Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction
2.0
Mandate
and Methodology
2.1 Objectives of the Agro-Environmental Portrait
2.2 Population Covered
2.3 Definition of Livestock Operation and Production Site
2.4 Data Collection
3.0
Hog
Farming Operations and Sites
3.1 Provincial Level
3.2 Regional Level
3.3 Zones with Municipalities Having a Manure Surplus
4.0
Hog
Production Buildings
4.1 Characteristics
Types of Floors
Cleaning Systems and Frequency
Disposal Systems and Frequency
Ventilation
Minimum Distances
Odour Control
4.2 Feeding
Feed Distribution Methods
Feed Formulations
Feed Additives
Water Management
4.3 Manure Management
5.0
Storage
Structures
5.1 General Characteristics
5.2 Storage Capacity
5.3 Age and Compliance
5.4 Odour Management
6.0
Crops
6.1 Areas under Cultivation
6.2 Receiving Areas
6.3 Areas Covered by Spreading Agreements
7.0
Spreading
Operations
7.1 Fertilization Plan
7.2 Spreading Methods
7.3 Delays in Incorporation
7.4 Time of Spreading
7.5 Calibration of Spreading Equipment
8.0
Farm
Balances
8.1 Animal load
Actual Animal load
Land Areas Required for Spreading
Degree of Dependence of Hog Farming
Operations
8.2 Farm Balance of Organic Nutrient Loads
Nitrogen Basis
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Basis
9.0
Conclusions
and Recommendations
General Problems
General Recommendations
Bibliography
1.0
Introduction
In recent years, agricultural operations, particularly hog farms,
have often been singled out, fairly or unfairly, in connection with
environmental issues, and this attention has had a significant impact
on the development of the industry. Producers became acutely aware of
the need to take matters in hand and to adopt a new approach to the
environmental question in 1996, when their practices were under regular
media fire.
It was in this context that the Table de concertation de l’industrie
porcine québécoise defined a strategic plan for the 1997-2002 horizon,
in which the environment plays a major role. The Agro-Environmental
Plan for the Hog Industry in Quebec reflects the efforts of the entire
industry to adapt to environmental and regulatory realities. The Agro-Environmental
Plan covers three stages: first, a description of the current situation
of hog farmers in Quebec, to provide the basis for the second stage,
in which a technical framework will be established to assist them in
adapting to environmental realities. The third and final phase will
involve the development of an environmental certification process.
2.0
Mandate and Methodology
2.1 Objectives of the Agro-Environmental Portrait
In November 1996, the Fédération des producteurs de porcs du
Québec (FPPQ) commissioned the Groupe de recherche en économie
et politique agricoles (GREPA), in collaboration with BPR Consultants,
to survey all hog farming operations in Quebec and to prepare an
agro-environmental portrait of Quebec’s hog production sites.
The survey questionnaire clarified the current agro-environmental
situation of Quebec hog farming operations, and answered a number
of questions of concern to those working in the sector and to the
general public alike. The present summary looks at the key elements
associated with sound environmental management.
2.2 Population Covered
The population covered by the survey included all hog farming operations,
regardless of type (farrowing/nursery/feeder). Each operation had
to be active in 1996 or as of 1997 and to earn revenue from hog
production. Working from an initial list of 3867 producers or operations,
the agro-environmental survey was able to identify 2694 active hog
farming operations in Quebec. Of these, 2575 operations agreed to
participate in the process (acceptance rate of 95.6%).
2.3 Definition of Livestock Operation and Production Site
For the purposes of this agro-environmental inventory, a livestock
operation consists of one or more animal production sites owned
by a single person or organization. For example, all production
sites belonging to one mill, regardless of their legal status (companies,
etc.), are considered part of the same livestock operation. Production
sites are defined as geographically separate locations involving
at least one building in which livestock are reared. All the sites
owned by each operation were surveyed.
2.4 Data Collection
A team of 25 GREPA survey workers travelled through every region
of Quebec to meet the owners of the hog farming operations and complete
the survey questionnaires. All had been trained to be observant
and attentive to the information provided during interviews. All
data collected were computer validated. In case of doubt, the survey
workers contacted the producers again to ensure the accuracy of
the information collected. All identifying information collected
in the course of the survey is considered strictly confidential.
The survey questionnaire included a section for the information
provided in the certificates of authorization issued by MEFQ. Despite
extensive efforts, it proved impossible to obtain all the information
given in the certificates of authorization, for a number of reasons.
First, the certificate of authorization is issued for a given situation
and remains valid as long as the production situation on the farm
remains the same. Authorization certificates are not renewed at
periodic intervals and the information presented is not cumulative.
As a result, an operation may have as many certificates of authorization
as it has had construction or expansion projects, and certificates
issued for new construction do not include the data from certificates
of authorization issued previously to the same operation. Examination
of the operation’s certificates of authorization in the course of
the survey proved more difficult than anticipated, since the producers
did not always know where all of these documents were filed. In
addition, many producers have acquired rights and no official documents.
Finally, because MEFQ has not computerized the producers’ files,
it was impossible to reconstruct the history of the certificates
of authorization issued over the years for each operation. Despite
the best efforts of all concerned, neither the producers nor MEFQ
can currently provide full records of the certificates of authorization
with any certainty.
The agro-environmental portrait and the resulting recommendations
are thus based on a bank of reliable data covering 95.6% of Quebec’s
hog farming operations.
3.0
Hog Farming Operations and Sites
This section presents statistical information on the number and distribution
of hog farming operations in Quebec and on the total livestock inventory
(hogs or other types) present on these production sites. These data
have been compiled for the province as a whole, for the various administrative
regions and for the three zones containing municipalities designated
as having a manure surplus (Schedule G of the Regulation respecting
the prevention of water pollution in livestock operations (R.R.Q., c.
Q-2, r. 18).
3.1 Provincial Level
The 2575 operations surveyed own a total of 3172 production sites,
including 3022 hog production sites. Over 91% own a single hog production
site while 2% (53 operations) operate three or more.
The operations shelter a total of 3,337,810 hogs (564,700 animal
units): 2,185,146 feeder pigs (437,000 a.u.), 372,897 sows and boars
(93,200 a.u.), and 779,897 piglets (34,500 a.u.). (Schedule B of
the Regulation respecting the prevention of water pollution in livestock
operations (R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 18) (1 a.u. = five feeder pigs or
four sows or one dairy cow). In the case of piglets weighing from
7 - 30 kg, 1 a.u. = 16.7 piglets).
They are highly specialized operations, with hogs representing more
than 90% of the total inventory of animal units. The other 60,700
animal units consist primarily of dairy cattle (44%), beef cattle
(35%) and poultry (21%).
The average hog production site in Quebec holds 187 hog animal units,
or the equivalent of 935 feeder pigs. If other animal species are
included, average site size increases by 10 animal units. Sites
holding fewer than 100 animal units in hogs (equivalent to 500 feeder
pigs) represent 40% of all hog production sites and 11% of the hog
inventory. In contrast, sites holding 400 or more animal units (equivalent
to 2000 feeder pigs) represent 10% of all hog production sites and
34% of the hog inventory. Sites with feeder pigs hold an average
of 1000 feeder pigs (200 animal units) while sites with sows shelter
an average of 200 sows (51 animal units). Production sites include
farrowing sites (29%), finishing sites (37%) and farrowing-finishing
sites (34%). Of the farrowing sites, 210 (24%) do not include nurseries,
while 67 (9%) consist exclusively of nurseries.
3.2 Regional Level
Three administrative regions contain 2028 hog farming operations,
or more than 80% of those surveyed: Chaudière-Appalaches (35%),
Montérégie (30%) and Mauricie-Bois-Francs (16%). These regions also
shelter 80% of Quebec’s hogs. Montérégie, however, is the leading
producing region, with 36% of Quebec’s hog inventory. Its production
sites are, on average, larger in size (216 hog a.u.) than those
located in Chaudière-Appalaches (151 a.u.) and in Mauricie-Bois-Francs
(190 a.u.).
While the Lanaudière region is located in a zone designated as having
a manure surplus, it contains only 7% of the total number of operations
and 8% of the hog inventory. The moratorium applied to hog production
in this region from 1981 to 1996 has limited the development of
the industry there. Nonetheless, this region contains both the largest
farrowing sites (72 a.u.) and the largest finishing sites (280 a.u.).
At the same time, the Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches regions
are distinguished by their high proportions of farrowing-finishing
sites, representing 56% and 41% respectively of their total hog
production sites, in contrast to Montérégie, with 28%, and Lanaudière,
with 24%.
3.3 Zones with Municipalities Having a Manure Surplus
Zones with municipalities having a manure surplus shelter 53%
of the hog inventory surveyed (Schedule G of the Regulation respecting
the prevention of water pollution in livestock operations (R.R.Q.,
c. Q-2, r. 18). They contain a similar proportion of the hog farming
operations, for a total of 1354, distributed as follows: Yamaska
River, 626 operations; Chaudière River, 599; and Assomption River
129. The farms in the Chaudière zone are less specialized, with
hogs representing 83% of all animal units (Hogs and other types
of livestock), compared to 95% in the other two zones. Hog production
sites there are also smaller than in the other two zones: 166 hogs
animal units, compared to 244 for the Assomption zone.
4.0
Hog Production Buildings
4.1 Characteristics
Types of Floors
The majority of the hogs in Quebec are reared on floors which are
partially (63%) or entirely (15%) slatted. These types of floors
are well suited to the management of manure in liquid form, as is
the case in the majority of the buildings. Fully slatted floors
support higher animal densities than other types of floors but normally
generate more odours. In addition, 4000 hog animal units (0.8% of
all hog a.u.) were reared on bedding in 1996.
Cleaning Systems and Frequency
Cleaning systems are used to remove manure from housing areas,
while disposal systems remove the manure from the building.
The most common cleaning systems are, in proportion to the total
number of hog animal units, scrapers or rakes (33%), the toilet
or flush method (31%) and the gravity system (31%).
Gravity systems are inexpensive and appropriate for use with liquid
manure with low dry matter content. However, they often allow the
accumulation of solids in the gutters, thus impeding flow, generating
odours and necessitating the use of additional cleaning water. The
other systems allow the producer better control over the cleaning
of solids. The flush method is particularly useful for odour control,
since it ensures that solids are mechanically removed at a minimum
rate at least once a day. Treated bedding (supernatant, deodorized
bedding, etc.) could conceivably be used as a cleaning agent with
this system.
Liquid manure cellars are not widely used (3.4%). They have the
advantage of not collecting precipitation (15% of the volume of
the liquid manure to be managed) and of reducing storage-related
odours. However, they require an effective ventilation system and
are less flexible during spreading operations, since ideally they
should be emptied when no animals are present in the building.
Cleaning frequency influences the rate at which gases (NH3,
H2S, etc.) and odours are produced in the building. The
effectiveness of odour control varies with the interval between
cleanings. On the whole, 25% of all hog animal units are housed
in buildings which are cleaned at least once every two days, and
39% in buildings cleaned less frequently. The remaining 36% of the
animals are kept in buildings which use gravity cleaning or liquid
manure cellars, continuous systems offering no control over cleaning
frequency.
Disposal Systems and Frequency
The type of disposal system and interval between two disposals of
liquid manure from the hog production building have little direct
environmental impact. However, a system using a temporary manure
storage tank and pump is of particular interest for operations planning
to treat liquid manure on the farm. In effect, the temporary manure
storage tank can form part of the treatment chain for certain processes,
serving as a buffer tank, homogenization tank, settling tank or
digester. Flexibility is improved when the temporary storage tank
has a large capacity, thus permitting more complete treatment of
the liquid manure. Temporary storage tank and pump systems are used
for 74% of the hog animal units surveyed. In addition, the capacity
of the temporary storage tank is directly related to the interval
between disposals, which is over two days for 70% of these animals
(52% of the hog a.u.).
Ventilation
The impact of the ventilation system on odour reduction in the building
is relatively low and very localized. Only a tall-stack ventilation
system offers minimum effectiveness in this connection. The low
extraction ventilation system provides better air quality in the
building during the winter than a conventional mechanical system,
while the principal benefit of natural ventilation is reduced energy
consumption. Conventional mechanical ventilation is used for a high proportion
of the hog animal units surveyed (88.1%). New methods such as natural
ventilation (7.0% of hog a.u.), low extraction (3.5% of hog a.u.)
and high-stack mechanical ventilation (1.1%) are not widely used.
Only 0.3% of the hog animal units surveyed are reared in unventilated
buildings.
Minimum Distances The maintenance of minimum distances between hog farming operations
and sensitive elements offers an indirect means of odour control.
The regulatory provisions (MEFQ guideline 038 in force in 1996)
provide that any new hog building must be located at least 150 metres
from residential structures. These provisions also require a minimum
distance of 300 m between any new farrowing building and the nearest
population centre or protected building, and 600 m in the case of
feeder pig operations, or more, depending on the number of livestock
concerned and the prevailing winds. It should be noted that the
data collected are more indicative of social and environmental pressure
than of offensiveness, since distances shorter than those established
by the regulations are permitted in the case of acquired rights
or easements.
The survey data indicate that 26% of the hog buildings are within
the regulatory distance of 150 m from neighbouring dwellings. At
least 3% are located within 300 m of a population centre or protected
building and 3% are within 30 m of a watercourse, the minimum distance
permitted by regulation (Schedule D of the Regulation respecting
the prevention of water pollution in livestock operations (R.R.Q.,
c. Q-2, r. 18).
Odour Control
A recognized method of reducing odours from hog farming operations
involves the establishment of a wooded screen facing the prevailing
winds. Nearly 27% of the hog buildings, housing 31% of the total
hog inventory, are reported to have screens of this kind. Since
the definition of a wooded screen is relatively subjective, the
actual proportion of protected buildings may be lower than reported.
In regions where farming areas are generally unwooded, such as Montérégie,
fewer than 20% of the hog buildings are protected in this way.
Another method of odour control within the building involves the
use of additives in the gutters, temporary manure storage tanks
or storage structures. Little documentation is available, however,
on the actual effectiveness of these additives, which varies with
the type of product, the suppliers and the conditions under which
they are used. Additives were used in 14% of the hog buildings,
housing 14% of the total hog inventory. The purpose, in 80% of the
cases, was to reduce odours in the building and, in 20% of the cases,
to reduce odours during storage or spreading. The products act by
biological or chemical means and can also be used to liquefy or
homogenize liquid manure.
4.2 Feeding
Feeding includes a number of environmental aspects, notably with
respect to control of the nutrient elements in the manure. Activities
in this area are directed primarily towards the optimization of
feeding methods and the improvement of ration digestibility. Certain
products can also be used in feed for odour control.
At the same time, there is some question as to the behaviour of
certain metals, used as growth factors or antifungal agents, in
the overall manure management chain.
Feed Distribution Methods
The use of troughs or hoppers for feed distribution can limit losses
in terms of feed and fertilizer load in the manure disposal chain.
Ground feeding is a less than optimal practice, from both the economic
and the environmental standpoint.
In Quebec, 25% of all sows and 33% of all feeder pigs were fed directly
on the ground in 1996, compared to only 3.7% of all piglets in nurseries.
Feed distribution methods thus offer significant potential for improvement.
Feed Formulations
The use of a number of ration formulations makes it possible to
adjust inputs to the animals’ varying needs on the basis of their
stage of growth or gestation status. Adaptation of the feed in this
way reduces the nitrogen and phosphorus content of their manure.
For instance, nitrogen wastes can be reduced by 10% by modifying
feeder pig rations each week, using the most economical feeds available
(Courboulay, V., 1996). The potential for waste reduction is even
higher if more costly basic foods are used to ensure maximum waste
reduction. According to Pomar (Pomar, C., 1997), wastes can be reduced
by 35% by switching from two formulations to weekly formulations
for feeder pigs, with the majority of this reduction being achieved
by moving from two to three formulations (20%) and from three to
four formulations (6%). It thus appears that a significant proportion
of the environmental gain offered by increasing the number of formulations
can be obtained by using a minimum of three different formulations.
In this connection, the survey indicates that 50% of all feeder
pigs are fed at least three different formulations, leaving additional
potential for waste reduction. However, 38% of all sows and 26%
of all piglets are fed a single formulation. Given the sows’ production
cycle (gestation, farrowing), a minimum of two formulations would
allow greater waste reduction.
Multiphase feeding systems (Equipment used to prepare and mix feed
rations on the farm from a few basic foods for groups of hogs with
different specific needs) are available for feeding 3% of all feeder
pigs. Because of the investments which this equipment requires,
it is not financially feasible for many operations. Moreover, the
same environmental gains can generally be achieved through the use
of feeds in which the formulation is modified on a regular basis
(for example, every two weeks).
Feed Additives
With conventional feeds, the hog excretes on average 70% of all
the nitrogen and phosphorus ingested. Feed additives act in different
ways, and some can be used to reduce these excretions. In 1996,
14% of the hog inventory surveyed were receiving additives designed
to reduce nitrogen excretion (synthetic amino acids). At the same
time, 12% of the hog inventory were being fed a product designed
to reduce phosphorus excretion (essentially phytase).
Feed additives were used for odour reduction in nearly 6% of the
hog inventory. The actual effectiveness of these products, like
that of the additives used in the buildings (gutter, temporary manure
storage structures, tanks) varies and is not well documented.
Copper is a trace element essential to life in hogs; at levels above
100 mg/kg of ration, it acts as a growth factor through its antibacterial
properties and its effect on protein digestibility in the piglet.
The copper contained in the liquid manure produced by finishing
8 to 10 hogs is believed to be equivalent on average to the copper
uptake of one hectare of crops (Fillion, 1995).
The survey indicates that copper sulphate is given at doses higher
than 100 mg/kg to 3% of all sows, 9% of all piglets and 4% of all
feeder pigs. Since these are relatively low percentages, copper
does not represent a major environmental issue in the short term.
Zinc is normally added to feed in proportions similar to those of
copper and the same conclusions apply to this element.
Water Management
The watering method used has a determining influence on the volume
of farm manure to be managed. The use of drinkers or water-saving
drinker bowls, in place of nozzle drinkers, could reduce the volume
of liquid manure to be managed by approximately 35% (Granger, F.,
and M. Cournoyer, 1997), although to date a reduction of less than
10% has been considered a design parameter for storage tanks.
The data collected indicate that, in 1996, 47% of the hog inventory
were watered, in equal proportions, by means of drinkers or water
bowls. Nearly 45% were watered by means of nozzle drinkers, suggesting
an interesting potential for improved water management in the building.
4.3 Manure Management
The manure of nearly all of Quebec’s hog inventory (97.5%) was managed
in liquid form in 1996, an approach historically justified for practical
reasons (mechanization, sanitary control, etc.). The most familiar
environmental impact of this method results from storage of the
liquid manure under anaerobic conditions (in the absence of oxygen).
These conditions promote the production of foul-smelling gases (H2S,
volatile fatty acids, NH3), which are released with particular
intensity when the liquid manure is agitated and spread. Similarly,
in anaerobic storage, nearly 75% of the nitrogen in liquid hog manure
occurs in the form of ammonia (NH4+). This
form of nitrogen is of agronomic interest, since it is fixed by
the soil and becomes rapidly available for assimilation by plants
following its transformation into nitrates. However, inappropriate
management of this liquid manure (technique, rate and time of spreading)
can generate a high risk of groundwater contamination, either by
nitrogen in its ammonia form or, following transformation, by its
nitrite and nitrate forms (NO2- and NO3-),
which are more mobile in the soil.
At the same time, the management of manure in liquid form generates
a product with a low concentration of nutrient elements which must
be used in high doses to meet the fertilization needs of the crops.
The spreading of this liquid manure thus requires particular attention.
For instance, the use of appropriate equipment and spreading at
appropriate times (on dry soil) can limit the risks of soil compaction
and liquid manure runoff.
Solid-pack management, including the use of bedding, is not widespread
in Quebec (2.5% of the hog a.u.). Despite its related production
constraints (building area, manpower, ventilation, etc.), the use
of bedding offers a number of interesting environmental advantages
in terms of odour control, at all stages from the building to spreading,
as well as in volume reduction and manure quality and stability.
This approach thus represents an alternative for operations located
close to residential areas or municipal wells or in zones with high
concentrations of livestock operations at long distances from spreading
sites.
In 1996, the hog farming operations surveyed generated a total of
9,500,000 m3 of manure and liquid manure from all categories
of animals, containing 38,500 MT of nitrogen, 27,100 MT of P2O5
and 23,900 MT of K2O.
5.0 Storage
Structures
5.1 General Characteristics
In 1996, the hog farming operations surveyed owned 4684 storage
structures for livestock manure. Because of the importance of liquid
management in hog production, nearly 96% of these storage structures
are tanks, while platforms and holding basins, the structures associated
with solid management, account respectively for only 3.4% and 0.6%
of the total. The regional differences are essentially a reflection
of the producers’ degree of diversification. For example, in Chaudière-Appalaches,
the region with the highest level of cattle production among hog
producers, platforms and holding basins represent 6.5% of all storage
structures, compared to only 2 to 4% in the other producing regions.
The proportion of concrete structures is very high, for tanks (92.7%),
platforms (83.6%) and holding basins (81.2%) alike. A total of 89.1%
of all animal units (Hogs and other types of livestock) are associated
with storage structures (concrete: 83.4%; earth: 4.2%; other materials:
1.5%). Hogs not associated with storage structures represent 1.9%
of all animal units, and livestock other than hogs, 9%.
5.2 Storage Capacity
The storage capacity of the tanks has been calculated on the basis
of the information collected on the hog farming operations; it thus
reflects the water reduction equipment present in the buildings
(water-saving drinker bowls or drinkers). In view of the new scientific
data on this question, conservative calculations have been performed
for operations using this equipment. The calculations also include
net precipitation accumulations (precipitation - evaporation) of
600 mm in the storage structures. This is the average accumulation
for 50 meteorological stations in Quebec, using a storage period
of 243 days and a 5-year cycle (Joncas et al., 1993).
Calculated on this basis, the average storage capacity for all the
tanks used by the hog farming operations is 348 days. Half of the
tanks have a capacity of over 300 days. In contrast, 20% of the
tanks do not have the minimum capacity of 200 days required by the
regulation in force at the time of the survey (Regulation respecting
the prevention of water pollution in livestock operations (R.R.Q.,
c. Q-2, r. 18). These operations thus have little flexibility in
selecting spreading times and present higher environmental risks
during unfavourable weather conditions. At the same time, 15% of
the structures have a capacity of 200 to 249 days and 16% a capacity
of 250 to 299 days.
The province’s average storage capacity is thus relatively high,
in part because the actual effectiveness of the water reduction
equipment in the building is greater than the figure long used as
a tank design hypothesis. Moreover, the average storage capacity
of the tanks has gradually increased over time, from 287 days for
tanks built prior to 1981 to 411 days for tanks built after 1990.
This increase can be explained in part by the increased use of water
reduction equipment and by the modifications made over the years
to design parameters, in particular the attention given to precipitation
accumulation in these structures.
5.3 Age and Compliance
A number of concrete tanks have been built since 1990 (35%) (Year
in which guideline 016 respecting the storage of manure and liquid
manure came into force) and had an average age of three years in
1996. An equivalent proportion was built before 1981 (35.5%) (Year
in which the Regulation respecting the prevention of water pollution
in livestock operations (R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 18) came into force)
and had an average age of 19 years. 77% of the concrete platforms
were built between 1981 and 1988; the average age of all structures
built during this period was 12 years in 1996.
Certificates of compliance have been issued by engineers for 70%
of the tanks, 25% of the platforms and 45% of the holding basins.
However, over 94% of the structures built since 1988, when an engineer’s
certificate was first required, hold certificates of compliance
(Year in which the Programme d’aide à l’amélioration de la gestion
des fumiers (PAAGF) [manure management improvement assistance
program] came into force) . 31% of the storage structures have thus
been built without certificates of compliance, the great majority
before the requirement to obtain such a certificate came into effect.
5.4 Odour Management
The odours generated when the liquid manure in storage structures
is agitated to homogenize it prior to removal from storage are always
more localized than those produced during spreading. According to
the survey, liquid manure stored in tanks in Quebec is agitated
on average 2.5 times a year. Little effort is devoted to odour reduction
by means of treatment during storage (aeration, enzymes, mechanical
separation, etc.). Because of the often limited and uneven effectiveness
of the products and the costs associated with treatment techniques,
such treatments are applied in only 5% of the structures associated
with hog buildings. Similarly, 9% of the storage structures, including
liquid manure cellars, are roofed to prevent the entry of precipitation
and reduce odours during storage of the liquid manure and removal
from storage.
The primary method used to dispose of the manure and liquid manure produced
by hog farming operations remains spreading on agricultural lands. These
operations depend on the crop lands available to them for spreading
their farm manure.
6.1 Areas under Cultivation
The total area of crop lands cultivated by hog farming operations
in 1996 was 141,000 ha, more than 80% of which were owned by them
and the remainder leased from other operations. The average area
cultivated by each hog farming operation was 54.8 ha. In addition,
hog farming operations owned 25,280 ha which they leased to other
operations. Nearly one-third (32%) of the operations owned no land:
as a result, they had no crop lands on which to use their livestock’s
manure.
The principal crop grown by hog farming operations is corn, which
accounts for 37% of the area under cultivation; next are forage
crops with 26%, grain with 10% and pasture land with 8%. This distribution
of crops implies average crop requirements of 96 kg/ha of nitrogen
and 36 kg/ha of phosphorus (P2O5) (Based on
the CPVQ’s 1996 fertilization reference grids, for soils of average
fertility, fixation capacity and texture). As a result of agro-climatic
conditions, however, this distribution of crop areas varies from
one region to another. For instance, corn accounts for 65% of the
areas cultivated by hog producers in Montérégie, while forage crops
and grasslands represent more than 75% in Chaudière-Appalaches.
This distribution of crops influences the average nitrogen requirements
of the crops in each of the regions, which range from 80 to 107
kg/ha, but have a lesser impact on phosphorus requirements (from
35 to 42 kg/ha), which vary less from one crop to another.
6.2 Receiving Areas
All crop lands are not necessarily used to receive the manure and
liquid manure produced by the hog farms. Only 70% of the areas cultivated
by hog farming operations in Quebec as a whole are used for this
purpose; 98,800 ha are thus considered receiving areas. This average
result camouflages a regional disparity: hog farming operations
in the Lanaudière and Montérégie regions respectively use only 53%
and 64% of the areas which they cultivate, compared to 90% in the
Quebec City and Chaudière-Appalaches regions. In addition, 55% of
the areas leased from other operations are used as receiving areas.
6.3 Areas Covered by Spreading Agreements
Operations which do not own the land areas required to spread all
of their manure and liquid manure, including operations without
land, must, according to the regulations in force, have one or more
written spreading agreements with other operations allowing them
to spread these products. In 1996, 41.4% of all hog farming operations
(1067) reported having one or more such written agreements.
It has been impossible to determine with any certainty the extent
to which these spreading agreements are actually used. Our hypothesis
has been that operations which have written spreading agreements
and which spread liquid manure and manure on outside lands
did so under the terms of these agreements. The information obtained
thus indicates that, in 1996, a maximum of 80% of the operations
with one or more written spreading agreements report actually using
them, entirely or in part, at generally the same rate in all regions.
7.0
Spreading Operations
Manure and liquid manure spreading operations are a major component
of the environmental problem. First of all, the pollution risks involved
are extremely widespread and thus more difficult to control than the
localized risks occurring in buildings or during storage. Secondly,
because of the strong odours which these operations produce, liquid
manure spreading operations generate rising levels of social conflict.
It is thus essential to examine current spreading practices among hog
producers, including spreading methods, delays in incorporating liquid
manure and time of spreading.
7.1 Fertilization Plan
The fertilization plan (The fertilization plan must take into account
at least one soil analysis of the lands concerned, performed in
the past three years, and must be prepared by an agronomist) is
the basis for proper manure and liquid manure management. Of the
operations with land under cultivation in 1996 (68% of all hog farming
operations), half, or 33% of all operations, had fertilization plans.
The rate is higher in Montérégie, where 45% of the operations have
plans of this kind, while the Quebec City, Eastern Townships and
Chaudière-Appalaches regions report rates of 12%, 16% and 25% respectively.
It should be noted that these regions produce different types of
crops, with corn being the principal crop in Montérégie and pasture
and grasslands predominating in the other regions. The average plan
covered 90% of the land area cultivated by the operation. In all,
over 78,000 ha of crop land, representing 55% of the land areas
cultivated by Quebec’s hog farming operations, are covered by fertilization
plans.
The fertilization plans for nearly 50% of these areas have been
designed by input suppliers. Independent consultants and professionals
from MAPAQ have each developed plans for 20% of the land areas cultivated
by hog farming operations. The operations themselves have prepared
fertilization plans for less than 10% of the areas.
Moreover, 21% of all hog farming operations keep records of their
manure and liquid manure spreading operations. Fertilization plans
encourage the operations to manage these products more effectively,
since nearly half (47%) of the operations with fertilization plans
maintain up-to-date spreading records.
7.2 Spreading Methods
On spreading, liquid manure contains a large quantity of dissolved
gases which are formed during storage in the absence of oxygen.
These gases, including ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and organic compounds,
are partially released on spreading, giving off the characteristic
odours of liquid manure. These odours are particularly intense because
the liquid manure is broken down into droplets. Thus, use of a spreading
method such as the irrigation gun permits maximum release of these
gases and the resulting odours, while use of a boom with a device
for simultaneous incorporation of the liquid manure minimizes the
odours released. At the same time, it conserves nitrogen by reducing
the volatilization of ammonia.
In 1996, 2178 Quebec hog farming operations, or 84.6% of the operations
surveyed, reported either spreading hog manure or liquid manure
from their own operations or having it spread by contract on their
own crop lands or on land covered by agreements. Nearly one out
of every two operations (47%) handled all their own spreading, 30%
relied solely on contract operators, while 8% performed some of
their own spreading and contracted the rest out to third parties.
Sprinkling remains the most popular spreading method among hog producers.
Of the operations which performed their own spreading, nearly 40%
used high sprinkling and 29% low sprinkling. The popularity of this
method is attributable to the fact that investment and operating
costs are lower than for the use of boom techniques. A total of
18% of the operations performing their own spreading used spray
booms, a third of which included devices permitting simultaneous
incorporation of the liquid manure in the soil. Booms are more widely
used by operations which had spreading done on a contract basis
(26%).
It is interesting to note that the form of ownership of spreading
equipment is related to the investment costs involved. Leasing and
co-ownership are more popular for equipment with spray booms, with
or without simultaneous incorporation devices, and for guns and
nozzle sprayers than for sprinkling equipment. In addition, contractors
specializing in spreading operations are in a better position to
acquire more sophisticated equipment, such as booms.
The survey indicates that a maximum of 178 operations (6.9%) used
irrigation guns for spreading, while 70 (2.7%) used jet systems.
A maximum of 31 guns and 23 jet systems were owned by hog farmers,
while the rest, an unknown number, were the property of manure spreading
operations.
7.3 Delays in Incorporation
The time lag between the spreading of liquid manure or manure and
its incorporation into the soil by ploughing or harrowing is equally
important in terms of environmental and social impacts. Manure or
liquid manure allowed to remain on the surface of the soil clearly
experiences a number of different losses: loss of nitrogen as a
result of runoff and leaching, loss of phosphorus and organic matter
as a result of erosion and runoff, and possible contamination of
surface waters by pathogens. In addition, liquid manure left on
the surface continues to release the gases dissolved in it and produces
odours for several days.
Spreading methods which involve incorporation of the liquid manure
are believed to generate fewer environmental and social impacts.
In fact, nearly 75% of the operations using sprinkling equipment
to spread their own liquid manure leave the liquid manure on the
surface, compared to fewer than 30% of those using spray booms.
7.4 Time of Spreading
In addition to spreading methods and delays in incorporation, the
time of spreading is another important factor in determining impact
on the environment, particularly with respect to water and soil
quality. Organic fertilizers are most effective during the period
of crop growth, from May to August. In addition, soil conditions
are more conducive to fertilizer runoff and leaching when the soil
is saturated with water or very wet, as is the case in the fall
or early spring.
The hog farming operations which report spreading liquid manure
do so on average in 2.5 different months. Liquid manure is most
commonly spread in May, with 75% of the operations which use this
procedure doing so at this time. Approximately 30% of the operations
spread manure in each of the summer months (June, July and August).
Finally, 50% of the operations do so in each of the fall months
(September and October).
The proportion of liquid manure spread in each of these seasons
is generally the same: 35% in May at the start of growth or on pre-seeding,
30% from June to August on post-emergence or after forage crops
have been cut and 35% in September and October during the post-harvest
period. On average, 80% of the liquid manure was spread between
May and September 1996; 1421 hog farms (55%) performed at least
one spreading operation outside this period.
A total of 30% of the hog farming operations reported the use of
solid manure. Solid manure spreading operations differ from those
involving liquid manure in a number of respects: they are less frequent
(operations performed in 1.75 months), fewer occur in the spring
(45%) and more are performed in the fall (50%).
The survey indicates that nine operations spread manure during the
winter months (December to March), when the soil is normally frozen
or snow-covered. While such operations are not common, they result
in significant fertilizer losses to the natural environment, particularly
when the snow melts. We note too that nearly 6% of all hog farming
operations did some spreading very late in the season, in November.
In these cases too, the risks of water contamination are high, since
soil conditions are generally conducive to leaching and runoff of
fertilizers and organic matter.
7.5 Calibration of Spreading Equipment
Calibration of the spreading equipment permits better compliance
with crop fertilization recommendations because the operator is
aware of the amount applied by the equipment in relation to various
parameters (forward velocity, etc.). It permits improved agronomic
effectiveness of the liquid manure used and, as a result, reduces
losses to the environment. Calibration thus reflects the importance
which an operation assigns to the agronomic effectiveness of its
liquid manure and to protection of the environment. It is interesting
to note, then, that the operations using spray booms also have the
highest proportion of calibrated equipment. The rate varies from
60% for conventional booms to nearly 90% for booms with drop pipes.
In contrast, less than 30% of the sprinkling equipment (high, low
or lateral) used by the hog farming operations is calibrated.
These results would appear to indicate that operations which are
aware of the value of their liquid manure use spreading practices
which present less risk of pollution. As a result, they make more
extensive use than other operations of spray booms, incorporate
their liquid manure into the soil more rapidly and calibrate more
of their spreading equipment.
8.0
Farm Balances
Two types of balances have been prepared from the data compiled on hog
farming operations in Quebec. These balances are based essentially on
the fact that the only method of manure disposal available to Quebec’s
hog farmers is, in practice, application to agricultural lands. The
first balance thus reflects the environmental pressure which the hog
industry places on these lands, that is, the animal load per hectare
of crop land. The second is an agronomic balance for organic fertilizers
on the farm solely on lands cultivated by the operations; mineral fertilizers
are not considered.
8.1 Animal Load
The animal load is the ratio between the number of livestock owned
by an operation, expressed in animal units, and the area of the
operation’s crop lands. To place these results in perspective, let
us first review the regulatory reference. The Regulation in force
in 1996 (Regulation respecting the prevention of water pollution
in livestock operations (R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 18). required an operation
to have access to the land areas required to spread the manure and
liquid manure which it generates, as determined by Schedule F. These
areas are determined on the basis of the type of crops grown by
the operation and relate essentially to their potential to use nitrogen
but do not take into account the possible addition of mineral fertilizers
or the potential to use phosphorus. The animal loads used in this
regulation for the different crops vary from 0.55 a.u./ha (legumes)
to 4.13 a.u./ha (corn) .
The nutrient load produced by a single animal unit can also be calculated.
This load, which in theory should be very similar for all types
of animals, varies in fact from 50 to 100 kg of nitrogen/a.u. for
feeder pigs and dairy cows respectively, and from 35 to over 90
kg of P2O5/a.u. for feeder pigs and farrowing
sows respectively (CPVQ[CPVQ, 1995. Technical bulletin 22. Coefficients
d’efficacité des engrais de ferme], GÉAGRI[GÉAGRI, 1989. Fumier
de ferme: production. Agdex 538 / 400.27. Groupe Géagri Inc.]).
Based on the livestock distribution found on hog farming operations
in Quebec, the average nutrient load produced by the animals is
thus 60 kg of nitrogen per a.u. and 44 kg of P2O5
per a.u.
Actual Animal Load
Calculation of the actual animal load determines the exact average
animal load actually generated as a result of the application of
farm manure by hog farming operations in 1996. The actual animal
load reflects both the proportion of the operation’s manure and
liquid manure which has been spread on its crop lands and the proportion
of the operation’s crop lands actually treated with manure and liquid
manure. This evaluation thus excludes manure and liquid manure remaining
in the pit or applied to lands belonging to other operations and
those of the operation’s crop lands to which manure and liquid manure
have not been applied. The average actual animal load for 1996 has
been evaluated on the basis of data from 85% of the hog farming
operations. It can be considered a minimum figure since 5% of the
hog farming operations spread manure or liquid manure imported from
other operations which could not be included in the calculations.
Given the areas under cultivation and the spreading practices favoured
by hog farming operations for these areas in 1996, the average actual
animal load for these operations was 2.9 a.u./ha. The figure varied
from 1.8 a.u./ha to 3.8 a.u./ha for the principal producing regions.
Based on the nutrient load produced by each animal unit, the average
quantities of organic fertilizers applied totalled 174 kg of nitrogen
per hectare (110 to 230 kg N/ha) and 125 kg of P2O5
per hectare (80 to 165 kg P2O5/ha). It has
been noted that average requirements for all crops on hog farming
operations are 96 kg/ha of nitrogen and 37 kg/ha of phosphorus (P2O5).
Taking into account the spreading methods used in 1996, this nitrogen
load provided approximately the average crop requirements while
the phosphorus load corresponded to 2.5 times the average crop requirements.
Land Areas Required for Spreading
Schedule F of Regulation Q-2, r. 18, which was in force in 1996,
determines the areas of crop land to which an operation must have
access in order to spread its manure and liquid manure. These areas
may be owned or rented by the operation or may belong to a third
party who gives written permission to this operation to spread its
manure and liquid manure (written spreading agreement). On this
basis, the survey indicates that 1556 operations (60%) needed written
spreading agreements in order to make use of their farm manure,
since their crop lands were not sufficient to meet the requirements.
However, only 1066 operations actually reported having written spreading
agreements of this kind. In other words, 30% of the operations which
should have spreading agreements do not have them. It should also
be noted that one-third of the hog farming operations (32.1%) have
no crop lands and are entirely dependent on receiving operations
to make use of all the farm manure which they produce.
In addition, hog producers are more heavily dependent on other agricultural
operations in zones with municipalities having a manure surplus
than on average in the province. In fact, more than 93% of all hog
farming operations need at least one written spreading agreement
to meet the requirements of Schedule F.
Degree of Dependence of Hog Farming Operations
The majority of the hog farming operations thus require written
spreading agreements with receiving operations to make use of all
(operations with no crop lands) or some of their manure. However,
given the current evolution of the hog industry in Quebec, the use
of manure and liquid manure on agricultural lands is certain to
come under more severe constraints, including an as yet undefined
standard for phosphorus. Because of the nature of manure and liquid
manure, the inclusion of phosphorus in the criteria for manure application
will inevitably result in an increase in the areas required for
spreading by nearly all farming operations. Operations currently
accepting excess liquid hog manure will be obliged to reduce the
areas which they have made available to hog farming operations with
a manure surplus through written spreading agreements. As a result,
the only land areas to which hog farming operations are guaranteed
access are those they own.
The ratio between an operation’s livestock and the land areas which
it owns thus reflects the operation’s degree of dependence on potential
recipients. This ratio is estimated at 4.5 a.u./ha of land owned
for all hog producers in Quebec. Hog farming operations are thus
extremely vulnerable to reductions in the land areas available from
potential recipients. They are particularly vulnerable in the major
hog production regions, where the ratio varies from 4.9 to 9.0 a.u./ha.
Dependence is much lower in regions where the development of the
hog industry is a more recent phenomenon, where the ratio is generally
below 2 a.u./ha.
8.2 Farm Balance of Organic Nutrient Loads
Balances for nutrient elements of organic origin were calculated
for each of the hog farming operations in Quebec, then compiled
for all such farms. This agronomic balance has enabled us to assess
the situation of each operation with respect to the use of the manure
and liquid manure which the operation produces and to the land areas
which it cultivates (crop lands, owned or leased from other operations).
These are organic fertilizer balances, and do not take into account
any mineral fertilizers which the operations may have applied to
their crop lands. Each operation was classified in one of three
different groups. Operations with a surplus do not cultivate
enough crop land to make use of all the manure and liquid manure
which they generate. They are thus required to conclude one or more
written agreements with other operations in order to make use of
their surplus fertilizers. Inversely, operations with a deficit
generate less fertilizer than their crops could use. These operations
are thus potential recipients of manure and liquid manure from other
farms classified as having a surplus. Finally, balanced operations
cultivate exactly the areas required to make use of all the
manure and liquid manure which they generate. To allow for inaccuracies
in calculating the farm balances, it has been assumed that an operation
producing nutrient elements equivalent to within 20% of its crop
requirements is in balance.
The nutrient load was estimated on the basis of information collected
during the survey on the various elements known to affect this load
(livestock inventory, feed types and equipment, roofed storage,
etc.) and known data on fertilizer production per animal (CPVQ [CPVQ,
1995. Technical bulletin 22. Coefficients d’efficacité des engrais
de ferme], GÉAGRI [GÉAGRI, 1989. Fumier de ferme: production.
Agdex 538 / 400.27. Groupe Géagri Inc. ). Crop requirements for
the lands cultivated by the operation were evaluated on the basis
of data on the operations (crop types and areas) and CPVQ data{CPVQ,
1996. Fertilization reference grids) , using the phosphorus requirements
for soils of average fertility. It should be noted that areas
covered by spreading agreements are not included in these calculations.
The effectiveness of the farm manure was determined on the basis
of the spreading methods used by the producers in 1996 and the CPVQ’s
coefficients of effectiveness (CPVQ, 1995. Technical bulletin 22.
Coefficients d’efficacité des engrais de ferme).
In calculating the balance, it was assumed, first, that the farm
manure was spread solely to meet the crops’ nitrogen requirements
and, secondly, that it was spread to meet their nitrogen and phosphorus
requirements.
Nitrogen Basis
The first approach assumes that farm manure is applied to the crops
solely to meet their nitrogen requirements. On this basis,
1308 hog farming operations in Quebec, or 51%, are in a surplus
position. These operations currently generate a surplus of 20,500
MT of nitrogen and 14,800 MT of phosphorus (P2O5),
the equivalent of approximately 5,500,000 m3 of an average
liquid hog manure (58% of the total volume of manure and liquid
manure generated by the hog farming operations). It should be noted,
however, that areas covered by spreading agreements are not included
in this calculation; an operation may thus have a manure surplus
on the farm without applying surplus nitrogen to crops on its own
lands or elsewhere. Given the average nitrogen requirements of the
crops and the spreading practices in use in 1996, an area of approximately
90,000 ha would have been required to absorb this farm surplus.
At the same time, 986 operations (39% of the operations) have a
deficit of organic fertilizers, equivalent to 13,900 MT of nitrogen
and 1020 MT of phosphorus (P2O5). Finally,
10% of the operations are in balance, producing fertilizers equivalent
to their crop requirements, plus or minus 20%.
Assuming spreading operations were limited solely to crop nitrogen
requirements and given the low overall effectiveness of the nitrogen
from liquid manure, the hog farming operations would have applied
5500 MT of phosphorus (P2O5) over and above
average crop requirements for this element.
The individual situation of the farms in zones having a surplus
is similar to that of the other hog farming operations in Quebec
in terms of their distribution. These zones contain 53% of the hog
farming operations and generate 55% of the surpluses.
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Basis
The second approach assumes that farm fertilizers are applied on
the basis of the requirements for the more limiting nutrient element,
nitrogen or phosphorus. On this basis, 2095 hog farms in
Quebec, or 82% of the operations, are in a surplus position, once
again without taking into consideration the areas covered by spreading
agreements. These operations generate a surplus estimated at 28,900
MT of nitrogen and 20,600 MT of phosphorus (P2O5),
the equivalent of 8,000,000 m3 of an average liquid hog
manure (84% of the total volume of manure and liquid manure generated
by the hog farming operations). Given the average phosphorus requirements
of the crops and the spreading practices in use in 1996, an area
of approximately 400,000 ha would have been required to absorb this
farm surplus. These operations have also met all the phosphorus
requirements of their crops. However, since phosphorus is a more
limiting element than nitrogen in the application of liquid manure,
it has restricted the amount of nitrogen made available to the crops.
Thus, despite the nitrogen surpluses generated by these operations,
their crop lands still have unmet requirements equivalent to the
nitrogen contained in 12,400 MT of an average liquid hog manure.
At the same time, only 272 operations (11% of the operations) have
a deficit of organic fertilizers, estimated at 6900 MT of nitrogen
and 975 MT of phosphorus (P2O5). Finally,
7% of the operations are in balance. The unsatisfied requirements
for all the crops of all operations combined (those in surplus,
balance and deficit) total 22,250 MT of nitrogen and 1050 MT of
phosphorus (P2O5).
The situation is very similar from one administrative region to
another. The proportion of operations having a surplus is, however,
slightly higher in the zones with municipalities having a surplus.
However, the surpluses generated by these zones are proportional
to the number of operations which they contain.
The farm balance is thus very different, depending on whether we
consider only the nitrogen requirements of the crops or both the
nitrogen and phosphorus requirements. The situation existing in
1996, the survey’s reference year, when regulation Q.2, r.18 was
in force, is more accurately represented by the balance calculated
on the basis of nitrogen requirements. The discrepancy between animal
loads and spreading capacities can only be intensified by the introduction
of a standard which limits the application of phosphorus to crops.
However, regardless of the basis of calculation, the results indicate
that the hog industry today is heavily dependent on potential recipients
and that recipients are needed for large quantities of fertilizers.
However, as foreign experience indicates, agricultural use of these
farm manures remains the most economical solution for the disposal
of liquid manure, although any limitation on applications of phosphorus
to crops will force operations in a surplus position to transport
their farm manure ever longer distances.
9.0
Conclusions and Recommendations
General Problems
The preceding review has made it possible to identify the environmental
strengths and weaknesses of the hog industry at the various stages
in the production chain. The present section summarizes the general
environmental problems on which recommendations should be focused.
In 1996, the hog industry was a highly specialized activity, with
hogs representing over 90% of the animal units on hog farming operations.
The industry was also highly concentrated, with over 80% of the
operations located in three of Quebec’s twelve administrative regions.
In the building, the principal environmental problem remains
relatively inefficient utilization of the nitrogen and phosphorus
present in the inputs, as a result of the rations’ poor digestibility
in terms of these elements, non-optimal adaptation of the animals’
feed to their varying metabolic requirements over time (formulations)
and feed distribution methods which result in a certain degree of
input waste.
The survey indicates that, while the use of water reduction equipment
has clearly expanded in recent years in Quebec, there is still significant
room for improvement in this area. Similarly, certain types of cleaning
and disposal systems allow little opportunity for improved control
of water consumption and odour management.
The problem of odours in the buildings is more localized and less
acute than that created by spreading. However, a relatively large
proportion of buildings are located near neighbouring homes and
may be a source of conflict with residents of rural areas. This
situation is exacerbated by the infrequent use made of wooded screens
to limit the spread of odours near livestock facilities. In addition,
the selection of affordable, proven technologies for odour reduction
in the building and during storage is very limited and few operations
use those which do exist.
The environmental problems associated with storage are closely
associated with the widespread use of liquid manure management.
Anaerobic storage conditions result in the production of foul-smelling
gases and promote nitrogen loss through volatilization, during both
storage and spreading. Precipitation collecting in the storage structures
increases the volumes of liquid manure to be managed and at the
same time reduces its concentration in nutrient elements. In addition,
because of costs and/or availability, little use is made of roofed
storage or other technologies to reduce volume, odours or nitrogen
loss.
As a result of improvements in building water management and in
spreading practices, the capacity of storage structures has gradually
increased over the years. A certain proportion of these structures,
however, do not provide the minimum storage capacity or flexibility
required to ensure safe spreading operations in our variable climatic
conditions.
Spreading is and will continue to be the preferred method
for final disposal of farm manure for all hog farming operations.
The survey indicates that hog producers do not make full use of
the potential offered by their crop lands and that they are heavily
dependent on other types of farms for access to spreading lands.
In some regions, a very large proportion of the land cultivated
by hog farming operations is planted in corn. Despite its high nitrogen
requirements, the pairing of liquid manure and corn creates certain
environmental risks, including more rapid accumulation of phosphorus
in the soil when fertilization is based on nitrogen requirements
and a high risk of soil erosion on sloping lands.
While new spreading methods are achieving growing acceptance, most
manuring is still performed by methods which promote the spread
of odours and loss of nutrient elements. Spreading operations are
performed primarily by the producers themselves, but the most environmentally
desirable equipment, which is often more costly, is generally owned
by firms specializing in contract operations.
The data on animal loads per hectare indicate that all of the lands
cultivated by hog farming operations in Quebec are being overfertilized,
particularly in terms of phosphorus, as a result of the application
of farm manure, even without considering the use of mineral fertilizers.
This overfertilization is particularly severe in regions with high
concentrations of livestock, as indicated by previous studies in
these sectors.
In terms of management, the limited interest evident in the use
of fertilization plans or records indicates that producers’ technical
efforts are directed more towards management of their livestock
than of their land.
General Recommendations
It is immediately apparent that the environmental performance of
the hog industry can be improved by action at various levels of
the production chain, from feeding to manure spreading.
Some solutions are technical in nature, others a matter of logistics
or structure. Some can be applied in the short term, while others
will require research and development. In all cases, implementation
of the solutions must be supported by an adequate transfer, popularization
and information structure.
While the solutions must reflect the problems specific to each region
and each operation, a number of common approaches can be identified.
First of all, there are the technical approaches, in particular
reduction of volume (water reduction), reduction of nutrient loads
(feed efficiency, distribution methods) and improvement of odour
control (technologies) and spreading operations (methods, time of
spreading, agro-environmental fertilization plan, records, technologies,
etc.).
Next are the structural approaches, designed to create conditions
which will permit reductions in environmental impacts. Already we
can see that different strategies must be developed for zones with
the potential for development and those with a surplus of farm manure.
The establishment of plans for the development of livestock production
(hogs and other types) which will ensure a balance between the environment’s
support capacity and the economic imperatives of production and
of hog farm development is one possible approach. Another is the
optimized management of manure spreading operations within a given
territory, making full use of the spreading areas available and
the assistance of manure management agencies and other collective
agencies devoted to the implementation of (collective) technical
and logistic regional solutions to the management of farm manure
surpluses.
In addition, regardless of the environmental position of the operation
or the region, it is essential to adapt or to develop agro-environmental
indicators which will allow us to measure and monitor the evolution
of the hog industry in terms of its environmental and social impacts.
Such indicators must be adopted by all members of the agricultural
community to permit the integration of the hog industry, as described
in the present portrait, with the other agricultural sectors present
in the same area.
Because of the specific nature of the problems facing each region
and each hog farming operation, no one solution can be applied to
all operations in all regions. A more detailed and extensive analysis
of the information contained in the data base of the Fédération
des Producteurs de Porcs du Québec will permit the selection
and definition of the most promising approaches (information, technology,
logistics, etc.) to the problems already observed or identified
in the course of this analysis. By determining the sensitivity of
different parameters with respect to their impact on the environment
and evaluating the technical feasibility, conditions for implementation
and cost/benefit ratio of these interventions, we will be able to
classify and identify the intervention priorities likely to be most
effective in achieving the desired objective of reducing environmental
impacts.
This analysis will thus complement the present agro-environmental
portrait of the hog industry by providing a more precise, dynamic
vision. The information collected in the course of the survey, combined
with the conclusions already formulated and those to be developed
following more detailed analysis of the data base, should provide
the basis for the master plan of agro-environmental action for the
hog industry. This master plan must precede the field activities
planned for the second stage of the Agro-Environmental Plan, the
development of a technical framework for producers.
Bruce T. Bowman, Archivist
Last Updated:
Monday, April 06, 2009 03:31:07 PM
|
