October 2003
A recovery year that went down the drain
What with the BSE crisis, wilting prairie heat and U.S. tariffs on wheat, 2003 has turned into anything but a rebuilding year for struggling farmers. And the federal government's ham-handed response hasn't helpedby BARRY WILSON
It would be almost impossible to exaggerate how bad a year 2003 has turned out to be for most prairie farmers. Revenues on many farms are down sharply, most export markets for beef products and cattle are closed or severely limited and grains and oilseeds farmers are harvesting just an average crop in the face of falling prices. If it were not for program payments that flowed at a record pace in the first half of the year, particularly crop insurance, the prairie farm basin would be a wasteland.It wasn't supposed to be this way. This year was supposed to be a recovery year. That's how it looked on May 19. Snow and spring rains had returned after two years of drought. Grains and oilseeds farmers were optimistic they'd have a better-than-average crop that would allow them to start replenishing Net Income Stabilisation Accounts (NISA) accounts, pay bills, make some repairs or even replace some tired equipment.
Ranchers were smiling, watching forage fields turn green and believing this would be a year that would dispel memories of a disastrous 2002, when hay shipments from eastern provinces were the only way some producers fed their livestock. Even then, there was herd depletion.
This would be a rebuilding year. Then came May 20 and the announcement of one case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in Alberta. Borders slammed shut, cattle destined for slaughter got a new lease on life and prices plunged. By autumn, there was the smallest glimmer of hope as some markets began to open a little, but most traditional exports were still denied.
Meanwhile, spring hopes of bumper grain crops were tempered by record July and August heat that wilted plants and stunted growth. Grasshoppers covered fields. By August, prices were falling even as fuel costs needed to complete the harvest were soaring.
On Aug. 29, the politicized U.S. department of commerce put the icing on the increasingly inedible cake by announcing that Canadian wheat is subsidized and will be subject to tariffs of 14 percent. If that decision is upheld in October, it will effectively deny wheat farmers a premium market worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The whole scene can only be spelled d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r.
Enter the federal government with its usual ham-handed response. It announced a compensation program aimed at getting cattle moving, but which most in the industry saw as inadequate and ill-designed, benefiting mainly feedlots and packing plants getting access to cheap beef, but leaving cattle producers largely uncompensated. Agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief added insult to injury by trying to turn the cattle sector income crisis into a hammer to force reluctant provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to buy into his unpopular agricultural policy framework. Charges of "cheap politics" and "blackmail" flew.
Meanwhile, Pierre Pettigrew, the ever-cheerful trade minister, took Vanclief under his wing and flew to Cancún in Mexico in September for world trade talks he said were an answer.
Few farmers have fed their families on World Trade Organization deals and promises. It looks like another failure of government to cope with crisis.
Or was it just another example of the lack of vision and commitment by the current political players? BF
Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.
© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..
back
Ten billion dollars needed to clean up sewage treatment effluents in Canada
Muncipalities are fighting a federal proposal that would require huge capital spending to clean up ammonia and chlorine left over from sewage treatmentsby DON STONEMAN
The federal government is proposing tougher standards for chlorine and ammonia in effluent from sewage treatment plants. Municipalities that run these plants face huge bills for the upgrades and are resisting strongly. Farmers are getting caught in the crossfire. The association for plant operators claims that farmers cause far more grief with their fertilizer spreading than they do.A couple of years ago, chlorine, ammonia and the substances that result when those two chemicals combine were declared toxic substances by Environment Canada. Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has been re-worked in recent years, there are new obligations and timelines for reducing the amount of these substances that are released in effluents.
"We are trying the manage the risks related to (these) substances," says James Arnott, section head with the waste water effluent division of Environment Canada's environmental protection service. The stated goal of the program is "to reduce to the fullest extent the amount of ammonia in effluent released to surface water within 48 months."
Provincial governments govern municipal treatment plants by issuing certificates of approval. Arnott says there are inconsistent rules across the country for the use of chlorine for treating released water.
For chlorine, the new federal guideline is 0.02 mg of total residual chlorine per litre of effluent. Wastewater plant operators use chlorine to reduce pathogens before water is released. We still want to reduce pathogens but there are other methods of doing that, Arnott says.
One method is to chlorinate the effluent and then add a de-chlorinating process before putting the effluent back into a river or lake. The alternative is to switch to another technology, probably ultraviolet light that is the second most popular treatment. Both methods are expensive.
Tolerances for ammonia are a different story, Arnott says. Dealing with ammonia is very complex. The harm from ammonia depends on the type of environment that the effluent is being released into. Temperature and pH have a strong effect on the toxicity of ammonia. There is no set number, Arnott says, and he assert that there is definitely harm to fish.
And this is what makes the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association (CWWA) crazy. If this proposal passes, Sometime in December 2004 municipalities must produce a plan valid over five years during which time they will announce the investments they will make.
These requirements will cost more than $10 billion across the country, says Duncan Ellison, executive director of the CWWA, which disputes Environment Canada over this proposal at many levels. Ellison says the sector only generates $4 billion a year in revenues, so municipal taxes must be raised to pay for it. "Environment Canada expects this rule will affect 150 municipalities. We say it is several times that."
CWWA disputes Environment Canada's way of testing for toxicity. The two tests that are used involve trapping fish in an environment where they cannot get away from a concentration of ammonia or chlorine that is introduced. In the wild, fish will simply move to an area where the concentration is less until it dissipates.
Environment Canada's Arnott says fish don't' have to die to be harmed by chlorine and ammonia. New scientific shows that in areas where there is wastewater effluent smaller organisms are affected. Fish show reduced growth rate and reduced reproduction.
"We've argued against and lost the test method that we use," the CWWA's Ellison says. Now CWWA is challenging Environment Canada on jurisdictional issues, being as the provinces regulate waste water discharges under certificates of approval related to the receiving bodies of water. "We've pulled out all the stops on this one," Ellison says.
The planning requirements "set up a bureaucratic nightmare for municipalities," he says. A methodology to measure those objectives is lacking, he says. "So is a cost-benefit analysis.
Only five per cent of the ammonia in rivers is coming from wastewater plants, Ellison says. The rest is coming from you guys (agriculture)."
Environment Canada's Arnott disputes this. These plants are definitely a bigger concern than agriculture is, he says. Furthermore, agriculture's contribution to similar pollution is going to be covered off under some aspects of the Agricultural Policy Framework.
He says the Grand River in southern Ontario is probably at a high risk from chlorine and ammonia because of the large population that is served by wastewater plants with effluent going into the river. Also, the river water is warm and the flow is low in the summer. Ammonia can reduce the oxygen in the water.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is also fighting the federal proposals says senior policy advisor Nicola Crawhall. Toronto, for example, claims to face a capital expense of $500 million to build de-nitrification systems to add to their sewage treatment plants to reduce ammonia. Running these systems requires a lot of electricity and that bill hasn't been calculated yet. She thinks the benefits to water quality will be minimal. "We don't think there is much impact at end of pipe. We don't see any fish kills in Lake Ontario."
Plants where a lot of chlorine is dumped into a small stream and fish die are another story. "Those are inexcusable," she says. "We don't object to those systems being upgraded."
Ellison says the provincial ministry's of environment should be concerned because their jurisdiction is being invaded by the federal government. Spokesman John Steele says the Ontario environment ministry isn't concerned about jurisdiction but is proceeding with its own agenda, implementing the recommendations of Justice O'Connor emanating from the Walkerton Inquiry. Justice O'Connor did not mention chlorine and ammonia in wastewater, but did target "heavy metals and priority organics" such as endocrine disruptors that "disrupt human reproductive systems," Steele says. "It's more of an issue of priorities," he told Better Farming. BF
© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..
back
"Out of sight, out of mind" revisited
By law, municipalities, industries and farmers are required to report to the Ministry of Environment Spills Action Centre in Toronto when there is a spill to the environment of a substance that could be considered harmful; be it chemical, heavy metal or human sewage or animal manure.Likewise pollution plant operators are required to report when they are so overwhelmed by a 'storm event' that normal sewage treatment is circumvented and the effluent is simply treated with chlorine and dumped into receiving waters. This is called a bypass and is standard procedure; otherwise raw sewage backs up into the basements of homes and businesses.
Among the worst offenders in 2002 were Niagara Falls with 46 bypasses, down slightly from 2001; Welland with 37 bypasses (compared to 4 in 2001) and the City of St. Catharines with 34 bypasses (37 in 2001). The city of Toronto improved slightly with 14 bypasses in 2002 compared to 17 in 2001. By comparison, in all of Ontario manure spills reported in 2002 totalled 26 compared to 41 in 2001. BF
Manure Spills 2001 2002 ADELAIDE METCALFE TWP. 1 1 BLUEWATER MUNIC. 0 2 BRANT COUNTY CITY 1 0 BURK'S FALLS VILL. 0 1 BURLINGTON CITY 1 0 CENTRAL HURON MUNIC. 1 0 CENTRE WELLINGTON TWP. 0 1 CHATHAM-KENT CITY 2 3 CLARINGTON MUNIC. 1 0 CLEARVIEW TWP. 1 0 DUTTON/DUNWICH MUNIC. 1 0 EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK TWP. 1 0 ENGLEHART TOWN 0 1 GEORGIAN BLUFFS TWP. 1 0 GREY HIGHLANDS MUNIC. 0 1 HURON EAST MUNIC. 1 2 KINCARDINE MUNIC. 2 1 KITCHENER CITY 1 0 LAKESHORE TOWN 0 1 LONDON CITY 1 0 MAPLETON TWP. 1 0 MIDDLESEX CENTRE TWP. 3 0 MILTON TOWN 1 1 NORFOLK TOWN 1 1 NORTH MIDDLESEX MUNIC. 1 1 NORTH PERTH TOWN 1 0 NORWICH TWP. 1 1 OAKVILLE TOWN 1 1 PERTH EAST TWP. 0 1 PERTH SOUTH TWP. 1 0 RIDEAU LAKES TWP. 0 1 SAUGEEN SHORES TOWN 0 1 SOUTH DUNDAS TWP. 1 1 SOUTH HURON MUNIC. 0 1 SOUTHWEST MIDDLESEX MUNIC. 2 0 ST.CATHARINES CITY 1 0 ST.CLAIR TWP. 1 0 ST.THOMAS CITY 1 0 TIMMINS CITY 1 0 WARWICK TWP. 0 1 WELLESLEY TWP. 1 0 WEST NIPISSING MUNIC. 1 0 WEST PERTH TWP. 0 1 WILMOT TWP. 3 0 WINDSOR CITY 1 0 WOOLWICH TWP. 1 0 Source: Spills Action Centre, Ontario Ministry of Environment
© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..
back
SEWAGE SPILLS Bypasses Spills AJAX TOWN 1 0 1 1 ALFRED AND PLANTAGENET TWP. 1 0 0 2 AMHERSTBURG TOWN 0 10 0 1 ARMSTONG TWP. 6 2 0 1 ARNPRIOR TOWN 2 30 1 5 ARRAN-ELDERSLIE MUNIC. 1 0 0 0 ASSIGINACK TWP. 0 0 0 1 ATIKOKAN TWP 12 7 0 3 AURORA TOWN 0 0 3 0 AYLMER TOWN 1 0 0 1 BARRIE CITY 0 1 7 6 BAYHAM MUNIC. 0 0 0 1 BELLEVILLE CITY 8 6 7 3 BLACK RIVER, MATHESON TWP. 11 8 2 0 BLIND RIVER TOWN 0 0 0 2 BLUEWATER MUNIC. 0 2 0 1 BRACEBRIDGE TOWN 0 0 2 4 BRAMPTON CITY 0 0 1 1 BRANT COUNTY CITY 0 2 0 2 BRANFORD CITY 0 0 1 0 BROCKTON MUNIC. 3 0 0 0 BROCKVILLE CITY 0 2 0 0 BURLINGTON CITY 11 6 2 2 CALEDON TOWN 2 0 1 0 CAMBRIDGE CITY 1 1 6 4 CARDINAL VILL. 0 0 0 1 CARLETON PLACE TOWN 1 2 0 1 CAVAN-MILLBROOK-N.MONAGHAN TWP. 0 0 0 1 CENTRAL ELGIN MUNIC. 3 0 1 0 CENTRAL HURON MUNIC. 1 2 0 0 CENTRE WELLINGTON TWP. 1 0 1 0 CHAMPLAIN TWP. 2 3 0 1 CLARINGTON MUNIC. 0 0 0 1 COBOURG TOWN 0 0 0 1 COCHRANE TOWN 3 2 1 0 COLLINGWOOD TOWN 1 0 0 0 CORNWALL CITY 0 0 1 0 DEEP RIVER TOWN 0 1 0 1 DESERONTO TOWN 2 1 2 1 DRYDEN CITY 5 5 2 1 DURHAM REGIONAL MUNIC. 0 0 1 0 DYSART, BRUTON, CLYDE TWP. 0 0 1 0 EAR FALLS TWP. 0 1 0 1 EAST LUTHER GRAND VALLEY TWP. 1 2 0 0 EAST ZORRA-TAVISTOCK TWP. 0 0 1 0 ELLIOT LAKE CITY 4 2 5 1 EMO TWP. 0 1 0 0 ENGLEHART TOWN 1 5 2 0 ESPANOLA TOWN 0 2 0 1 ESSEX TOWN 0 1 0 0 FENELON FALLS VILL. 0 0 0 1 FORT ERIE TOWN 7 8 1 4 FORT FRANCES TOWN 0 2 0 0 GANANOZUE SEP. TOWN 1 3 1 1 GEORGIAN BAY TWP. 0 0 0 1 GEORGINA TOWN 0 0 1 0 GERALDTON TOWN 0 6 0 0 GODERICH TOWN 7 1 0 0 GREATER NAPANEE TOWN 0 0 2 2 GREATER SUDBURY CITY 36 13 18 6 GREENSTONE MUNIC. 37 30 5 5 GRIMSBY TOWN 7 6 1 0 GUELPH CITY 9 2 8 5 HAILEYBURY TOWN 2 2 0 0 HALDIMAND COUNTY 3 7 2 2 HALTON HILLS TOWN 4 5 1 1 HAMILTON CITY 16 32 7 7 HAWKESBURY TOWN 8 9 1 0 HEARST TOWN 3 5 1 2 HOPE MUNIC. 2 10 2 3 HORNEPAYNE TWP. 3 1 1 0 HUNTSVILLE TOWN 0 0 5 3 HURON EAST MUNIC. 8 11 0 0 HURON-KINLOSS TWP. 1 0 0 0 IGNACE TWP. 0 4 0 0 INGERSOLL TOWN 0 1 1 9 INNISFIL TOWN 0 0 1 3 IROQUOIS FALLS TOWN 16 18 2 2 KAPUSKASING TOWN 12 13 8 1 KAWARTHA LAKES CITY 1 2 3 4 KENORA CITY 2 3 7 7 KENORA DISTRICT 0 1 0 2 KENORA DISTRICT/TIMMINS 0 0 0 1 KILLARNEY MUNIC. 1 0 0 0 KINCARDINE MUNIC. 1 0 2 1 KINGSTON CITY 11 6 1 5 KINGSVILLE TOWN 0 3 0 0 KIRKLAND LAKE TOWN 10 2 0 0 KITCHENER CITY 1 0 3 2 LAMBTON SHORES MUNIC. 2 0 0 0 LINCOLN TOWN 0 0 0 1 LONDON CITY 10 8 9 10 LOYALIST TWP. 1 1 2 2 MANITOULIN DISTRICT 0 1 0 0 MANITOUWADGE TOWNSHIP 0 0 1 1 MAPLETON TWP. 0 0 3 0 MATTAWA TOWN 2 0 0 0 MATTICE-VAL COTE TWP. 1 0 0 0 MCGARRY TWP. 7 2 0 0 MILTON TOWN 3 0 0 0 MINTO TOWN 1 0 0 0 MISSISSAUGA CITY 5 3 4 0 MISSISSIPPI MILLS TOWN 1 3 1 2 MOOSONEE TOWN 1 1 1 0 MUSKOKA LAKES TWP. 0 0 2 0 N.EAST MANITOULIN/THE ISLANDS TOWN 2 1 0 1 NEW LISKEARD TOWN 4 0 0 0 NEW TECUMSETH TOWN 1 0 0 2 NIAGARA FALLS CITY 54 46 3 1 NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE TOWN 0 2 0 0 NIPISSING DISTRICT 0 0 1 0 NORFOLK COUNTY 0 0 0 2 NORFOLK TOWN 1 1 3 3 NORTH BAY CITY 1 1 2 4 NORTH HIMSWORTH TWP. 0 0 1 0 NORTH BRUCE PENN. MUNIC. 0 1 0 0 NORTH DUMFRIES TWP. 0 0 0 1 NORTH GRENVILLE TWP. 0 0 0 1 NORTH HURON TWP. 1 3 0 0 NORTH MIDDLESEX MUNIC. 2 3 4 0 NORTH PERTH TOWN 1 0 3 0 NORWICH TWP. 1 0 0 0 OAKVILLE TOWN 2 5 2 6 ORANGEVILLE TOWN 8 11 4 0 ORILLIA CITY 0 0 0 1 ORO-MEDONTE TWP. 0 0 0 1 OSHAWA CITY 3 1 1 1 OTTAWA CITY 0 0 5 5 OWEN SOUND CITY 2 4 0 1 PARRY SOUND TOWN 2 3 2 1 PENATANGUISHENE TOWN 3 2 0 5 PETAWAWA TOWN 1 0 4 0 PETERBOROUGH CITY 5 2 1 0 PICKLE LAKE TWP. 0 0 0 1 PORT COLBORNE CITY 0 5 2 2 PORT HOPE TOWN 0 0 0 1 PRESCOTT SEP. TOWN 1 0 5 1 PRINCE EDWARD CITY 0 5 0 7 QUINTE WEST CITY 2 11 1 2 RAINY RIVER TOWN 3 4 0 0 RED ROCK TWP. 1 0 0 0 RENFREW TOWN 2 2 2 0 RICHMOND HILL TOWN 0 0 2 0 SAULT STE. MARIE CITY 26 11 2 2 SCUGOG TWP. 0 0 0 1 SEVERN TWP. 1 2 0 0 SHEDDEN TWP. 1 1 0 2 SHELBURNE TOWN 0 1 0 1 SIMCOE TOWN 0 2 0 0 SMITH-ENNISMORE-LAKEFIELD 0 0 0 1 SMITHS FALLS SEP. TOWN 15 23 0 0 SMOOTH ROCK FALLS TOWN 6 6 1 2 SOUTH BRUCE MUNIC. 1 0 0 0 SOUTH HURON MUNIC. 4 3 0 0 SOUTH STORMONT TWP. 0 0 1 0 SOUTHWEST MIDDLESEX MUNIC. 0 0 2 0 ST. CATHARINES CITY 37 34 3 4 ST. MARYS SEPARATED TOWN 3 0 0 1 ST. THOMAS CITY 0 1 1 0 STRATFORD CITY 6 8 0 0 SUDBURY CITY 0 1 0 1 TAY TWP. 0 0 1 3 TEMAGAMI MUNIC. 0 0 0 1 THE NATION TWP. 0 0 1 0 THE SOUTH BRUCE PENINSULA TOWN 1 1 0 1 THESSALON TOWN 1 0 0 0 THOROLD CITY 3 1 0 1 THUNDER BAY CITY 0 0 0 1 THUNDER BAY DISTRICT 0 0 0 1 TIMMINS CITY 11 6 1 0 TORONTO CITY 17 14 17 11 TRENT HILLS MUNIC. 2 7 2 1 TWEED MUNIC. 0 2 2 0 UXBRIDGE TWP. 0 0 1 0 VAUGHAN CITY 0 0 1 3 WAINFLEET TWP 0 0 0 1 WARWICK TWP. 2 0 0 0 WASAGA BEACH TOWN 0 0 2 0 WATERLOO CITY 1 0 0 1 WELLAND CITY 4 37 0 1 WELLESLEY TWP. 2 0 0 0 WELLINGTON COUNTY 0 0 1 0 WELLINGTON NORTH TWP. 2 2 3 1 WEST GREY TWP. 3 1 2 0 WEST LINCOLN TWP. 0 2 0 0 WEST NIPISSING MUNIC. 8 14 2 3 WHITBY TOWN 0 3 1 0 WHITESTONE MUNIC. 0 0 0 1 WHITEWATER REGION TWP. 0 0 0 2 WILLISVILLE/WHITEFISH FLS 0 0 0 1 WOOLWICH TWP. 11 1 2 4 YORK REGIONAL MUNIC. 0 1 0 0 Source: Spills Action Centre, Ontario Ministry of Environment
© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..
back
The Spencers clean up an eyesore
Getting rid of the "unacceptable environmental practices" on their farm may not help the bottom line, but it was "one of those nice things to do." And it has won them plaudits from environmentalistby DON STONEMAN
When Dave Spencer and his wife Connie bought her family farm in 1999, no one would have been surprised if they had simply gotten rid of the handful of beef cows and cash-cropped or rented out the croppable acres.It certainly would have been cheaper, says Spencer, a 61- year-old millwright and boiler operator who expects to retire soon from Toyota in nearby Cambridge. Instead of selling the cows, however, Spencer has cleaned up what has sometimes been referred to as "unacceptable environmental practices" on the east side of Highway 24 between Guelph and Cambridge and expanded the herd.
In 1999,when the Spencers bought the 117-acre farm, the oldest in Guelph Township, there were 11 beef cows on it. Rife Creek runs through the farm and the ravine it has formed was a sore point. Rainwater from the barn roof and yard flowed through the manure pile and down the side of the ravine into the creek. Cattle pasturing there had eaten and trampled the ground cover, so that there was nothing to keep the soil in place. "I tell people that I bought the farm but I inherited the problems," Dave Spencer says.
That has all changed. The manure pile is a grassy area and manure is kept in a concrete covered storage, which was partly paid for by a grant from the Grand River Conservation Authority. Spencer brought in 150 loads of fill and terraced one side of the ravine so that runoff has a flat area to soak into. Six acres were planted to a heavy grazing mix that Spencer says has about forage 15 species in it. "I wanted to get a good catch right away," he says. In the meantime, he used filter cloth to hold the soil in place.
Cattle are fenced away from the steeper side of the ravine. They pasture on the terrace, but it is fenced off so that Spencer can move them to another area when the grass is eaten down.
Making these changes was not all roses. Spencer terraced the ravine without consulting the authorities and didn't get into trouble. However, he had to jump through some bureaucratic hoops in order to build the manure storage, since Rife Creek is designated as a "hazard zone." The storage is supposed to be a minimum of 10 metres away from that zone.
"I didn't want to take up more room on top," says Spencer. He applied to the county's committee of adjustment and was able to obtain a "zero setback," a minor variance from the 10-metre rule.
"A few of our clients run into that because they are in critical areas, such as a flood plain," says Tracey Ryan, supervisor of conservation services with the authority.
Ryan says Spencer was able to get grants from a number of funding agencies to complete the work, but they certainly did not come near covering the cost. The 40-by-60 manure storage cost $46,000 to build, says Spencer. Because it is built on a slope, it requires a substantial foundation underneath it.
The grant from the Wellington County and City of Guelph Healthy Waters fund covered $15,000. To be eligible for a manure storage grant, an owner must develop a nutrient management plan. A grant covers up to half of that, to a maximum of $500.
Spencer also did a considerable amount of fencing to keep the cattle out of the Speed River at the rear of the property. Ryan says the county covers all material costs if the owner supplies the labour, or 75 per cent of all material and labour costs if workers are hired. But there is a $10,000 cap on any fencing project.
Spencer also planted cedars, willows, silver maples and dogwoods supplied by the Grand River Conservation Authority through another grant program. This may have been done in the nick of time. Spencer says Ministry of Environment officials came visiting in April 2002, when he and Connie were on vacation, "apparently because of a complaint." When he returned from vacation, he showed them his plans and the officials were pleased that alterations were already under way.
Spencer stresses he wasn't under any orders to make the improvements. "This was strictly an environmental farm plan follow-up. It was so visible, it was just one of those nice things to do."
Though Spencer notes that he cannot justify the improvements on an economic basis, he gets plaudits from John Fitzgibbon, chair of the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition, who says this operation "really does present a very positive view of what can be done."
Fitzgibbon hopes that funding available through the new Agricultural Policy Framework will help support people like Spencer as farms transfer from one generation to the next.
"We've been doing research between the stewardship process and the linkages with regulations," Fitzgibbon says. "People don't only meet regulations. They go beyond them. Stewardship leads regulation. Regulation is necessary but it's not sufficient."
The improvements that Spencer made "are the right thing to do and the best possible thing that we could hope for," Fitzgibbon says. BF
© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..
back
"True ambassadors for progressive farming"
By following an integrated management strategy, practicing conservation tillage and making other farm improvements, and by leading numerous farm tours, the Easteps of Elora have won themselves a Countryside Canada awardby JESSICA ALFORD
Steven and Sandra Eastep, with their four children Neil, Dale, Rick and Kimberley, run a viable, ecologically sound, mixed farm near Elora. They raise broiler chickens, farrow-to-finish swine, corn, soybeans, alfalfa and small grains. Steven Eastep says their "integrated management strategy" makes their jobs easier, reduces smell and noise, improves appearance and keeps the soil, water, farm animals, wildlife and human community healthy.Once a run-down, 200-acre sod farm, Eastep Farms is now 300 acres, including 100 rented acres. In March 2003, the Easteps received a Countryside Canada award for being "true ambassadors for progressive farming and environmental stewardship," in the words of the award nominator, Lloyd Crowe, President of the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA).
The Easteps raise 24,000 medium-sized broiler chickens in two poultry barns. Their chicken manure storage barn is a critical part of their integrated management strategy and nutrient management plan. Before the manure barn was completed in 2000, the odour and sanitation requirements drove the timing of manure application.
The 50 sows and their offspring also live in an environmentally controlled barn with the liquid manure pumped out to a holding pit before application in spring and fall. Manure storage allows flexible timing of manure application appropriate to the season, wetness and temperature, thus minimizing the manure running off into streams and the water table.
The Easteps' nutrient management plan is likely to fulfill the proposed stricter regulations of Ontario's Nutrient Management Act, which is scheduled for implementation on large farms in 2005 and small farms in 2008. A grant from the Rural Water Quality Program, delivered by the Grand River Conservation Authority, covered half of the $30,000 cost of the Easteps' chicken manure barn.
Funding from various provincial and local programs assisted in more than 20 Eastep farm improvements over 25 years. Soil erosion was controlled and water quality increased by planting trees, changing field orientation, creating windbreaks, ponds and sediment basins. Steven Eastep says he hopes that more farmers will take advantage of financial assistance available from groups such as local conservation authorities, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and soil and crop associations.
Conservation tillage is also practiced by the Easteps. One hundred acres of soybeans are planted annually using a no-till drill and 100 acres of corn are planted annually using the minimum tillage Soil Saver, which incorporates the chicken and hog manure that is produced in the barns.
According to Andrew Graham, OSCIA's Stewardship Programs Co-ordinator, "conservation tillage can potentially provide immediate return on investment by reducing fuel, machinery and labour costs."
Graham adds, "It is in the best interest of all producers to adopt management approaches that enhance farm production without sacrificing soil, water and air resources. While increased production is one way of measuring success, so too is conservation of our natural resources. Demonstrating responsibility to consumers is an absolute necessity for agriculture as well."
It was the Easteps' integrated management strategy and their generosity in leading tours around their farm that won them the Countryside Canada award this year. They host hundreds of other farmers and students from the universities of Guelph, Waterloo and Toronto in order to demonstrate how sound environmental planning can contribute to a viable agricultural operation. BF
© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..
back
December funding deadline looms for manure technology project
Among other tools, this project would offer farmers a standardized list of questions that farmers could pose to determine if a new manure-handling technology would meet their needsby DON STONEMAN
Will manure injection reduce odours on your farm and help keep your neighbours happy? Is the new technology that is touted to reduce the volume of manure on your livestock farm going to work and also address other issues?The Advanced Manure Management Technologies for Ontario project (AMMTO) project may help, if it gets funding to continue past Dec. 31. AMMTO has developed a database of 320 technologies available worldwide that will work in specific situations to achieve producers' goals in reducing concerns about pollution.
Elements of the project were unveiled in early summer. Farmers are excited about it and so are municipalities and conservation authorities that have to deal with these issues, says John Alderman, vice-president of farming operations at Thamesford's Cold Springs Farm, one of the companies funding the project.
Other funding partners in the project are Ontario Pork Producers, Ontario Pork Industry Council, Premium Pork, Selves Farms Limited Ltd. and the Ontario Poultry Council, with matching funding from the Ontario government's Healthy Futures program. The program has been seeking funding to go ahead with the next phase, says Richard St. Jean, AMMTO project manager. Healthy Futures project runs out at the end of the year.
Unless funding is found by Dec. 31, says St. Jean, the project will be shut down and there is still lots to do. "We spent six to eight months collecting manure technology information. Many companies didn't submit information. We would continue to add to our database. We want to improve on the tools that we have, based on the input from users."
One of those tools is a standardized list of questions that farmers would ask anyone who has a manure handling technology for sale to help them decide if the technology will help meet their needs. "A lot of farmers don't know what questions to ask," St. Jean says.
Another tool is an economic evaluation template developed by Ridgetown College agriculture economist Ken McEwan. The template helps farmers to compare the cost of new manure handling technologies to current practices. "The result is a number that gives (the producer) a cost per unit of milk production, or pound of pork or beef."
Alderman is excited because the database of technologies will let a producer zero in on technologies that will meet his or her goals -- key targets such as reducing manure volume or reducing pathogen loads.
If a technology will allow a farmer to concentrate manure into a given volume that will allow it to be exported to a cash crop farmer, for example, then a nutrient management plan associated with a new livestock barn should take that into consideration, Alderman says. A 'steps-to-implement' database that lists all the different manure technologies and goes through a whole raft of considerations for each technology that you need to look at. St. Jean describes a 'steps-to-implement' as "a screening that let's you decide, right off the bat, if this is a technology that is suitable for you or not." It covers manure characteristics that are required to use that technology and also helps single out partners elsewhere in society with whom you can work to make it viable. For example, some technologies require thick manure. If a farmer has thin manure, he might be able to work with bakery waste to use a technology that wouldn't work with his manure alone. The database also outlines the expertise that is required to maintain a particular manure-handling system.
St. Jean is hoping that funding can be extended. People need to know that the database and the tools are available, he says, and the website where this information is stored must be maintained.
Information about the AMMTO and its tools is on the website at http://res2.agr.ca/initiatives/manurenet/en/AMMTO/ammto_home.html BF
© copyright 2003 AgMedia Inc..
back