Better Pork - December 2002

What the Nutrient Management Act's draft regulations require

Consultations are already underway on the draft regulations and will continue - in three stages - until the act comes into force in April 2003. Here are the key elements
by SAM BRADSHAW
Bill 81, the Nutrient Management Act, received royal assent in the Ontario legislature on June 27, 2002. This act will form a part of the Ontario government's clean water strategy. It will provide for province-wide standards to address the effects of agricultural practices on the environment, especially as they relate to land-applied materials containing nutrients.

All regulations will be in force by April of 2003. Consultations on the regulations will be held in three stages. By the time this article is printed, the 60-day period for stage one consultations will have concluded. However, I have attempted to summarize these proposed stage one regulations, since I believe that most of them will become part of the Act.

Consultations on Stage One of the proposed regulations included:

  • The content of nutrient management plans (NMPs), including farm identification and location; field information such as soil tests, nutrient allocations, manure and biosolids applications; and contingency plans to address such things as spills and severe weather.

  • Categories of agricultural operations. Categories will be based on nutrient units.

    Stage Two consultations will begin sometime in October and stakeholders will have 60 days to comment. These consultations will include topics such as:

  • Construction and siting of barns and manure storages.

  • Land application, biosecurity, local advisory committees, feedlot operations.

  • NMP strategies for municipalities and other non-farm industries.

  • Setback distances around waterways.

  • Restrictions for spreading on snow-covered or saturated land.

  • Phasing out of the application of untreated septage.

    Stage Three consultations will begin in late winter or early spring and will be completed by April 2003. They will cover:

  • Livestock access to waterways.
  • Manure haulage and transfer.
  • Wash water and dead animal disposal.
    Details of Stage One consultations
     Producers will need to include the following information in a nutrient management plan:

    A. Nutrient Management Strategy Information

  • Nutrient Management Strategy Description.

  • Farm Unit Declaration Form.

  • Contingency Plan.

  • Signed NMS Certification Form.

    B. Farm Unit Information

  • Location Map(s).

  • Site Plan.

  • Minimum Distance Separation (MDS II) calculations.

    C. Nutrient Production and Storage

  • List quantity and types of all nutrient generated or received.

    Note: The storage should contain manure, rainfall run-off from uncovered solid manure piles, milk house wash water, barnyard runoff and any other nutrient-containing solids or liquids generated in the operation.

    D. Nutrient Analysis of Manure
  • Analysis of nutrient content and quality.

  • Documentation verifying feed additive effects.

    Note: A nutrient analysis for each manure type should have been completed within the last three years. The nutrient content of the tested manure should be within 30 per cent of the Nutrient Management data bank results, or else documentation must be included.

    E. Destination Information
  • Land lease or manure application agreements.

  • List the Corresponding Nutrient Management Strategy (NMS) and/or attach the name of the Broker.

  • Agreements.

  • Remote Field Transportation Documentation.

  • Other method of disposal (other than land applying).

    You must update your NMP if:

  • The Farm Unit has an increase of 20 per cent or more in the quantity of nutrients, excluding commercial fertilizers.

  • There is a change in ownership or control of the Farm Unit, which affects the ability to implement the NMS.

  • Three years have elapsed since the date of the last NMS.

  • Nutrients are to be directed to a new destination (i.e. not land applied).

  • The quantity of nutrients going to any single destination changes by 30 Nutrient Units.

  • A new generating facility or nutrient storage is planned.

    Note: Provincial Approval is required for Category III or IV Farm Units.

    To complete your Nutrient Management Plan, you must first define your "farm unit" and complete a farm unit declaration form. The form will ask producers to:

  • Declare all of your land base, whether owned or rented.

  • Separate your land base into one or more farm units.

  • Complete a NMP for each unit.

    Under these draft regulations, farmers are not required to own any part of the land base, nor are there maximum nutrient unit restrictions on a farm unit.

    Definition of a farm unit
  • It can be no smaller than a single deed.

  • It can be no smaller than the land base of a generating facility under a single continuous roof.

  • It must include all land receiving nutrients generated on the deeded property.

  • It must include nutrient generating facilities on other deeds owned by the same person/corporation if the nutrients generated on these other deeds are utilized on the land base of the first deed.

    Farms will be phased in using nutrient units.

    Details of Nutrient Units
  • Nutrient Units should help ensure an "apples to apples" comparison between sizes and types of nutrient generators and users, and would not be used to establish land base requirements for a Farm Unit.

  • Land base requirements will be based on the farm unit's Nutrient Management Plan.

  • These units will be used to phase in the regulations.

    Below are some examples.

    Animals per Nutrient Unit

  • 1.0 beef cow (includes unweaned calf and replacements)

  • 0.6 dairy cow (large-frame, 1200-1400 lbs, milking or dry)

  • 3.33 SEW Sows (lactating aged sows including weaners to 15 lbs)

  • 2.5 sow farrow-wean (lactating aged sows, including weaners to 60 lbs)

  • 20.0 weaners (15-60 lbs)

  • Finishing pigs (60-230 lbs)

    Nutrient Units will be based on:

  • The number of animals housed or pastured at one time (based on highest design capacity of barns at one time) that produce enough manure to fertilize one acre of crops under the most limiting of either nitrogen or phosphorus, or

  • The weight or volume of manure or other biosolids used annually on a Farm Unit that fertilizes the same area of crop land base under the most limiting of either nitrogen or phosphorus.

    An example of weights and volumes of manure per nutrient unit follows, and is based on weights or volumes used annually. For now, the draft regulations include only some types of manures, but eventually more manures and biosolids will be added.

  • Dry-bedded, chicken or turkey manure (tons of manure) 2.5

  • Dry-bedded, beef cattle manure (tons of manure) 10.0

  • Dry-bedded, horse manure (tons of manure) 20.0

    Following is an example showing how to calculate nutrient units:

    A swine farmer houses 1200 finishing pigs and generates manure, but also uses 250 tons of dry-bedded chicken manure for his field crops. How many nutrient units of manure does this farm generate and use?

  • 1200 finishing pigs ÷ 6 pigs/NU = 200 NU

  • 250 tons of dry-bedded chicken manure ÷ 2.5 tons/NU = 100 NU

  • Total = 300 NU

    Thus, this farm both generates and uses enough manure to place it into Category IV.

    Phase In
    The phase-in schedule will occur starting in the spring of 2003 and will begin with larger farms producing manure. As of 2008, all nutrient generators and users will fall under the act.

    The phase in will be based on nutrient units, beginning with the larger farms. Category IV farms producing 300 nutrient units or more will be phased in first and will include farms producing the following numbers of livestock:

    >1,800 finishing pigs

    >6000 weaners

    >1000 S.E.W. (lactating aged sows)

    >750 Sow -- farrow to wean

    >200 Sow -- farrow to finish

    The regulations will apply to new or expanding operations in March 2003 and to existing operations in 2004. Category III farms will fall under the regulations next and will include farms producing 150 to 300 nutrient units.

  • 900-1800 finishing pigs

  • 3000-6000 weaners

  • 500-1000 S.E.W. (lactating aged sows)

  • 375-750 Sow -- farrow to wean.

  • 100-200 Sow -- farrow to finish.

    The regulations will affect new or expanding operations in March 2003, and existing operations in 2005. Category II farms - 30-50 nutrient units

  • 180-900 finishing pigs

  • 600-3000 weaners

  • 100-500 S.E.W. (lactating aged sows)

  • 75-375 Sow-- farrow to wean.

  • 20-100 Sow -- farrow to finish

    The regulations will cover new and expanding operations in March 2003, operations that generate liquid manure in 2005 and existing operations in 2008.

    Category I farms producing less than 30 nutrient units

    <180 finishing pigs

    <600 weaners

    <100 S.E.W. (lactating aged sows)

    <75 Sow -- farrow to wean

    <20 Sow -- farrow to finish

    The regulations will apply to new or expanding operations in March 2003, and to existing operations in 2008. All other agricultural operations, including non-livestock, would be required to submit nutrient management plans in 2008.BP

Sam Bradshaw is environmental specialist with Ontario Pork.



© copyright 2002 AgMedia Inc..


back














Better Pork - December 2002

New pork board CEO hopes to leave Humane Society controversies behind him

In a wide-ranging interview with Better Pork, Jack Slibar makes a spirited defence of his years as head of the contentious Toronto Humane Society by DON STONEMAN

Located on River Street in the city's gritty east side, the Toronto Humane Society (THS) is the largest in Canada with an annual budget of about $8 million. It is also arguably the most contentious, with a well-earned reputation as a wellspring for the animal rights movement in the mid-1980s.

Most pork producers likely won't realize that the society's animal rights element is long gone. So many pork producers were shocked by a press release in late October announcing that the pork board's latest chief executive officer is a former senior manager at the humane society.

Jack Slibar, 37, asserts vigorously that he is not an animal rightist. This assertion is backed up by Leslie Ballantine, public affairs director for the Mississauga-based Ontario Farm Animal Council, which monitors animal welfare and rights activities across North American, and also by Vicky Earle, chief executive officer of the Ontario SPCA, located near Newmarket.

The farm community became acutely aware of the animal rights movement in Ontario in 1986 when animal rights activists Vicki Miller and Kathleen Hunter took over the THS and Hunter became the executive director.

Slibar replaced Hunter in 1997 after she was suddenly fired by the board of directors and says that he was approached about the job after Hunter was ousted. Slibar was hired five years earlier to act as a liaison between the humane society and government. He worked previously for the Toronto-based MacKenzie Institute. On its website (http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/), the MacKenzie Institute describes itself as "an independent, non-profit organization concerned with issues related to political instability and organized violence. This includes such matters as terrorism, political extremism, warfare and organized crime." Slibar continues to write reports for MacKenzie as a political risk analyst.

By the time Hunter was ousted, Miller was already gone and her animal rights advocate board had already been replaced. But the departure of an animal rights-minded senior manager was not the end of controversy at the humane society, as Slibar made clear in a wide-ranging interview with Better Pork. Slibar says that he took over after "a long and divisive strike" and that the society "was on the verge of collapse."

"Industrial relations were in a shambles, there were no job descriptions. There was no strategic planning" and minimal financial accountability. " The culture was difficult and confrontational," Slibar says.

During his five-year tenure as head of the THS, Slibar says he instituted business principles and a new level of professional to the society's workings, and initiated mutually beneficial corporate sponsorships. The THS was also re-affiliated with the Ontario SPCA, which administers the SPCA Act. The THS was disaffiliated during its animal rights time, says Ontario SPCA CEO Vicky Earle.

"The OSPCA has a large responsibility. We enforce animal quality laws," Earle says. "The inspectors and agents we train and appoint have the powers of police officers." These include the rights to obtain and use search warrants to search for endangered animals, she says, and it isn't appropriate for an animal rights group to have these types of powers.

"When it became apparent that this society was no longer being run by an animal rights group and was being more responsible we did re-affiliate them," Earle says.

Slibar takes credit for the reinstatement of the THS and also for bringing in a former high-level Toronto police officer to run the enforcement department and keep it separate from board interference.

Slibar says he was able to "dramatically increase the society's revenue streams" and doubled its rainy day investment fund to nearly $5 million. He was managing more than 100 employees.

Controversial contact
In December of 2000, the THS lost a $760,000 contract to provide pound services for lost and stray animals in the City of Toronto. The reasons are still contentious, Slibar says. Media reports charged that the THS demanded a 35 per cent increase in the fee it charged for collecting and caring for animals at a time when city budgets were either frozen or being cut and that there was no opportunity to negotiate. Slibar says city officials "had already made up their minds" on this issue because of difficulties associated with amalgamation.

With the THS still in the pound business, there would have been two different levels of service for dealing with strays, one for the old city of Toronto handled by the THS, and another for the suburbs which are run by city-owned pounds that don't operate under the 24 hour a day, seven-day a week regime, as at the THS. A plan to expand services to the suburbs was rejected by City Hall, Slibar says, citing contentious issues of privatization of unionized city services.

For the THS to continue under the terms of the old contract didn't make business sense either, Slibar says. "There was this bizarre situation whereby you had this municipality with, I think, a roughly $6 billion operating budget being subsidized by a (then) $9 million charity for animal control services." The city paid the THS $776,000 to provide services Slibar said cost more than $1 million. Charitable donations taken in by the society made up the shortfall. "We came to the conclusion that the THS could no longer subsidize the municipality."

Slibar links the fallout from the loss of the City of Toronto animal control contract to a question of governance that went to court and which the society board ultimately lost.

With Slibar as executive director, the THS made a historic change in how its members vote. (Slibar is a disciple of the John Carver rules of governance of non-governmental bodies such as charities; see http://www.carvergovernance.com/)

The board was reduced to 12 members from 16 (the city's representative was one of those eliminated) and, under a new bylaw, the board members had the right to determine membership classifications and thus who had the right to vote in board elections.

Unhappy members challenged the new THS bylaw in court in the summer of 2001 and won. A Superior Court Justice ordered the THS to pay the complainants' court costs and newspaper reports put the legal bills at $700,000. Better Pork was unable to substantiate those reports.

While the human society board lost, Slibar stresses that the judge hearing the case said there was no malice involved, just legal mistakes. The solicitors approved all the information packages that were sent out. "The society had legal advice and it was following a fully inclusive process for all the board members that chose to participate. And many of the people who were the critics of that did actually participate in the process."

Slibar said the old, and newly reinstated, membership system didn't make complete sense, despite how it was presented in the media. The society had 1,000 members, many of whom paid only a $30 membership and the number was falling. They had the right to choose who was a board director. Yet, Slibar points out, the THS had roughly 100,000 donors, most of whom had no voting rights. Some donors made individual contributions in excess of $10,000 and counted on the society to spend their donations properly.

"Certain members of the board were not able to cope with the loss of the animal control contract, notwithstanding the fact that they were fully included in all the discussions around it.

"In my opinion, it was a drive to regain control of the board by individuals who weren't able to cope with the loss of the contract in order to change the policy position of the board -- to challenge the whole basis of the bylaw in order to regain the control of the society."

There was no outcry against the new board, he claims, noting that there was a gap of six months between the annual meeting when the bylaws were changed and when the injunction against the new board were sought.

No cruelty charges laid
There were two more controversies when Slibar was at the THS and both involved spending. One was a decision to spend up to $50,000 on campaigning by two opposing slates of candidates for board officers. The second was a $2,000 gift wedding gift that the THS board gave to Slibar and his bride. Slibar stresses that both were board decisions.

Slibar left the THS on a pre-arranged parental leave on Nov. 10, 2001. A few days later the entire THS board was replaced by a new slate of officers at an annual general meeting. In June of 2002, Slibar received notice that his employment there was terminated.

The THS continues to attract controversy and the powers of its animal control officers were challenged again recently. Not a single charge of animal cruelty was laid by THS officers in 2001, although they responded to about 1,300 calls. This bothered the Ontario SPCA.

"They were under review by the Ontario SPCA," says the OSPCA's Vicky Earle. The review was completed in June, and THS officers have received fresh training. THS enforcement powers are safe, at least for now. While an Ontario Pork press release emphasizes Slibar's experience in "corporate restructuring and governance reform while implementing best business management practices and strategic operating principles," Clare Schlegel, Ontario Pork chair, reiterates that Slibar was not hired "to do turnaround management." Slibar has a wide variety of skills, Schlegel says.

"He has a very interesting background and a lot of experience to bring to our organization," says Schlegel. "In terms of how staff and boards work together, there is always room for that to function more effectively. I'm sure that Jack's skills will help us there. We just came out of two days of board meetings and we could already see some of that expertise helping us."

Slibar recently finished his Masters in Business Administration from the University of Phoenix, graduating with a 3.96 score out of four. He seems anxious to put it to work and promises to do the best job he can for producers.

Including Helmut Loewen, who left the board in December 1994, there has been a succession of five CEOs in the senior manager's chair. "We are not proud of the amount of turnover and we are looking for longer-term stability for councillors, producers and the staff," Schlegel says.

Pork producer Paul Mistele of Rodney, who has been a pork industry activist, hopes that this pork board CEO works out. "He's got to be good. I have the fullest confidence in Clare Schlegel and the hiring committee to select the best person for the job."

Mistele points out that "it is not an easy job and the turnover of personnel should be witness that there is a very fine line to walk between the board and the people who work beneath you."

Slibar makes it clear that he is not a vegetarian and plans to enjoy his job at Ontario Pork. "My backyard barbecues in the summer are legendary," he says. "I make the best baby back ribs in Oakville. I'm quite proud of that." BP

© copyright 2002 AgMedia Inc..


back


















Better Pork - December 2002

Understanding, diagnosing and treating Haemophilus parasuis (Glässer's Disease)

This disease, which colonizes the nasal cavities of pigs a few weeks after birth, can be effectively controlled with antibiotics if the strain is correctly identified and its epidemiology within the herd is properly understood
by S. ERNEST SANFORD
For decades, we have known about and battled with Haemophilus parasuis (Hps), the bacterium that causes Glässer's disease. But the establishment of large numbers of high health herds, segregated production methods and the emergence of new diseases like Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome PRRS and Post-weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS) have resulted in Hps assuming ever greater importance in swine production.

Hps disease is usually seen from about two weeks postweaning right through to the grower and early finishing stages of production. It also occurs when replacement breeding stock enters downstream herds or if they have come from multiplier herds that are of a higher health status -- or at least from herds that are lacking protection against the particular strain(s) of Hps in the recipient herd.

Hps is a normal inhabitant of the nasal cavity and upper respiratory tract of pigs. Some Hps strains, however, are able to invade the pig systemically and cause polyserositis, arthritis and meningitis, the characteristic lesions of Glässer's disease. An accurate diagnosis and an understanding of the epidemiology of Hps are needed to best treat and control Hps. It is also necessary to determine whether Hps is the primary disease or secondary to something else, such as PRRS.

Diagnosis of Hps. This is done by isolating the organism from affected tissues and matching it with clinical signs and lesions. But Hps is a fastidious organism that often refuses to grow even when the very best samples are submitted to the lab. At the University of Minnesota, Dr. Carlos Pijoan and his graduate student, Dr. Simone Oliveira, have developed a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that has greatly improved the diagnostic capability of Hps from clinical specimens. The PCR test, which identifies Hps without having to isolate the organism, has become the gold standard for specific Hps identification.

Serotypes and genotypes of Hps. Hps is classified into different serotypes and genotypes (strains) within serotypes. Serotyping identifies broad features of Hps, doesn't discriminate enough to permit development of vaccines that will work against specific strains of Hps.

On the other hand, genotyping has the ability to specifically characterize each Hps isolate, irrespective of its serotype. This greatly enhances the ability to compare isolates, trace epidemiological patterns within and between herds and select specific candidate organisms for development of efficacious vaccines. It also allows us to zero in on the few strains within a herd that are really pathogenic and ignore the nonpathogenic, commensal strains that abound in the nasal cavities. These features provide a tremendous boost to control measures.

Serotyping, however, is more readily available than genotyping. So far 15 different serotypes have been identified. But in instituting control measures, it must be recognized that there can be many different strains within a serotype, which do not usually afford adequate cross-protection, and that there are still many untypable isolates.

Furthermore, although the nasal cavities of baby pigs are colonized a few hours after birth, Dr. Pijoan and his colleagues have previously shown that the pathogenic strains (genotypes) of Hps in a herd are usually different from those colonizing the respiratory tract. Moreover, a small number of baby pigs are colonized by pathogenic strains while still protected by maternal immunity. These pigs develop their own natural immunity but become "seeder" pigs that infect penmates around five to six weeks of age who have no protective immunity. The stage is now set for a Glässer's disease outbreak in the nursery.

Treatment and control. Treatment is necessary in acute and peracute cases of Hps. Initial treatment should be with injectable antibiotics. Penicillin is still usually effective, as are the cephalosporins, chlortetracycline, tiamulin and others. Vaccination is one of the main methods used to control the clinical outbreaks due to Hps. Before doing anything, however, your veterinarian will have to determine if Hps is the primary agent or secondary to another disease like PRRS. If present, PRRS must be controlled and stabilized first, before meaningful control of Hps can be achieved.

Several commercial vaccines are available. Because cross-protection among the different strains of Hps is unpredictable and inconsistent, it may be necessary to make an autogenous bacterin derived from the specific Hps strain isolated from your own herd to achieve consistent control levels. Drs. Oliveira and Pijoan give the following guidelines for selecting a suitable Hps isolate to make an autogenous bacterin:

  • Use an isolate from a non-respiratory location such as the pleura, pericardium, peritoneum, joints or meninges.

  • Get several isolates from the above sites and compare them via PCR to determine which is the prevalent strain(s) operating in your herd.

  • Once the autogenous vaccine has been added, check the isolate from any new Hps cases to see if different strains are emerging.

  • It might be necessary to vaccinate sows and piglets until adequate control is achieved. Thereafter, your herd veterinarian can assist in making the decision when only sow vaccination is needed.

Control of Glässer's disease caused by the bacterium Hps depends on correct diagnosis, characterization of the strain(s) causing systemic disease, then timing and implementing correct vaccination. Understanding the epidemiology of the Hps within a herd is a key component of eventual control. BP

S. Ernest Sanford, DVM, Dip. Path., Diplomate ACVP, is a swine specialist with Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica (Canada) Ltd. in Burlington.

© copyright 2002 AgMedia Inc..


back