 of surface water quality for farm activities, how their farms may impact water quality and the practices currently undertaken to minimize these impacts, what they see as the benefits and drawbacks of the new water quality tests for farmers, and the process by which identified water quality problems should be addressed.
Phone interviews were conducted with 10 farmers in British Columbia’s Fraser Valley, which includes one of the watersheds used in the development of the new water tests. To participate in the study, the farmers had to have surface water on, or in very close proximity to, their farm. Each interview was conducted by an experienced qualitative researcher and interviews lasted between 30-60 minutes.
Participants were asked a set of semi-structured questions (Interview guide provided in Appendix 1).
Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and imported into NVivo9 (a qualitative software analysis program) for coding and descriptive analysis. Participants received a gift card as a token of appreciation for their participation. The research received ethics approval from the University of British Columbia’s behavioural research ethics board.
Farming activities on the participating farms are shown in Table 1. Note that some farms engage in more than one activity. The size of the farms varied, with smaller farms such as cattle farms 3 and 6 (20 and
10-15 beef cows, respectively) and larger farms such as farm 5 (240 dairy cows) and farm 1 (35 beef cows and 50 alpacas).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Table 1. Activities on participating farms
Farm Farm Activities
1
2
Cattle, alpacas
Goats
Cattle
Organic mixed vegetables; chickens; few horses
Cattle (dairy farm)
Cattle
Cattle (dairy farm)
Trout
Cattle
Ducks; lambs
The following describes the farmers’ comments and perceptions about water on their farms and the new water quality tests. The findings are broken down into the following topics:
1. Water on the farm:
1.1 Surface water on the farms
1.2 How the farmers use surface water in the operation of their farms and the importance of water quality for the operation of their farms
2

April 17 2015
2.
1.3 How farm activities impact surface water
1.4 Current knowledge of water quality on their farms
New water quality tests:
2.1 How the new water quality tests could be of use to the farmers and potential drawbacks of the tests to the farmers
2.2 The preferred process for addressing problems detected by the water quality tests
2.3 Farm practices that could potentially be changed if they were detected as impacting water quality; support/resources that would be needed to implement these changes
2.4 Evidentiary needs to accept the validity of the tests
2.5 How farmers would prefer to receive results of the water quality tests
2.6 General comments about water quality and testing
Quotes from participants are included verbatim except where clarifications are required, as indicated by
[ ].
1.1 Surface water on the farm : All of the farms involved in the study have surface water on them, including creeks, ponds, streams (2 that contain fish), sloughs, seeps, and one farm on a river. The breakdown of surface water by farms is provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Surface water on participating farms
Farm Surface Water Comments
1 Creek
2 Streams; ponds
3 River; several little lakes
4 Streams; ponds Stream is salmon bearing
5 Slough
6 Stream
7 Ponds
8 Ponds; seep
Separated from farm activities by a small municipal road
Only has water during spring runoff; dry in summer
Stagnant; no wildlife or fish
9
10
Slough
Creek; stream; ponds
Borders a slough
Stream is fish bearing
1.2 How the farmers use surface water in the operation of their farms/importance of surface water quality
: Farmers rarely, if ever, use surface water in the operation of their farms (with the exception of the trout farm). The farms all rely on well water for feeding their animals and irrigating their fields (as well as for the farmers’ own consumption). Three farmers reported occasional use of surface water by animals while out in pasture and one farm irrigates one of its fields from a pond that has water constantly reflowing into it from a seep that flows in all seasons. As a consequence of the negligible use of surface water, the farmers reported that they are not concerned about the quality of this water with regards to farm operations. Farmers explained that they are concerned about the quality
3

April 17 2015 of well water because the animals will be healthier if they drink good quality water and so that crops are not contaminated during irrigation. The only farmer concerned about surface water quality for farm activities was the trout farmer because the trout live in this water: “Because I’ll be damned if I sell [the people who come to catch fish] a sick fish or something that can cause somebody to get a reaction or an illness.”
1.3 How farm activities impact surface water : The majority of the farmers go to great efforts to minimize the impact of their activities on water sources. On several farms, manure is kept away from water and is covered or kept in pits to decrease runoff. One farm has a closed system in which cows are kept in a covered area and rainwater goes from gutters into storm sewers to prevent runoff from the cow enclosure; alleys drain into a central channel and then into a storage facility. Some farms fence off surface water to prevent cattle from accessing it. Seven of the farmers did report having manure runoff into water although, with one exception, all suspected that the impact was minimal because of the efforts they take to reduce the amount of runoff. A farmer with a stream said he suspects that impact is minimal because fish would not live in the stream if it was highly contaminated. Details of impact and steps for mitigating impact are provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Impact of farm activities on surface water and steps taken by farm to minimize impact
Farm Impact on water
1 Runoff of manure down sloped field into
Steps to minimize impact on water
Creeks are fenced so cattle do not have access creek
2 Animals run around outside so some runoff of manure down sloped field into stream
3 Animals use small lakes that dry up in the summer; about 3 weeks a year cattle access a river and drink from it
4

Chickens run loose in orchard

Potential run off from composting of manure
5
6
7
None suspected
Possible runoff of manure into stream during spring thaw
None suspected




Cattle are not pastured adjacent to the river
Small lake is fenced off to prevent access by cattle
Chicken manure covered with a tarp until it gets composted
No large concentration of chickens in one
 place (50-100/flock)
Manure kept in a pit and incorporated into their manure application program

Wells are 30 and 70 feet deep so contaminants would be filtered out as it passes through the ground

Only spread manure at times off year when it is permitted

Road between fields where they use manure and the slough

Land is nearly flat which reduces run off

Farm buildings are ¼ mile from the stream
Closed farm: cows are under a roof; rainwater goes from gutters into storm sewer (prevents
4

April 17 2015
8
9
10
None
Some minimal runoff if raining when scraping manure but goes into a hog fuel area
Some runoff of manure run off from the cow enclosure); alleys drain into a central channel and then into a storage facility

No livestock or agriculture on farm

Water from trout pond flows into a French drain and any contaminants are killed before flowing back into creek below

Manure in a building; housed under a roof to prevent runoff

Fields slope away from the slough; planted trees along side of slough

Don’t spread manure near slough

Tend to keep manure covered and away from water and keep it covered

Manure is composted

Dead animals buried away from wells and waterways
Farmers recognized the relationship between contamination of surface water and land on groundwater.
Six of the farmers made reference to this relationship and the potential for farm activities (as well as other activities performed by themselves or neighbours) to impact groundwater. Possible contaminants of groundwater mentioned by the farmers included cow dung, leaking septic systems, manure, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and decomposed carcasses of buried farm animals. Of the farmers who mentioned the connection between surface activities and groundwater, 2 were only minimally concerned about the potential for contamination. One farmer explained that the adjacent farm has cows and turkeys but the presence of a stream and a forest between the other farm and his well served as a “natural sponge” for contaminants. The other farmer felt that the feces from the ducks on her property were a “natural source” of bacteria and hence not cause for concern.
1.4 Current knowledge of water quality on their farms : Two farmers reported knowing about the water quality of their farms’ surface water. The trout farmer uses his own probes to test the water in the trout pond, he examines his fish for any signs of exposure to bacteria and he takes water samples for testing at the University of British Columbia. The other farmer with knowledge of surface water quality receives this information from the Ministry of Environment, which tests the multi-use stream that runs through his farm and that may be impacted by sewage discharge from a city through which the stream runs. The remaining eight farmers said they never find out any surface water quality information.
Three farmers reported knowing about the quality of their well water/groundwater. One farmer tests his groundwater weekly; a second farmer receives twice monthly well-water testing through his Health
Authority because a child in the area got sick with E. coli 10 years ago and ever since the Health
Authority has routinely checked the farm’s water; and the third, a dairy farmer, has the water used in his barns by the dairy cows tested once each year as part of the Canadian Milk Quality Program.
5

April 17 2015
2.1 How the new water quality tests could be of use to the farmers and potential drawbacks of the tests to the farmers
: Farmers identified four key benefits of the test (Table 4). Very closely related to each other, the two benefits identified most frequently by the farmers focused on the advantages of identifying other farms affecting water quality and becoming self-aware of one’s own impact on water. For the former, if other farms in the area could be identified as polluters then those farms could be encouraged to address the problem and, if needed, repercussions could be leveled at the polluting farms.
“And when, you know, people…when they have issues or see someone polluting, they always have to be able to prove that it’s-- that they’re the ones that are polluting... So if you’re able to pinpoint the source and say, as a matter of fact this is, you know, fecal matter from cows showing up on the groundwater that you are able to talk to those people and make changes. And if the changes can’t be made that
you’ve then got some sort of legal avenue.” (Farm 5)
The latter benefit would be if farms that were polluting became aware of their own impact on water quality so that they would know to take steps to reduce their contamination. The farm owners seemed committed to practicing farming in an ecologically sensitive way and were interested in taking the necessary steps to reduce their impact on water quality if in fact they are a source of contamination.
“Well, I mean, if there was contamination, again, especially in that well or in the ponds, then I would need to, you know, I would put other measures in place like having the, you know, I’ve thought of in the past having the water that runs from the seep into the pond run through sort of biofiltration iris beds and stuff. I have done work with gray water systems in the past. So I imagine doing that and possibly even aerating the pond-- there are sometimes geese that land in the pond and ducks. So possibly, you know, netting it off so that didn’t happen if, you know, if I did find out that there’s where the contamination
came from.” (Farm 4)
One farmer also thought that concrete facts showing that the farm activities were impacting water quality would incentivize the farm workers to perform their tasks more safely and carefully to reduce the chance of run-off.
“So for instance, with the alpacas-- we clean poop every day with alpacas. Well, you can’t do that with cows except in the barns. We clean the barns out. We use equipment to do that. And we store, right now, in an open area, and if it rains that can leach out...And so, you know, if the staff know that it really
is negatively impacting the creek, they’ll make sure that there’s no spillage.” (Farm 1)
An additional benefit cited by three farmers was that the test could benefit the farming industry if the results showed that farms are not the source of contamination. These farmers felt that their industry was often wrongly blamed as the cause of poor water quality and that these tests had the potential to vindicate them.
“Well, quite frankly I see a huge benefit to that because I’m a little sick and tired of people always thinking it’s livestock that are contaminating water, in particular on our large open grasslands, private
6

April 17 2015 grasslands, or on our Crown grazing.” (Farm 3)
“We were blamed for a number of years for algae blooms on the north arm of the Okanagan Lake. And they came after us for about 10 years and then the City of Armstrong pulled out of the stream. Pulled their sewage discharge out of the stream. The algae blooms went away and we’ve been considered very
good since then.” (Farm 6)
Lastly, there was interest in using the test to identify the extent to which surface water is impacted by wildlife and to know specifically which wildlife affect the water so that the correct animals are targeted with control measures.
Table 4. Benefits and drawbacks to farmers from the new water quality tests
Benefits* Drawbacks*
Farming industry may be targeted with the tests Identify other farms that contaminate water so they can be asked/made to change their practices
Learn of own impact on water quality so know if corrective measures need to be taken
End the blaming of the farming industry for water contamination (if tests show farms are not the source of contamination)
Learn extent that wildlife impacts water quality and which species should be targeted with control measures
Costly for farmers to reverse damage to the impacted source water
Farms may be identified as “contaminating” because of presence of microbes in water but microbes don’t necessarily mean there’s a problem
Wrong farms may be identified as source of contamination (concern about accuracy of test)
Farming industry’s reputation could be damaged by identification of a small number of polluters
Testing may lead to additional regulations for the farming industry
*Italicized benefits and drawbacks were mentioned most often by the farmers.
Farmers expressed quite a few concerns about how the tests could potentially be bad for individual farmers or the farming industry as a whole. The most frequently mentioned concern was that the farming industry would be targeted with the new tests. The farmers explained that there are many possible sources of water contamination but testers may selectively focus on looking for microbes associated with farms while ignoring other potential polluters.
“Well, exactly, but don’t use [the test] to target one industry. Don’t, you know, if that’s the case I’m dead against it… if [farms] are polluting badly, yes, single them out and fine ‘em. Because everybody has
a duty to be diligent, right. But don’t test just to nail one particular industry.” (Farm 7)
Other concerns about the impact for farming as an industry were that identification of a small number of farms affecting source water could tarnish the reputation of the entire industry and that findings of contamination by farms could lead to additional regulations for the industry (which was seen as a negative). As discussed below (2.2), farmers were much more open to having the test results used by
7

April 17 2015 the farms to make their own self-driven changes or to work with farming association to make noncompulsory changes, rather than being mandated to address the identified problems.
For individual farms, there were concerns that the test may not be sufficiently accurate to reliably identify the source of water contamination and consequently a farm may be erroneously identified as a polluter. As well, a farmer may be identified as negatively impacting water quality if microbes associated with his farm are found in the water but not all microbes are problematic and there may be no actual problem with water quality despite the presence of the farm-associated microbes.
“I have lots of concerns about the test, period. Because I’m well aware the water quality testing, the parameters seem to change as we go along each year, simply because the way that you can test, you can test for a bazillion parts per million now and contamination could show up. As opposed to 20 years ago you couldn’t test down that fine so you wouldn’t know… So, you know, I mean, people were fine and healthy. There was no problems. It’s just that your results are more pronounced. That’s my concern about it, and I think for agriculture in general that would be my concern....And that is where I think we don’t always have enough knowledge and wisdom yet in order to apply our research-- well, because I
think scientists are very well-meaning, it’s just the interpretation. Use of results is very difficult.” (Farm
3)
Related to this concern of misplaced blame, a farmer feared that there would be a lack of an appeals process and that an identified polluter would have no recourse for disputing the accusation. In the event that a farm is determined to be impacting water quality, apprehension was voiced that the polluting farm may be responsible for remediating the water, which would be extremely costly.
2.2 Preferred process for addressing problems detected by the water quality tests :
Overwhelmingly the farmers expressed that they should be primarily responsible for responding to problems identified by the tests. Farmers want to have the opportunity to deal with water quality issues among themselves. This could mean that an individual farmer uses his test results to inform changes to his farming practices or those farmers whose source water is being impacted by a neighbouring farm would approach the offending farmer about the need for him to change his practices. In the event that a farmer will not take steps to reduce his impact on the water then farming associations should be contacted and brought in to assist the polluting farm to make changes. Each farming sub-industry has its own association (e.g., poultry association, dairy association) and the appropriate association should become involved. Farmers explained that they would be much more willing to work with a peer group or farming advisory group than a regulatory body. Involvement of government agencies should only occur as a last resort.
“Unless it gets to the point where the farmer’s just being blatant-- arrogant about it and not listening, then it has to go to the next level, right. But I think-- in the meantime I think 95% of it can be fixed within
the industry. Because we’ve already done a lot of it within the industry.” (Farm 7)
“I think-- well, the first one is that you’d have to approach them, and it should be a non-regulatory body, because, of course, the first thing people see when they see a uniform or a painted white truck is they get-- their hairs on the back of their neck go up. So I think someone, it would be a peer group, it would
8

April 17 2015 be an advisory group, someone saying, hey, look at Farmer Joe. This is what we’ve picked up downstream. You’re the only dairy farm that it could possibly come, and we need to look-- and I just want it to be a very much a soft glove, you know, a velvet approach. Hey, this is what’s happening. And we know you’re a good operator, or maybe you’re not, but we need to work with you on this. And I think that would be the opening line. Now, of course, if he refuses to do anything and continues to be a problem, then, you know, other regulatory bodies may have to step in. But at some point, too, I think his peer group, i.e., fellow dairy farmers say, hey, look at, pal, what you’re doing is going to affect all of us, and we need you to hopefully alter those practices on your own. And if not, there should be some sort of hefty fine in place that compel him to do that. ‘Cause I don’t want to get my industry dragged down by
one or two rotten apples.” (Farm 5)
If changes are recommended to the industry as a whole or to individual farmers, the farmers want the changes to come from a “credible” source. In general, government office workers were not seen as credible. Rather, the change agents should understand farming, have firsthand experience working in the fields and not just book knowledge, and be willing to listen to and work cooperatively with the farmers.
“We’ve had the other ones who’ve never left Victoria office. It works on paper and it works for the office
so, therefore, it’s going to work on the farm. And those kind of people we don’t get along with.” (Farm 6)
“You’d have to have someone in the government that is number one, qualified, not only in university graduation, have their degree in what they’re going after in husbandry, you know, and biological or chemical, I call it warfare. But also that he’s got hands-on before he can be justified an inspector, having been out in the field and applying his knowledge, his learning in different farming aspects, especially in the one that he’s going to be qualified to have a yay or nay to. Just because he worked on a dairy farm
doesn’t necessarily mean he knows anything about husbandry.” (Farm 8)
2.3 Farm practices that could potentially be changed if they were detected as impacting water quality; support/resources that would be needed to implement these changes : If the tests showed that a farm was affecting water quality, farmers suggested a few ways they could try to reduce the impact. Although these are not innovative practices they are not currently being used on all the farms.

Be more careful about manure clean up

Create a manure storage area so that there would be better containment of animal waste

Protect the irrigation pond by filtering water from the seep as it goes into the pond; netting the pond to keep out geese and ducks; and aerating the pond

Leave a large buffer around streams
There were concerns about the feasibility of implementing changes. Some farmers said they could not afford to build a manure storage area that they wouldn’t make any changes that required a financial investment. A couple of farmers said that if the government expects or requires them to change their farming practices then funding should be available to the farmers.
9

April 17 2015
“I’m at a point where I mostly would just shut down the farm if they’re going through with further
controls with expecting farmers to take the cost of everything.” (Farm 10)
In contrast, one farmer said he expected making changes would be easy and another said that the feasibility of making changes would depend on the cause of contamination and what would be required to fix it; some changes would be easy but others may be challenging.
2.4 Evidentiary needs to accept the validity of the tests : Farmers described information or characteristics of the tests’ development and use they would require in order to trust the results as reliable. Unless otherwise indicated, each requirement was mentioned by one farmer.
Development of the tests:

Test development was done by a credible, science-based organization (n=2)

Test development based on large number of samples

Proof or verification that MST accurately identifies the right animal source; high level of accuracy (n=2)
“I want to make damn sure that any kind of test is foolproof and that we actually know that this is not open to, you know, this is 85 percent accurate or this is 60 percent accurate. Hey, no, this is coming-- this is fecal matter associated with dairy cows and we have a pretty good idea it’s
coming from you.” (Farm 5)
Use of the tests:

Where and when the samples were drawn (n=2)

Who is taking the samples and doing the analyses and their qualifications; if tests are conducted by experts (n=2)
“I mean, I think many farmers are very suspect about environmental groups. I’m not so sure that they necessarily believe what they read or what they hear. So, yeah, I would think it would have to be a [done by an agency that is] reputable, science-based, too, I mean, that’s always
important.” (Farm 1)

Whether results were based on a range of fecal-associated microbes or the presence of a single type of microbe

How a particular farm can be identified as the source of contamination if multiple farms in the area have the same kinds of animals
“If you’ve already identified that it’s down to bovine, then is the level or-- level of contamination higher after it’s left my property than before my property? I mean, you know, there’s other farms on the water course.” (Farm 6)

Whether the testers will have genetic information of animals from each farm to match to the samples or it the results will be more generic and match by species

Want training and education about the tests before it is used on his farm about how the test works and how it measures contamination (n=2)
“I guess I’d just need to be able to understand them which means somebody being able to train
10

April 17 2015
 me and teach me to understand what, you know, how they measure...So, you know, I have been able to speak to the labs [about other tests we have done on the farm] and find out how they test and have at least some, you know, amount of understanding of that. So, yeah, I would just like to know that there’s some education in place to actually teach me enough to understand
how the tests work.” (Farm 4)
Whether test results vary depending on time of year and amount of wildlife in the area at that time (i.e., do tests capture the variation in number of wild birds on farms as they migrate through)
2.5 How farmers would prefer to receive results of the water quality tests : After testing is done on water on or near a farm, farmers prefer to be notified of results by mail or email (Table 5). One farmer would like to be notified in person if a problem is found with the water on his farm. One farmer suggested that results for all waterways get posted on Farmwest.com, a farm website operated by the
BC Ministry of Agriculture.
Table 5. Preferred methods of test result notification
Method of
Notification
# of Farmers
Email only
2
Mail only
3
Email or mail
3
Website In-person (if water quality problems detected)
1 1
2.6 General comments about water quality and testing : During the interviews, farmers voiced comments about water quality concerns beyond the scope of the new water quality tests. Farmers expressed that fecal contamination was not their primary interest related to water quality but rather they were concerned about chemicals, the impact of construction and development in areas around water, contamination from storm sewers and oil slicks after it rains, and the presence of nitrates or other non-fecal matter.
One farmer was worried about the effects of the remedial actions that may be taken in response to the test results. Farmers may be driven to reduce fecal contamination by switching from manure to chemical fertilizers and she perceived chemical contaminants to be more dangerous than fecal contaminants.
“Do you want a lot of chemicals or do you want a bit of fecal matter which is organic, which will break down over time, right. Whereas a heavy metal chemical will never break down over time no matter how
long it sits there.” (Farm 7)
She was also uneasy that in a move to reduce fecal matter from water that wildlife, if it was identified as the source of fecal matter, may be culled, which would be detrimental to the ecosystem.
A farmer suggested that the MST component of the new tests should include fish feces as a potential source of fecal matter in water.
11

April 17 2015
: Among the farmers who participated in the interviews, surface water was rarely, if ever, used in the operation of the farm. Consequently, concern about the quality of this water was low. The farmers seemed committed to using responsible farming practices and most took measures to minimize fecal contamination of water (surface and ground). If the new water quality tests identified the farms as impacting the water in or around their farms, most of the farmers would want to take measures to reduce the impact provided that the resources required to make the changes were not overly burdensome.
The farmers felt strongly that the test results should be used by the farmers themselves to address identified problems. If support was needed to encourage farmers to make changes or help them identify how to make changes then this support should be provided by farming associations. Government involvement should come as a last resort if an offending farmer refused to address the cause of the contamination. The farmers did not want to see the test results used as the foundation for further industry regulations.
The new tests were seen to have potential benefits for farmers by identifying water quality problems of which they may not be aware and the farms from which the fecal contamination originates. This information could be used by a farmer to change his own farming practices (if his farm is the source of the contamination) or to approach neighbouring farmers with the evidence needed to encourage the other farmers to modify their practices. Farmers were concerned that the tests could be used to target the farming industry as water contaminators rather than looking broadly at all the possible sources of contamination. Depending on the test results, farmers thought the tests could either vindicate the industry by demonstrating that farms are not the source of fecal contamination in source water or the industry’s reputation could be tarnished if even a small number of farms were determined to be contaminating watersheds.
12

April 17 2015
1.
What farming activities take place on your farm?
2.
What surface water do you have on your farm?
3.
Is water quality important for your farming activities? Why or why not?
4.
For what purposes does your farm use water that comes from surface water?
5.
What activities does your farm do that impact surface source water?
3.
Are you informed about the water quality of local source water? a.
If yes, how do you currently find out about the quality of surface source water in your area? How often do you get updated on source water quality?
4.
If this new test was successfully developed, what kind of evidence would you need to feel confident that you could accept the test results?
5.
If the test indicated that the water your farm uses had more fecal contamination than was previously known, how would this affect your farm?
6.
[For farms that have animals]: If the test indicated that your farm was contributing to the contamination of a local source of water by animal feces entering the water, what could you do to modify your farming practices in order to reduce or eliminate impacting the watershed? a.
Would it be feasible to make these modifications? What kind of financial or technological challenges would you confront if you made these modifications?
7.
If the test identified a farm to be impacting the water on or around his farm, how do you think the problem should be addressed? Who should be involved?
8.
After water quality testing is done in your local source water, would you like to be informed of the results? Why or why not? a.
If yes, how would you prefer to be informed of the results?
9.
Are there any other comments you’d like to share pertaining to watershed water quality and water testing?
13

April 17 2015
Wooley JC, Godzik A, Friedberg I (2010). A Primer on Metagenomics. PLoS Comput Biol 6(2): e1000667. doi:10.1371/journal. pcbi.1000667
Wikipedia (2014). Fecal coliform. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_coliform#Human_health_hazards
14