Issue: January 2006 Behind the Lines Cover Story Letters Coming Events Short Takes Stories Crops Research Letter From Europe Rural Roots   Contact Us

Will 2006 remove up some of the confusion over nutrient management? Provincial regulations and municipal bylaws still collide by DON STONEMAN Maybe the New Year will bring new clarity and make it easier for livestock farmers to deal with nutrient management. And, again, maybe it won't. In the back of many people's minds is the gray area where provincial nutrient management regulations and municipal bylaws collide, such as when municipalities try to put caps on the livestock numbers on farms. A couple of cases are before the courts and the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). One is the challenge by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) to Huron-Kinloss Township's (Bruce County) official plan, which has dragged on for years. Huron-Kinloss wants to require a farmer to rezone his property if he applies for a permit to build a barn holding more than 450 animal units. Mitch Twolan, the township's mayor, says that in the latest of three OMB hearings over this issue, held in the fall, the judge deferred a decision until the Peacock vs. Norfolk County case was heard. This case was scheduled to be heard at Osgoode Hall in Toronto in mid-December. Simcoe area producers Marilyn and Reginald Peacock were appealing the July 3, 2003, Superior Court of Ontario ruling by the Hon. Mr. Justice D.J. Taliano that it was reasonable for Norfolk County to refuse to grant a building permit to build another pig barn. In his ruling, Justice Taliano cited concerns about the safety of municipal drinking water in light of the Walkerton water tragedy. Opponents charged that the Peacocks' barns were a threat to the municipality's well. In the meantime, the Ontario agriculture ministry has changed how it will deal with nutrient management questions and now the process appears to be less onerous. The ministry's approvals branch will still be responsible for reviewing nutrient management strategies for large (300 nutrient units and larger) and expanding operations (those that require a municipal building permit), but won't be looking at nutrient management plans. Producer groups are generally relieved by this change in regulations, but some producers may be confused. What is the difference between a nutrient management strategy and a plan? Jacqui Forbes, OMAFRA's nutrient management specialist for Huron County, describes the nutrient strategy as a sketch of a farm that shows the number and type of animals, the amount of manure generated, and how it is to be stored and disposed of. The strategy takes into account the location of wells and streams on the farm where the livestock operation is located. The nutrient management plan (NMP) is more complex and includes a five-year plan for growing crops, as well as a detailed plan for manure application rates based on agronomic needs, specifics of soil sampling and crop rotations, along with setbacks from wells and creeks. The plan will be kept on the farm, where it may be examined by Ministry of Environment agricultural inspectors. Such a plan is generally produced by a certified advisor working with the farmer. "It is up to the farmer to make sure that he has the right information and that he understands it," says certified crop advisor Merv Erb of Brucefield. When the requirement for a NMP was taken out of regulations, standards were also removed. One example of a standard was the requirement to use N-MAN, a software program developed by the Ontario agriculture ministry and used to develop nutrient management plans. Other software programs can be used now. Charlie Lalonde, the director of OMAFRA's environmental policy and programs branch, warns that nutrient management programs developed elsewhere, such as in the American Midwest, may not flag rising phosphorus levels as quickly as N-MAN. Erb has complained about N-MAN in the past, but he plans to continue using it in spite of "some glitches." N-MAN was the centre piece of the nutrient management regulations, he says, "and that caused all kinds of hassles" because "the software wasn't perfect." Under OMAFRA's new rules, developing a plan is now less arduous, he says. The farmer owner needs to be up to speed on the plan, however. If something goes wrong during a manure application, a farmer may be charged under the Water Resources Act and, if a farmer is sued for damages, the plan's preparer will likely be named in the suit. Liability insurance costs $3,000 to $3,500 a year, the cost of doing one nutrient management plan. Insurers "associate manure with toxic waste," Erb says, and there isn't a lot of competition. Caught between high insurance costs and a reduction in need for nutrient management plans, Erb expects some preparers will get out of the business. "The (barn) building boom is over," he says.BF © copyright 2006 AgMedia Inc.. top back