Better Pork - October 2004
BEHIND THE LINES
by ROBERT IRWINThis month's cover story is about grassroots farmers and farm leaders who are simply peeved and frustrated by the way that the nutrient management program and accompanying funding will be rolled out in the coming 15 months.
There are concerns that the program is simply unworkable for hard-pressed pork and other livestock farmers caught between a stressful cash flow situation on the one hand and, on the other, demanding and likely expensive work that must be done on their farms to meet unyielding deadlines.
As we prepared to go to press, we got a phone call from someone we had interviewed for that cover story. It appears that a breakthrough has been made.
Dennis Zekveld, Ontario Pork's representative on the province's nutrient management advisory committee, thinks some progress has been made on the question of hardship -- how financially stressed farmers can make the required financial upgrades to their operations in time to meet the next round of deadlines -- and also how the program and funding is being rolled out. The hardship issue will be dealt with "on a case by case basis," Zekveld says. "There is a willingness to work with people," he believes. A neutral third party will review technical issues such as setbacks from waterways. "We may be looking at some people from south of the border," he says.
As well, there is the matter of regulations superseding municipal bylaws. It appears this is also being addressed as the province is challenging a bylaw restricting barn construction passed by the municipality of Huron-Kinloss in southwest Bruce County.
Zekveld was most buoyed by a meeting with Premier Dalton McGuinty at a barbecue in southwestern Ontario in early September. "The Premier made the promise to me that with nutrient management they were not going to cause any undue hardship and they were not going to put anyone out of business. And he made the promise that they were going to get the regulations right," Zekveld told Better Pork just before we went to press.
"That's right from the Premier," he insisted. "We are pleased that they are acknowledging and addressing our concerns."BP
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back Better Pork - October 2004
NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT FUNDING: Confusion and concern rampant in the farming community over federal and provincial financial assistance programs
Farmers continue to feel that they are bearing an unfair share of the burden of protecting the environment. And farm organizations worry that provincial funding proposals do not tie in properly with the federal government's Environmental Farm Plan and Best Management Practices fundingby DON STONEMAN
As the heat from the summer of 2004 waned, Dutton area farrow-to-finish operator Herman Minnema seethed. He wasn't alone.Minnema and his wife Kathy farm 1,100 acres, farrow 600 sows and finish their offspring, some on the home farm and some in the 2,000-head finishing barn that they built a mile or so away last year. There's storage for a year's manure at the new barn's location, but only capacity for 200 days at the farrowing barn.
Because his fields are heavy clay, Minnema eschews tankers and irrigates slurry onto the fields. That puts the Minnemas squarely in the crosshairs of the provincial government's nutrient management regulations, which specify that operations with 300 nutrient units or more must have a minimum of 240 days storage by the July 1, 2005 deadline.
"When you see those 2,500-sow barns going up, I can see people getting a little upset," says Minnema, as he sits at a shaded picnic table between his house and barn on a summer's day while his sons play nearby. "But I believe the majority of us do a good job. You see my two little fellows walking around here. Why would I make a mess out of things?"
Why indeed? Minnema says he doesn't have neighbours complaining about the smell when he spreads liquid manure before corn planting in the spring, and when he empties his tanks on wheat stubble after harvest. "I've always been a firm believer in land-based livestock operations," says Minnema.
But he wonders why it seems as though farmers are being asked to carry the burden in cleaning up the environment, while municipalities continue to operate with sewage systems that become overloaded in a summer rainstorm.
He's been waiting all summer to see how the province is going to support farmers as they upgrade infrastructure and practices to meet nutrient management regulations next year. Producers are running out of time.
Spencerville pork and beef farmer Geri Kamenz, vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, is one of 24 members of the provincial nutrient management advisory committee. "One of the mandates of the committee is to provide advice on the phase-in," says Kamenz.
In mid-summer, Kamenz described the July 1, 2005, deadline for farmers to comply with nutrient management regulations as "an unrealistic target." By mid-August, the provincial government seemed to be easing off on that expectation, citing the need to "align the compliance dates of existing large livestock with the availability of funding for the Nutrient Management Financial Assistance Program announced in the budget."
Existing large farm owners would be exempt from some requirements of the regulation until Dec. 31 2005. as long as they submitted a nutrient management strategy to the provincial ministry by the July 1 deadline. In effect, farmers and contractors would have the rest of the construction season to finish the work, though they must still comply with regulations regarding land applications of manure near municipal wells and also with winter spreading restrictions.
TABLE 1. DIRECT COSTS SWINE Representative Model Estimated Prov Cost Estimated Ind Cost Low High Low High Total Farms F to F >5 but <150 NUs $59,205,486 $101,781,441 $56,901 $106,694 2,100 F to F >150 but <300 NUs $4,962,003 $8,487,374 $47,013 $94,175 150 F to F >300 NUs $18,834,728 $31,734,619 $54,210 $100,678 575 F to W >5 but<150 NUs $3,164,673 $6,146,205 $32,258 $76,027 150 F toW >150 but <300 NUs $2,161,461 $3,309,194 $63,064 $120,389 45 F to W> 300 NUs $1,993,971 $2,638,378 $123,614 $169,844 30 3-site >5 but <150 NU Finish $1,184,451 $2,703,906 $14,850 $35,294 150 3-site >150 but< 300 NU Fin $2,354,521 $5,081,662 $16,783 $36,773 275 3-site >300 NUs Finishing $871,871 $1,9372,421 $20,990 $51,970 75 3-site >300 SEW Sow $877,957 $1,856,636 $20,990 $51,970 63 3-site >5 but <150 NU Nursery $323,432 $761,138 $14,850 $35,294 45 3-site >150 but <300 NU Nursery $642,214 $1,239,862 $16,783 $36,773 60 3-site >300 NU Nursery $191,471 $326,758 $20,990 $51,970 8 Total $96,768,339 $167,999,594 3,726 Source: Economic Impact Analysis of Nutrient Management Regulation 267/03 Apr, 2004 Funding that doesn't fit together
The plans for funding certainly leave something to be desired, say unhappy farm representatives. In late July, senior staff at the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food shared the funding proposal with the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition, whose chairman, University of Guelph rural planner John Fitzgibbon, was not impressed."There really isn't going to be a made-in-Ontario program for funding nutrient management," says Fitzgibbon. The province is trying to dovetail its program with the federal government's Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) and Best Management Practices (BMP) funding, Fitzgibbon says. The many caps and criteria governing how the money can be applied will greatly restrict its use, he predicts.
Moreover, Fitzgibbon says that the money simply isn't enough and won't help beef and sheep farms hurt by the BSE crisis or pork operations barely recovering from the price downturn in 2002 and 2003.
Fitzgibbon explains that the federal proposal is to provide funding on an enterprise basis. The federal government money will cover up to $30,000, under certain conditions, on one site. Most 300 nutrient unit farms operate on three or four different farmsteads. At one location, you may be able to get $30,000 more because of the federal money. At the other location, you will be restricted to what the province will give you.
"The province is trying to use federal money to support a provincial program and it just won't fit together," concludes Fitzgibbon. He hopes that ultimately the province will not use the federal program as a template.
The province is more willing than the feds to fund improvements on several farm properties at once, but the federal government has rules about "stacking funding," says David Armitage, senior researcher with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA). "It is a bit of mess because (federal and provincial governments) are looking at things differently," Armitage admits. "In our view the province's way of funding farm units makes more sense. We have been working to try to iron some of this out, but it's pretty late in the game. I'm not sure how much influence we have had."
Armitage explains that the new federal EFP will fund a prescribed list of best management practices, rather than help farmers who developed a plan to pay for expenditures that reduced the environmental impact of their particular farms.
The new federal program is called the National Farm Stewardship program. "In fairness," says the OFA's Armitage, "there is quite a bit more money available" for farmers who follow these best management practices. Under the new EFP, however, farmers must spend far more than under the old EFP before the federal government pulls out its chequebook. Under the old EFP, there was a general $1,500 grant per farm for making environmental improvements. Some farmers needed to spend $10,000 on a project and only got $1,500, while others completed a smaller project that was nearly all funded by the EFP money, but they had options of doing different projects to meet their needs, Armitage stresses.
Components of this federal program are categorized as being eligible for either a 60 per cent grant or a 30 per cent grant, as decided by the government, with the farmer paying the rest of the cost. Armitage says Ontario seems to want farmers to draw on federal money first and then the province will "top up" the federal funding.
Producers "in the cross hairs"
At press time, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada had not released the list of components because the program was not finalized, but Armitage had seen the list. "I would say that there are more activities funded at the 30 per cent level than at the 60 per cent level," he told Better Pork. The higher level of farm expenditure makes it "considerably less attractive" than had been hoped, he said. He thinks funding will go to as high as 75 per cent for some on-farm work.But he warns that the program has other shortcomings. The province is only interested in sending dollars to the large farms captured in the first phase of nutrient regulations and, as a general farm organization, the OFA has a "philosophical" problem with that, Armitage says. In the past, the EFP has encouraged all farmers to improve their environmental situation, but this program doesn't encourage farmers who aren't immediately targeted by regulations to do anything, he says.
"I can't think of any sector that has money to spend on things that won't improve their bottom line," Fitzgibbon says. Kamenz adds that while new operations can likely build the cost of new manure storage into their business plans, established operations may not be able to. Some farmers aren't able to extend their credit further to pay for infrastructure, Fitzgibbon says.
Established pork producers "are kind of in the cross-hairs if they don't have the storage and runoff controls," Fitzgibbon admits. "You may have a significant requirement for funding, particularly if you haven't kept up with new technology," Fitzgibbon says. "For most operations, my information is that they aren't far off (being in line with the new regulations), but at the same time the funding isn't adequate and time is running out."
Last April, the George Morris Centre completed a study of the costs of nutrient management for the provincial government, but it was not widely circulated. In July, Better Pork obtained a copy by asking the minister's office for it. Expenditures that are predicted to be required for different sizes of farms are in Table 1.
Fitzgibbon says the report has a major weakness. "Their assumptions are focused on indebtedness rather than cash flow," Fitzgibbon says. "I don't see anybody's cash flow increasing," he adds. "Most people are expecting more than the government is putting on the table."
Dennis Zekveld, chair of Ontario Pork's environment committee, agrees that farmers will be upset when they see what is coming. Many farms with 200 to 400 sows will be affected by the 300 nutrient unit rule and some producers will change how they farm, predicts Zekveld who, like Kamenz, is a member of the nutrient management advisory committee. Zekveld says some operators are considering reducing their production so that they can slip underneath the cap and others will be looking at ways to separate their sites. "They shouldn't have to do that."
But, says Armitage, cutting production to get under the 300 nutrient unit mark may not be helpful. When the new nutrient management regulations take effect, they will be viewed as normal farm practice on all farms regardless of their size. If a livestock producer with less than 300 nutrient units is charged because of a complaint against him and is directed to implement what is deemed a normal farm practice for larger operations, he won't be eligible for funding that is going to his larger neighbours and competitors. However, the OFA has asked the government to make farmers who are forced to comply with regulations because of a complaint eligible for funding, Armitage says.
Higher standards for agriculture
Nutrient management is only the first wave of changes that are being forced upon livestock farmers. Last year, the committee looking into Source Water Protection recommended that Source Water Protection rules supersede nutrient management regulations. "The big question for us is, how does that impact (on pig farmers) and where does nutrient management fit into the process," Zekveld says.Last winter, the provincial government released a white paper on Source Water Protection, which is defined as the first step in a multi-barrier approach to safeguard drinking water in lakes, rivers and aquifers. Source Water Protection keeps raw water as clean as possible to lower the risk that contaminants will endanger or overwhelm a water treatment system. Treatment, on the other hand, uses one or more approaches to remove or inactivate contaminants.
The White Paper says that in part two of the Report of the Walkerton Inquiry, Commissioner Dennis O'Connor made 22 recommendations related to source protection, including a recommendation that Source Water Protection plans be required for all watersheds in Ontario.
"The government says that the phase-in of nutrient management after 2005 will be based on Source Protection. The question I have is, why is large agriculture being held to a higher standard than the rest of society?" asks Zekveld.
At Dutton, Minnema has the same question. "If I have to clean up, then everybody should have to clean up," says Minnema, citing chemical spills reported all too regularly in Sarnia and also a chicken processing waste site near Aylmer which had been approved by the Ministry of the Environment but proved to be so malodorous that the province shut it down.
Minnema notes that he did a nutrient management plan for his new barn, "but I did it under protest. If I have to clean up my act within a certain time frame, then maybe the cities better get on the bandwagon."
Fitzgibbon thinks the federal EFP program is flawed and farmers won't bother to use it. "I think the only reason we are going forward with the federal program is so that we can renegotiate it," he says. But renegotiation will could take a year or more, depending on how well farmers accept the EFP as it stands.
"We aren't discouraging people from taking the money," Fitzgibbon says. "We want the environmental management to improve in Ontario. I just don't think that many people will be happy with the cost share (arrangement) for major infrastructure. Farmers like to develop their own solutions. Our experience is that they have been pretty good ones."
Fitzgibbon is also concerned about the increasing complexity of the regulations. "Every time we turn around there is another layer added on. This government is more concerned about what environmental groups in Toronto have to say about agriculture than they are about what agriculture is saying. This is a downtown government."
In his view, Source Water Protection is dumping the cost of maintaining a resource strictly onto farmers. "They want Source Water Protection, but they don't want to do conservation. On the farm, we see both sides of the process as being required."
He agrees with Minnema that the legislation says nothing about urban people protecting water. "A lot of the benefits of nutrient management aren't to the farm but to society in general. The major users of water aren't in the countryside and they show no indication of reducing demand. But, while we are getting regulations, they are being told it is all voluntary."
Fitzgibbon says that the experience in the United States is that effective protection comes from water treatment rather than Source Water Protection. But increasing treatment of water costs money at the urban level "and they (governments) prefer not to spend any money," Fitzgibbon says.
"There's a perception that society has won with these rules and so has the government, but farmers have not. There's nothing in it for farmers," Zekveld asserts.
Worse for smaller operations
Like OFEC, Ontario Pork is concerned about the tie-in with the federal EFP, and the way it affects what is eligible for provincial grants and what isn't. It seems unlikely that the province will help with the ongoing "soft costs" associated with nutrient management, such as the cost of hiring engineers for periodic inspections of liquid manure storages, and the ongoing costs of maintaining the plan, Zekveld says.Then there are the setbacks that will be required when spreading manure near surface water. The federal EFP calls for an additional 75 to 100 foot setback from watercourses. Farmers who have surface drains for their fields "won't have much left to farm in some situations," Zekveld says. They will have to develop alternative and more expensive fertilizing plans for crops that are nearer than that to the watercourse.
Chris Attema, water quality specialist for the Ontario Livestock Commodity Group (which includes Ontario Pork), says it's going to get worse for smaller pork operations. Those with 150 nutrient units or less will be most affected by the costs of compliance with the nutrient regulations. He hopes that the nutrient management advisory committee will " target" high risk practices, rather than imposing rules across the board. But farmers aren't alone on the advisory committee. There are also representatives from the provincial environment ministry and municipalities, not to mention organizations such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association. It's up the agriculture groups to make their case. "That has been our role for the last number of months," says Attema.
So what are the alternatives? Attema and Fitzgibbon both favour the Wisconsin phase-in approach to nutrient management. Under the U.S. federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program, there is funding of 75 to 90 per cent for beginning and "limited resource" to implement approved practices. Existing operations are only expected to be in complete compliance with prescribed performance standards if there is a 70 to 90 per cent offer to share costs. If there is no offer to share costs because of limited funding or the low priority of the individual farm, the existing operation is left alone.
With an approach such as this, Attema says, there is "a built-in process to prioritize and target (farms) based on environmental risk." This type of approach could be logically harmonized with the proposed Source Water Protection initiatives.
In Spencerville, nutrient management advisory committee member Geri Kamenz is cynical about the process. The advisory committee meeting scheduled for September has been cancelled, he says. "Either they don't like the advice they are getting or they don't like the advice they are getting. That is a little tongue-in-cheek. I know they don't always look forward to what the advisory committee has to offer."
He notes that the advisory committee warned that the timelines were overly ambitious and others in the industry echoed that viewpoint. "Whether in fact they listened to the advisory committee, 57,000 farmers were saying the same thing."
Back in Dutton, waiting to hear about the money that's available for farmers to bring them up to speed on nutrient management, Minnema fumes.
"If they aren't going to stick to their end of the bargain that there was going to be funding, maybe we should tell them to shove it. What are they going to do, shut us all down?" BP
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back Put a little away for a rainy day
Investment in research can be just as important as putting money aside for contingencies, and it can no longer be done on an individual basis
by RICHARD SMELSKI
"Put a little away for a rainy day" may be a difficult motto to follow when you are in a survival mode. But it's worth remembering that this doesn't necessarily involve money. It may be more important to put away good relationships, strong alliances and intellectual knowledge for that rainy day.In 1836, a machine was invented that mowed, threshed and tied the straw into sheaves. This machine was based on technology that was 20 years old, yet it wasn't until the 1930s that the combine was marketed. Today, by contrast, new technologies are implemented almost immediately because of globalization and computerization. Robotics controlled from remote areas, medications focused to specific body parts and DNA manipulations are only a few of today's common technologies and they are advancing rapidly.
Moreover, what took a century to implement now takes minutes. In fact, research now talks in nanoseconds (millionth of a second). And it only takes one development to change the face of agriculture -- for example, the front end loader, caged layers, Roundup or Dolly the sheep. In spite of regulations and advocacy groups, further advances in research continue, often just out of the reach of these groups. Many regulations within a country are often meaningless and add cost in a global market. For example, the United States approved PST to make fatter pigs grow faster and leaner years ago, whereas Canada competes in the same market without this right. DNA manipulations have shifted to countries where regulations are not as stringent, such as Korea. This leaves public research in a dilemma because proprietary research gets the priority. This research then confers marketing advantages in the form of patents on DNA identification, technology fees and other competitive benefits.
Who will control the future through research? In the May 2004 issue of Better Farming Jim Dalrymple documents how agricultural research funding is coming under increased scrutiny and facing funding. Regulations continue to proliferate. Meanwhile, we have increasing amounts of proprietary research and utilization, leaving universities to seek similar funding methods rather than seeking intellectual information (the PSS gene for swine is patented by University of Toronto). The developments have shifted from structural to biological. What happens if a vaccine or gene identification is only used within a specific country such as Brazil? All of a sudden, global shifts can take place because of intellectual information rather than capital.
We often view succession of a farm operation from one generation to another as a bit of a dilemma; however, the succession in intellectual information may be even a bigger dilemma. Where will the succession in understanding and application of hog farms in a research context come from in view of the fact that we are in a global competitive market? Will the definition of a farmer change to someone who holds the capital or does the physical work or controls the intellectual information? The investment in research is no longer an individual's opportunity. The industry needs to form its alliances in order to obtain its share of intellectual information from research as its investment for the rainy day. BP
Richard Smelski is general manager of Ontario Swine Improvement Inc. and a former Ontario government swine specialist.
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back How much access should the public have to Nutrient Management Plans?
This is the third column discussing areas of controversy highlighted at the 2004 London Swine Conference in a presentation by David McRobert, in-house counsel and senior policy advisor for the office of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO)by MURRAY BLACKIE
Ever since the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition (OFEC) developed its Nutrient Management Strategy in 1998, there has been concern over public access to details contained in NMPs and NMSs. Access to this information might reveal or compromise proprietary information and prove helpful in opposing new or expanding livestock operations.Even though it is the intent of the legislation to permit a registry to be kept of completed Nutrient Management Plans and Strategies (NMPs and NMSs), there is concern about the degree of detail to be included. Generally, farm organizations seem prepared to support the inclusion of a summary in the registry but oppose detailed plans or strategies being widely available to the public. It seems that the ECO not only supports the registry but also the public's access to data in the registry to help ensure more transparency of process and accountability of agencies. But how brief or detailed would its acceptable summary be in comparison to the summary suggested by farm groups?
Another question to be considered is how the Freedom of Information Act could be used to request information in a public registry. It would seem that all public information could be subject to request.
Although identified as a separate controversy, including the NM Act under the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) is part of the overall privacy issue. The ECO recommends the inclusion of the NM Act under the EBR because it would increase the transparency of the regulatory system and reduce concerns over water quality if the public felt it could participate in the process. The ECO has concerns that without inclusion of the NM Act, EBR rights to review applications, investigations or appeals and the right to sue for harm to the public resource may not be available.
The EBR offers the opportunity for the public to access information from the EBR registry with the posting of legal instruments such as approvals, orders, certificates, NMPs and NMSs. It provides a place where the public can learn about and participate in decisions which may directly or indirectly affect them. The ECO supports the inclusion of all instruments related to nutrient management in the EBR. This would include bio-solids utilizations sites presently exempted from inclusion on the EBR registry. Once again, the ECO recognizes some concerns about proprietary information and supports a summary NMP/NMS approach to the EBR registry.
These remaining controversies about inclusion under the Environmental Bill of Rights, and the issue of public access to NMPs go to the root of OFEC's Farm Environmental Agenda. They bring back memories of previous concerns in the early 1990s over the confidentiality of Environmental Farm Plans, NMPs submitted to municipalities in support of building permit applications and the potential impact of the then new EBR and the EBR registry. BP
Murray Blackie is the former agricultural specialist with the Ministry of the Environment and is now a consultant, expert witness and writer on agro-environmental issues.
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back Controlling odour and reducing conflict in the countryside
Christopher Columbus knew the value of the pig when he first brought it to the Americas. Today, alas, is reputation is tarnished and many peoples ay that it is the odour from pig manure that is at the root of the problemby SAM BRADSHAW
Few animals have such economic importance for mankind yet suffer from such a deplorable image as does the pig. As a domestic animal, it is a source of a wide variety of meats, high-quality leather, durable bristles for many kinds of brushes, and hundreds of medical products. At the same time, the pig is frequently regarded as unclean and even untouchable by many people.In spite of the pig's reputation, farmers know that it is neither filthy nor stupid. Because its sweat glands are relatively ineffective in lowering body temperature, a pig will seek relief from the heat by wallowing in mud or shallow waterholes if accessible. But when provided with a clean environment sheltered from the sun, pigs are fastidious. Furthermore, in tests of intelligence, pigs have proved to be among the smartest of all domestic animals -- even more intelligent than dogs.
According to H. Lanier Hickman, Jr. in an article called "A Brief History of Solid Waste Management in the U.S. During the Last 50 Years," swine used to be an important part of refuse management. Food waste was routinely recycled as feed for pigs up until the late 1960s. Often the pig was allowed to wander over and into the dumped refuse. In later years, food wastes/garbage were collected separately and fed raw directly to pigs.
Historians tell us that we stopped feeding refuse to pigs because undercooked pork spread a disease to humans called trichinosis (an infestation of the intestines and muscles). While this is indeed the case, it was not because humans might become infected with trichinosis that the practice of feeding uncooked garbage to pigs was stopped. In the late 1950s, it became apparent that raw garbage, or undercooked garbage that contained pork scraps, spread a disease among swine that was not known to affect humans. But this disease, vesicular exanthema (an eruptive disease in the veins of the pigs), was deadly to pigs and threatened to wipe out many piggeries. New regulations were established, requiring that the garbage be cooked to combat vesicular exanthema, a process that was distasteful, expensive and sometimes ineffective. This early failed attempt at recycling ceased and is seldom considered today.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia suggests that modern domesticated hogs are descended chiefly from the wild European boar, with some admixture of Sus indica, a smaller Asian species domesticated in China around 3000 B.C. Now rare in Europe, it is still common in parts of Asia.
The wild boar was domesticated in Northern Europe about 1500 B.C. It is believed hogs were introduced into the Americas by Columbus on his second voyage in 1493, and in 1609 hogs were shipped to the Jamestown colony from England. By the way, the same article says that domestic cattle were also brought to the Western Hemisphere by Columbus on his second voyage.
The article goes on to talk about the economic importance of hogs and what they are fed. It ends with the statement that the giant modern farms produce enormous amounts of hog waste and that this has become of increasing concern as a potential source of water pollution.
I find it rather amazing that conversations involving pigs generally end up discussing manure issues. Many people tell us that it is the odour associated with hog manure that is so offensive, and controlling the odour of hog manure would solve most of our conflicts in rural Ontario. This statement could be correct.
The Gallon Environment Letter, published by the Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment in Fisherville, Ont., devoted a large amount of space in its recent issue to odour, and of course, hog manure was discussed. The article quotes statistics from Ag Canada Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and goes on to say that "farm organizations frequently tell us how much farmers are concerned about the environment. Statistics Canada data reveal otherwise -- many farmers are not following best environmental practices."
It further says: "According to a Statistics Canada report on Farm Environmental Management in Canada, slightly less than one-quarter of farms used some method for controlling odour in livestock buildings. While some farms may have little need for odour control because they have no neighbours or are small operations, the data suggest that not all operations which should have odour control are properly equipped. Not surprisingly, odour control measures are most common in hog farms. Options for controlling odours include windbreaks, filters on exhaust fans, and manure storage practices such as covering, composting and so on."
The article goes on to say that in land application, injection of liquid manure and incorporating manure into the ground without delay minimizes odours. About 15 per cent of farmers producing almost 18 per cent of the manure in 2001 injected it or incorporated it the same day and about a third incorporated it before a week. About 52 per cent of farms accounting for almost half of the manure produced in 2001 left the manure on the surface or incorporated it more than a week after spreading.
I would suggest that 100 per cent of farmers try to reduce odour in their barns and many are trying to control manure storage and spreading odours, but it is difficult to say how many are doing this without constant polling.
We do know the following:
. What else can we do? Yes, covering manure storages will help, but someone needs to come up with a reasonably priced long lasting cover. Concrete is probably the best, but it's still quite expensive.
- Most farmers use methods to control odours in the barn. Perhaps the most important one is cleanliness. Most hog barns in this province are extremely clean.
- Removing manure to outside storage as quickly as possible is another way to reduce in-barn odours. This concept has been around for a number of years (we used to use a stable cleaner), but has been replaced by under-barn manure storage, due mostly to ease of manure handling and economic considerations. The belt or scraper system described in a previous article would achieve this concept.
- Bio-filters for fans would achieve odour control, but are not a practical solution yet.
- Windbreaks can help to control odour and many farmers are taking advantage of this idea
In most cases, we should try to work our manure into the soil as quickly as possible. I know this practice is less acceptable for farmers who practice no-till, but even so perhaps we could lightly work the land used for applying manure to control odour. Following some of these ideas would help to reduce conflict in the countryside. BP
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
Sam Bradshaw is environmental specialist with Ontario Pork.
back