Proposed Standards for Agricultural Operations
September 15, 2000
Preface
The NFU was established as a national general farm organization in 1969. In the intervening 31 years, the NFU members have worked with farmers and government to formulate and implement progressive farm policies for the benefit of family farmers and all Canadians.
The purpose of the National Farmers Union (NFU) is to advocate for and foster the maintenance of the farm family as the principal unit of food production in Canada. Farm families tend to take a long-term view of their farms: often extending several generations into the past and into the future. For this reason, almost all farm families support measures which maintain and enhance soil, water, and air quality and the environment for their children and grandchildren.
Large intensive corporate operations, on the other hand, seldom have the same commitment to their land, communities, or future generations. The NFU is alarmed by the proliferation of "mega-barn" operations and the increasingly industrial models being promoted for agriculture in Ontario. We believe in an alternative approach built around the family farm, environmentally sustainable farming methods, and strong rural communities.
As an organization of farm families, the National Farmers Union welcomes this opportunity to present our views to the Ontario government. The NFU believes that government, farmers and other citizens must, together, craft policies that protect Canadian food production, farms, communities, and the environment. We are intensely interested in working with the provincial government to move our agricultural sector towards sustainability and life-enhancement.
Context and Goals: Moving agriculture toward sustainability
This presentation is set in the context of the need for workable public policies for agriculture and industry which respect the environment and safeguard health. The NFU recognizes that setting standards for agricultural operations is only one aspect of this vast field. We know that non-agricultural problems are major sources of water contamination. But as farmers we must do our part by working on the aspects of the problem that are in our control.
Those farm-related aspects include the use of agricultural inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides, tillage and land use practices, the use of sewage sludge, and, most directly related to the present consultation, the management of livestock manure and other nutrients applied to agricultural land. While we have chosen to focus in this presentation mainly on livestock operations and manure management, we urge you to give your attention just as diligently to those other equally crucial issues.
Our starting point is the NFU's belief that the life and health of the soil, water, animals, people and air must be the top priority in defining and enforcing standards and directing programs and resources in this area. We work to incorporate health and environmental realities with social and economic concerns in a holistic approach to policy and practice. Appropriate livestock production can be an important and positive part of that agricultural vision.
The Ontario government must collaborate with farmers and other citizens to craft and implement a reform package which will raise all standards pertaining to livestock production. Regulations on manure management, stream-bank protection and minimum separation distances are only one part of the picture. In order for these measures to have the desired effects, they must be part of a larger government plan which should include:
Recommendations
General
1. Categorize livestock operations according to size and density.
The degree of regulation and monitoring - should relate to the size and density of the operation. Clearly the potential environmental danger posed by thousands of gallons of liquid hog manure in a earthen pit beside a 2,000-hog barn far exceeds the danger from a small pile of dry and composting manure beside a 100-sow barn. In regard to density, a 400-head cattle feedlot with 300 acres available to spread the manure has a very different impact on the environment than a 400-head beef herd on 1200 acres of pasture, hay and cropland.
Farming practices should also be considered in determining the degree of regulation. Regulations that apply to a farm that uses synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides might not apply to an organic farm of the same size; and farmers who compost dry manure would not require the same regulations as those who use uncomposted liquid manure systems.
The NFU agrees with the proposal to establish categories which distinguish between large, "intensive" (industrial) operations (Categories 2 and 3) and small or medium-sized family farms (Category 1). The stocking ratio must not exceed 1.5 Livestock Units per hectare in any category.
2. Establish binding standards for each category of operation
Citizens are increasingly concerned about the potential of manure to damage surface and groundwater supplies. Farmers believe that this concern is serious and that we must act. We recognize that there are other serious sources of water pollution - leaking septic systems, municipal sewage bypass - but as farmers we are committed to working to resolve those aspects of the problem that are related to agriculture. We trust that the government will apply equal diligence to regulating non-agricultural sources of pollution.
Proponents of large livestock facilities prefer not to talk about manure-they talk about "nutrients." But manure is only an nutrient to a plant if it is applied properly and in small quantities. Over-applied, manure can render soil and water toxic. Gallons of liquid manure in a pit is not a nutrient. It may be a potential nutrient, but it is also a potential toxin. Manure becomes a nutrient when it is applied to appropriate ground in suitable quantities and in an appropriate form.
If we call manure a "nutrient", we must make sure it is, and handle it so as to retain its value and prevent negative effects. The NFU calls for binding standards for each category of livestock operation. "Nutrient Management Plans" and their corresponding enforcement audits must meet standards which:
a) strongly discourage risk-prone approaches such as liquid manure slurry systems.
b) strongly encourage solid manure systems using techniques such as covered systems, aeration, draining and collection of liquid, composting.
3. Promote and fund research, education and technical assistance that supports the above objectives.
Research, education and technical assistance are essential aspects of government's role in moving towards improved management and standards in livestock production. Many questions remain unanswered and approaches untried in the area of manure quality and management, water quality, and related issues. For example, what is the relationship between the type of manure and the way it is handled, and the presence of pathogens and mutant strains of micro-organisms?
The NFU urges the government to promote and provide public funding for research, education and technical assistance, notably in the area of manure quality and management, and carefully shaped so as to accomplish the objectives in 2 a) and b) above.
4. Focus nutrient-related legislation and policy on comprehensive health and environmental considerations, not on hiding odour.
Odour is an indicator of other, more serious problems of manure quality. One aspect of the problem arises when unstable urea in urine becomes ammonia, which gives off a smell and leads to toxicity in soil and water. Aeration and other techniques can fix the nitrogen and prevent the problem.
The NFU recommends that the government to focus its legislation, regulations and programs on healthy ways of handling manure, to eliminate the cause of the odour, not hide it.
Implementation
5. Impose an immediate moratorium on new or expanded intensive livestock operations (Categories 2 and 3).
The issue of size and ownership of agricultural enterprises is of concern to the NFU for environmental, economic and social reasons. Our experience has shown us that large intensive corporate livestock operations put people, family farms, communities and the environment at risk. We favour small and medium-sized family farms, and oppose the government's support and promotion of "mega-barn" production models.
The number and size of industrial-type livestock operations has been growing rapidly in Ontario in recent years, growth which has given rise to the concerns noted in the Galt-Barrett Report and elsewhere. Current legislation and structures have been overwhelmed, rural communities have been divided, and confusion and finger-pointing have been rampant. There is a need to stop, step back, and analyze the implications of these developments so that measures can be put in place to deal with the concerns in a fair, informed and responsible manner.
The NFU asks the government to impose an immediate moratorium on new or expanded intensive livestock operations (Categories 2 and 3) until policy, research and legislation have been developed to deal with these industrial enterprises in a way that adequately addresses health, environmental and societal concerns.
6. Provide for full monitoring and enforcement of all Nutrient Management Plans to ensure that the standards are met.
Requiring livestock operations to have approved "Nutrient Management Plans" does not solve the problems associated with manure. An NMP by itself, no matter how competently prepared, will not protect water, soil or human health; only with proper monitoring and enforcement can it do its job.
The NFU calls on the government to establish and fully fund adequate monitoring and constant consistent enforcement of all NMPs.
7. Phase in implementation of standards over an efficient time frame.
Significant improvements to meet higher standards cannot, in practice, be implemented overnight. It is important to move promptly and efficiently but also with a realistic time frame, prioritizing action at the Category 3 level first where impacts are greatest.
The NFU agrees that implementation of the standards should be phased in over time as proposed in the Conclusions of the Galt-Barrett Report.
8. Compensate small- and medium-sized family farm operators for costs of required upgrading.
Most of the changes required by the new standards will come at a financial cost (fencing off watercourses, installing replacement watering systems, changing or upgrading manure handling systems, buying superior fertilizer placement machinery, etc.) Depending on landscape, commodity mix, and current practices, these costs will fall more heavily on farmers.
The on-going farm income crisis has already pushed many families out of farming and put other small- and medium-sized farms in an extremely precarious position. No one else should be forced out of production because of the costs of complying with the new standards and regulations. Adequate subsidization of the costs of compliance is a must.
The farmer's role in society extends well beyond that of producing large quantities of cheap food for a hungry world. It includes the costly responsibility of being custodian of the environment, the landscape and the soil. The costs of this crucial role as caretaker are rarely incorporated into the price of the food we supply to consumers. It is therefore not only appropriate but essential that Ontario citizens as a whole bear a significant portion of the costs of compliance with regulations aimed at ensuring that this work of environmental stewardship is carried out.
The NFU recommends that adequate provincial funding be allocated to assist Category 1 and certain Category 2 farmers with the costs of complying with the new requirements.
9. Consider manure quality as well as quantity in establishing standards and regulations.
Toxicity to soil and water varies greatly depending on the quality of the manure, derived from its original composition as well as from how it is handled. For instance, manure from large, factory-style hog barns is more likely to contain substances - chemicals, antibiotics or other medications, antibiotic-resistant bacteria - which can exacerbate toxicity.
Farmers recognize that there is no one-best-way to handle manure. However, we recognize that liquefying manure makes it more mobile, both horizontally and vertically, increasing its potential for contaminating water supplies. We also know that aerated and composted manure is of far superior quality by the time it goes out on the soil than a slurry with no preparation before application.
The NFU recommends that standards recognize differences in manure quality as well as quantity.
10. Prohibit winter spreading of manure
Spreading manure on snow, or on frozen or saturated ground, leads directly to damaging run-off contamination of surface waters and aquifers, as well as severe damage to soil structure.
Winter spreading of manure should be prohibited.
11. Protect watercourses from livestock damage and manure.
A properly managed and sustainable farm improves the quality of the water, soil, and land around it. Permitting livestock to enter streams or other watercourses puts water quality at risk.
The NFU recommends that it be made mandatory to fence off streams, lakes and riverbanks so as to prevent access by livestock.
12. Review technical basis of standards.
Current threshold levels and standards for nutrient loading are based largely on Phosphorus content, and fail to take into account the importance of Nitrogen and other elements, and the complexities of the dynamic interactions between them.
The NFU recommends that be current and proposed standards be reviewed and revised to reflect the most up-to-date understanding of the many complex factors involved.
Jurisdiction
13. Establish standards at the provincial, not the municipal, level.
The issues are environmental, agricultural and water-related, all of which places them clearly under the jurisdiction of the provincial and federal governments. It would be wrong-headed and dangerous to download the task of setting of standards in these matters to the municipal level. To do so would lead to a patchwork of regulations from which would-be mega-operators could pick and choose, playing one municipality off against another, ratcheting down the standards and endangering the environment and public health.
The NFU calls on the government to establish provincial standards and apply them consistently across the Province.
14. Make monitoring and enforcement the responsibility of the provincial Environment Ministry
The tasks of monitoring and enforcement of the proposed standards falls squarely under the mandate of the Ministry of the Environment, to protect the Province's water, land and air. This makes the MOE the clear choice to take on these responsibilities.
Moreover, the potential alternatives to MOE are unacceptable. To make municipalities responsible for enforcement would leave the process open to abuse. Moreover, most rural municipalities lack the resources that would be necessary for effective enforcement. To leave enforcement to OMAFRA would also be a mistake, since that Ministry is compromised (both in perception and in reality) by its mandate to promote production agriculture, as well as by its recent history of favouring and defending large intensive industrial-style agricultural operations.
The NFU calls for enforcement of these standards through the provincial Ministry of Environment (MOE).
15. Prepare and equip the MOE to carry out these responsibilities.
Major budget cuts and staff reductions suffered by the MOE have seriously damaged its ability to carry out even its current responsibilities. As well, farmers have experienced problems in the past with MOE staff who have little understanding of or sympathy with the challenges and complexities of farming. The Ministry needs more funding, more personnel, and enhanced training to deal effectively and fairly with the farm community on environmental issues related to agriculture.
The NFU urges the government to provide MOE with the authority, the trained and experienced personnel, and the necessary funding to do its enforcement job properly. MOE must also work closely with the farm community to develop an understanding of farming so that its personnel can work, as team members, cooperatively and constructively with farm families.
16. Set up clear lines of communication and responsibility.
Complaints or information about infractions must be channelled promptly and efficiently to where appropriate action can be taken. Too often it is unclear where information should go, who should be informed of a problem, or what should be done to ensure appropriate action.
Legislation must establish and facilitate clear and prompt lines of communication and responsibility for monitoring and enforcement of the proposed standards.
17. Plug loopholes and avoid ambiguity in legislation and regulations.
The wording of legislation and regulations must be clear and enforceable. Legislative loopholes or vague ambiguities can render well-intentioned measures completely ineffective. For example, an operation may own sufficient acreage for spreading the quantity of manure they generate, but may in practice be spreading it all on less acreage closer to the source, to save trouble and costs, thus defeating the purpose of the land area requirement. Another example of unenforceable provisions comes from a draft by-law in one municipality, which required operators to be in "substantial compliance" with the standards being set.
The NFU recommends that current and proposed legislation be reviewed to plug loopholes and ensure clarity and enforceability.
Conclusion:
There are obviously many aspects of this large and important subject which we have not touched on in this brief, among them:
* Fertilizer and chemical applications and their effects on water quality and soil health
* Water and air quality monitoring procedures and standards
* Minimum separation distances for livestock facilities
* Risks involved with use of sewage sludge on farmland
* Liability issues
* Farm lot severances. However, we have limited our input on this occasion to the pressing questions most directly raised by the Galt-Barrett Report on Intensive Agricultural Operations, in preparation for the new legislative measures promised for this fall.
A project of this magnitude and importance will require ongoing communication with farmers. The NFU would welcome the opportunity to play an advisory role in the process.
Respectfully submitted,
National Farmers Union