Article
Manure
Management in Canada
Introduction
Manure management practices
Manure incorporation into soil
Treatment of stored manure
Feeding strategies to reduce manure nutrient content
Control of odours from livestock buildings
Development of formal manure management plans
Adoption of beneficial management practices for manure management
Summary
Manure Management in Canada is the second article in a series of studies
collectively called Farm Environmental Management in Canada. The objective
of this series is to publish the results of the 2001 Farm Environmental Management
Survey (FEMS).1 The series presents information about the farming practices used
on Canadian farms as they relate to a number of agri-environmental topics such
as manure handling, water management, chemical inputs and sustainable land management
practices.
Agricultural activities by their very nature have a significant impact on the
environment. Tillage practices alter natural landscapes, agricultural inputs enter
ecosystems and animal by-products influence ecological balances. Because of environmental
concerns, Canadian farmers are at the frontlines as stewards of the environment.
Farmers are actively involved in environmental programs and are adopting farming
practices that minimize pollution risks to air, water and soil, while contributing
to the conservation of biodiversity. FEMS results provide useful information for
measuring the adoption of environmentally sound practices and assisting governments,
farmers and non-governmental organizations in the promotion and development of
farm environmental initiatives.
Manure Management in Canada provides information
on the key livestock manure management practices that Canadian farmers followed
in 2001. To assess the importance of these practices, results are often best presented
on the basis of the amount of manure produced on farms rather than by the number
of farms. T he number of farms alone does not always give a full appreciation of
the significance of the adoption of specific practices, in terms of potential affects
on the environment. Practices on many small farms may not have the same environmental
impact as the same practices on a few very large farms because of relatively lower
production intensities. Conversely, the number of farms provides valuable information
on the extent to which the farm community is aware of and has adopted farming practices
that are more environmentally-sound. The following analysis focuses more specifically
on manure management practices used for the production of beef cattle, dairy
cattle and hogs, which together generate the largest amount of manure on Canadian
farms.2 Although the focus of this analysis is mainly at the national level, some
highlights about manure management are also presented on a provincial basis.
The topics covered comprise most of the key characteristics of manure management.3 Topics include seasonal application of manure to the land, delay in incorporating
manure into soil, treatment of stored manure, use of feeding strategies to reduce
manure nutrient content, options used to control odours, implementation of manure
management plans and adoption of beneficial management practices.
Manure management practices
Seasonal application of manure
Application by manure source
Regional characteristics of manure application
Manure application by farm size
Though practices vary, livestock manure is ultimately disposed of by applying
it to farmland. Manure application occurs at different times during the year, though
usually from spring to fall. The timing of application depends on various factors
such as weather conditions, stage of crop growth, labour availability and manure
storage capacity. Manure storage capacity is an important factor, as storage facilities
tend to be full after the winter months and require emptying. Furthermore, livestock
producers need to ensure sufficient storage capacity is present in the fall for
the coming winter months. Farmers raising livestock under confined conditions,
in operations such as beef feedlots and dairy, hog and poultry barns, usually store
manure until it can be conveniently applied to land. This is preferably done at
a time when crops can benefit most from the nutrients in manure and when environmental
risks from application are at a minimum. According to beneficial management practices,
manure should be applied to land outside of the frost season.
Nationally, FEMS results show that farms applied manure mostly in the fall (35.4%
of applications), followed closely by applications in the spring (33.2%), as shown
in Figure 1. About one-quarter (25.9%) of manure applications were performed in
the summer months. In comparison, 5.5% of manure applications, by far the lowest
proportion, were in the winter, generally considered an unfavourable time because
of the potential for run-off due to frozen ground. It should be noted that the
figures quoted above were generated by using the sum of all the responses given
for each season as the denominator.
During the survey, Canadian farmers reported the percentage of the manure produced
on their farms in 2001 that was applied in each season. Annual manure production,
as-excreted, was estimated for each farm on the basis of livestock inventories on
farms as reported on the 2001 Census of Agriculture.4 FEMS results show that nationally
37.3% of manure was applied in fall, 34.7% was applied in the spring and 25.3% in
the summer. A smaller proportion (2.7%) of manure was applied during the winter months.
 |
Figure 1. Seasonal application of manure, Canada, 2001 |
Seasonal differences in the proportion of manure applied to land are also related
to the different types of animals being produced on farms. These differences are
mostly due to the farming practices associated with beef, dairy and hog production.
Nationally, beef farms applied manure mostly in the fall (38.4% of applications)
and in the spring (31.4%) (Table 1). Similarly, hog farms applied manure mostly
in these two seasons but in different proportions, with 32.2% of manure applications
performed in the fall and 36.0% in the spring. However, 8.6% of manure applications
performed by hog farms were in the winter, compared to 5.3% and 5.1% for dairy
and beef farms, respectively. Dairy farms performed 35.8% of their manure applications
in the spring, followed by 30.0% in the summer and 28.9% in the fall.
 |
Seasonal application of manure, by animal type, Canada, 2001 |
Beef cattle are produced using a variety of production systems ranging from
small, pasture-based cow-calf operations to large intensive feedlots raising
cattle in enclosed pens or corrals. Nationally, 43.6% of beef cattle manure was
applied to the land in the fall and 29.9% in the spring (Figure 2). These differences
could be explained by a number of factors. First, early spring is a busy period
on some cattle operations because of calving and spring seeding operations and
farmers may not have time for applying manure. Second, beef producers usually
need to empty their storage facilities before winter and must do this in fall
if they haven't had the opportunity to do it before then. More time is usually
available after harvest for this task and the farmer does not need to worry about
interfering with the progress of growing crops.
|
Figure 2. Proportion of manure applied, by season of application and animal type, Canada,
2001 |
Dairy cattle, especially on small and medium-size enterprises, are usually raised
indoors during the winter months and mostly outdoors during the rest of the year.
About 40% of dairy cattle manure production was applied to the land in the spring
and about one-quarter (24.8%) was applied in the fall. However, this seasonal
pattern may change as dairy operations increase in size and more animals are
confined indoors all year round.
Hog farms make use of liquid manure storage systems
to the greatest extent amongst livestock producers and usually empty their
manure storage tanks prior to and after winter. As with dairy producers, farmers
raising hogs applied the largest amount of manure (43.6%) to land during the
spring. But like beef producers, hog farmers applied relatively less manure to
land during the summer (20.8%), with almost one-third (32.7%) of manure produced
being applied in fall. Application of liquid manure in the warmer summer months
without injection into the soil could result in a significant amount of nutrient
evaporation into the air, with the potential of odours affecting neighbouring
areas.
Regional differences in the seasonal application of manure to the land are mostly
due to variations in local climatic conditions, agronomic environment, types
of animals raised, manure storage systems used and environmental regulations.
However, winter application is not generally recommended in any region because
frozen land cannot absorb nutrients contained in manure. It is important to note
that individual farms often apply manure in more than one season. Consequently,
a farm can be counted more than once and the share of farms with livestock will
sum to more than 100%. In contrast, the quantity of manure applied represents
a discrete count. Therefore, the share of manure applied will sum to 100%.
Table 2 shows that one-quarter of livestock farms in British Columbia applied
some manure in winter in 2001, however the actual quantity of manure was low
(5.2%). In Ontario, 15.8% percent of livestock farms applied manure in winter.
In the southern parts of British Columbia and Ontario, relatively mild winters
make it possible to apply some manure in early winter. No farmers reported applying
manure during the winter in Newfoundland and Labrador and only 0.2% of farms
in Quebec reported winter application. Significant numbers of farms in the Prairie
provinces reported applying some manure in winter, but in all cases the quantities
applied were small.
In Canada as a whole, the share of farms applying manure in the spring and fall
were similar. However, there was a marked regional pattern. In the spring, the
share of farms applying manure in Eastern and Central Canada and British Columbia
varied between 63.5% and 95.8% while in the Prairie provinces the comparable
numbers ranged between 26.8% and 41.9%. In the fall, the share of farms applying
manure was fairly constant across all provinces (at around 60%).
In the spring, the share of manure applied in the non-Prairie provinces averaged
about one-half of that applied throughout the year, while the share in the Prairie
provinces was approximately one-quarter.
In the fall, the non-Prairie provinces applied around one-third of their annual
manure application. In contrast, the comparable share of manure applied in the
Prairie provinces varied between 44.9% and 54.5%.
In the Prairie provinces, a larger proportion of manure application takes place
in the fall because spring is often too busy a time to apply manure while crop
growth reduces opportunities to apply manure in the summer. Moreover, manure
storage facilities need to be emptied before the prairie winter.
In Canada as a whole, 42.2% of farms applied manure in the summer. The Prairie
provinces were somewhat below this average, varying between one-quarter and one-third,
while Quebec was considerably higher (72.9%).
With two exceptions, the share of manure applied in the summer was broadly consistent
across all the provinces (approximately one-quarter). The two exceptions were
Newfoundland and Labrador (only 11.6% of annual manure applied) and British Columbia
(15.7% of annual manure applied).
Quebec stood out amongst the provinces with a relatively large share of farms
applying manure in the spring (72.3%) and summer (72.9%), and a relatively small
share of farms applying manure in the fall (43.0%). Quebec's high spring and
summer application can be explained by the relative importance of the dairy sector
in the province, which needs to empty storage facilities in the spring and applies
manure to forage crops in the summer.
|
Seasonal application of manure, Canada
and provinces, 2001 |
The influence of farm size5 is important to consider when looking at manure
management practices. Large livestock operations tend to have higher concentrations
of animals on a given land area, putting relatively greater stress on the environment.
As a result, larger livestock farms generally face greater public scrutiny and
stricter environmental regulations.
On beef farms (Table 3), winter application of manure is very small (7.9% of
farms applying 2.6% of the annual manure application). There was no discernable
pattern based on farm size.
In spring, nearly one-half of beef farms applied manure to the land and the
share of manure applied was 29.9%. There was a consistent rise in the share of
manure applied according to farm size. The share rose from 27.3% for farms with
less than 163 head of beef cattle to 34.8% with farms with more than 425 head.
In the summer, a little more than one-third of beef farms applied manure to
the land. The share of manure applied during this season was 24.0%. There was
no obvious pattern based on farm size.
In the fall, more beef farms (57.7%) applied manure to the land than in any
other season. The share of manure applied was also the highest (43.6%). There
was a general pattern of a declining share of manure applied with increasing
farm size (from 45.7% of the smallest beef farms to 38.2% of the largest farms).
Amongst dairy farms, one-tenth applied manure to the land in winter. However,
this volume represented only 2.6% of the manure applied throughout the year by
all dairy farms. There was no pattern based on farm size.
In contrast to beef farms, spring represented the highest share of dairy farms
applying manure to the land (approximately three-quarters) and the highest share
of manure applied (40.8%). Moreover, there was a general pattern of a rising
share of manure applied with increasing farm size (from 34.9% by farms with less
than 47 head to 42.9% by farms with more than 131 head).
In summer, nearly two-thirds of dairy farms applied manure to the land, producing
31.7% of the manure applied throughout the year. Unlike the spring, there was
a consistent decline in the share of manure applied to the land with increasing
farm size (from 36.2% by farms with less than 47 head down to 28.6% by farms
with more than 131 head).
In fall, 60.8% of dairy farms applied manure to the land. These farms applied
a little under one-quarter of the total manure applied throughout the year by
dairy farms. For farms with less than 132 head there was a consistent decline
in the share of manure applied to the land with increasing farm size (from 26.1%
to 23%). However, the share of manure applied in the fall by the largest dairy
farms was the highest for this season (26.2%).
In winter, hog farms had both a larger share of farms applying manure to the
land (17.8%), and a larger share of manure applied to the land (2.9%) than either
beef farms or dairy farms. The share of manure applied in winter by hog farms
also consistently declined with increasing farm size (from 5.1% by farms with
less than 566 head to 2.3% by farms with more than 1,594 head). This pattern
suggests a lower manure storage capacity on farms with smaller herds. It is more
difficult for operators of smaller farms, which often operate under tight margins,
to make the capital investments required to increase their manure storage capacity.
Consequently, some are forced to empty manure storage systems and to apply it
to the land during the frost season.
In spring, almost three-quarters of hog farms applied manure to the land. The
share of manure applied in this season was 43.6%. There was no obvious pattern
based on farm size.
In summer, a little under one-half of hog farms applied manure to the land and
the manure produced accounted for 20.8% of the total manure applied throughout
the year. The share of manure applied to the land consistently declined with
increasing farm size (from 24.9% by the smallest farms to 19.3% by the largest
farms).
A majority (65.9%) of hog farms applied manure to the land in the fall. This
was a higher proportion than that seen on both beef farms and dairy farms in
this season. The share of manure applied during the fall by hog farms was just
under one-third. There was no obvious pattern based on farm size.
|
Seasonal application of manure, by size
of herd, Canada, 2001 |
Manure incorporation delay
Manure incorporation delay by animal type
Regional perspectives of manure incorporation
Manure incorporation delay by farm
size
Different methods can be used to apply manure to land, including solid spreaders,
liquid spreaders, liquid injectors and irrigation systems. If manure is spread
on the surface of the soil, BMPs usually recommend that manure be then incorporated
into the soil in order to minimize environmental risks and improve nutrient utilization.
Injection of liquid manure and incorporation of solid manure without much delay
are practices that reduce the amount of ammonia lost into the air. By incorporating
manure rapidly into the soil, farmers minimize odours and nutrient loss due to
evaporation. Delay in incorporating manure into soil depends on the type of manure
(solid, semi-solid or liquid) and the application method.
Injection has the advantage of leaving more crop residue on the soil surface.
Greater residue reduces both the risk of soil erosion and the loss of nutrients
due to water run-off or evaporation. However, the incorporation of solid manure
is more resource intensive (in terms of labour and fuel) than spreading applications
that leave manure on the surface of the field.
In FEMS, livestock producers reported their normal delay in incorporating manure
into their soil (Figure 3). Results indicate that 52.4% of farms that produce livestock
in Canada either left manure on the soil surface or incorporated it more than a
week after its application to the land; these farms account for 47.1% of the manure
applied in 2001. About 15% of livestock farmers injected or incorporated manure
on the same day that it was applied to land, corresponding to 17.7% of the manure
applied. Almost one-third of livestock producing farms incorporated manure into
soil in the one to seven days following application. This corresponds to 35.2%
of the manure applied to the land.
|
Figure 3. Timing of manure incorporation into the soil, Canada, 2001
|
Differences in the length of delay of manure incorporation into the soil were
evident when farms were separated by the type of livestock produced. Nationally,
the majority of beef producers (55.1%) left manure on the soil surface or incorporated
it into the soil more than a week after its application (Table 4 and Figure 4);
these farms produced 53.3% of beef cattle manure. In comparison, 46.1% of dairy
farms and 43.9% of hog farms left manure on the surface for more than a week.
These farms produced 37.6% and 27.7% of dairy cattle and hog manure, respectively.
Conversely, 13.4% of beef farms, 17.5% of dairy farms and 21.9% of hog farms
injected manure into the soil or incorporated it on the same day, accounting
for 13.1%, 25.2% and 38.5% of beef cattle, dairy cattle and hog manure, respectively.
Roughly one-third of beef, dairy and hog farms did not incorporate manure into
the soil immediately, but did so within a week of application. The higher proportion
of hog manure injected or incorporated into the soil could be explained by the
fact that most hog manure is stored in a liquid form, which can be injected relatively
easily.
|
Timing of manure incorporation into the soil, by animal type, Canada, 2001 |
|
Figure 4. Timing of manure incorporation into the soil, by animal type, Canada, 2001 |
Differences in the length of delay of manure incorporation into the soil occur
from one province to another (Table 5). These differences are mostly due to differences
in the type of animals raised, which influences the type of manure storage system
used (liquid or semi-solid/solid) in each province.
The provinces with the highest shares of injected manure or manure incorporated
the same day of its application were Manitoba (20.8% of manure, 18.1% of farms),
Ontario (19.7% of manure, 17.0% of farms) and Quebec (18.2% of manure, 16.5%
of farms). This could be explained by the importance of the hog industry in these
provinces, which together account for 73.5% of all pigs in Canada.6 These results
give the first indication that larger farms tend to inject or incorporate manure
with less delay than smaller farms since the quantities are higher than the number
of farms in each of these provinces. This observation is confirmed in the next
section.
Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Prince Edward Island each had more than
half of their manure production left on the surface of the soil or incorporated
into the soil more than a week after its application. A possible explanation
is that these provinces reported a low proportion of farms with liquid manure
storage, which is frequently injected. In addition, a high proportion of beef
cattle farms typically store solid manure, which usually remains unincorporated
for longer periods.
|
Timing of manure incorporation into the soil, Canada and provinces, 2001 |
Table 6 shows that there are differences in the length of delay of incorporating
manure into the soil related to herd size. As the size of beef cattle farms increased,
manure was more rapidly incorporated, thus leaving less manure on the surface
for more than a week. For example, 51.5% of large beef cattle farms (426 or more
head), producing 53.8% of beef cattle manure, either injected or incorporated
manure within a week of application. In comparison, 44.6% of small beef farms
(less than 163 head), which produced 42.5% of beef cattle manure, injected or
incorporated manure within a week of application. However, regardless of farm
size, beef farms had the highest percentage of manure left on the ground for
more than a week.
Similarly, larger dairy and hog farms injected or incorporated manure into the
soil to a greater extent than smaller farms. For example, 23% of the largest
dairy farms (more than 131 dairy cows and heifers), corresponding to 33.5% of
dairy cattle manure production, injected or incorporated manure on the same day
of application. Similarly, 33.2% of hog farms, producing 45.7% of hog manure,
injected or incorporated manure on the same day of application. The largest hog
farms injected or incorporated manure without delay to the greatest extent, as
one-third of these farms incorporated almost half of the manure they produced
on the same day that manure was applied to their land. In comparison, 22.3% of
manure was injected or incorporated the same day it was applied on the smallest
hog farms (less than 566 hogs).
For dairy farms, the largest (more than 131 dairy cows and heifers) had 33.5%
of dairy cattle manure injected or incorporated into the soil the same day of
its application. This compares to 25.7% on the smallest farms (less than 47 dairy
head). Farms with larger dairy herds stored a higher proportion of liquid manure
while smaller dairy farms stored a higher proportion of solid manure.
he highest proportion of manure that was left on the surface or incorporated more
than a week after its application was mainly on beef farms, regardless of the herd
size. Dairy and hog farms reported shorter delays in incorporating manure in the
soil.
|
Timing of manure incorporation into
the soil, by size of herd, Canada, 2001 |
Stored manure can be treated in various ways to limit odours, to minimize nutrient
loss, or to reduce the moisture content (and therefore weight) of manure that
will later be hauled to the fields. For example, composting solid manure is a
type of aerobic treatment that kills pathogens, reduces volume and odours, and
leaves stable humus that is easier to handle, either for spreading on land or
for packing and selling to others. Aeration, mixing slurry with air, is used
primarily to reduce the production of odours in stored manure. Liquid or semi-solid
manure can be treated either by separating water from manure solids or bedding
materials, by drying, or by storing manure in anaerobic digesters that convert
organic matter into methane and carbon dioxide. All these processes reduce the
water content of manure. Other methods include basic sewage treatment procedures
such as filtering liquid manure through constructed wetlands or artificial marshes
where nutrients are naturally removed or captured by vegetation.
It is important to note that farmers may have called conventional solid manure
storage "composting". If this is the case, the data for "composting" will
be an overestimate. The use of this term should be limited to the controlled regimen
of monitoring and turning manure to allow complete aerobic decomposition of organic
matter into humus.
Table 7 shows the regional differences in the adoption of manure treatment practices.
Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba farms treated stored manure to the greatest
extent, 72.2%, 67.1% and 64.7% respectively. Quebec and Manitoba had the largest
percentage of farmers using aeration, 6.8% and 6.7% respectively. The highest
proportion of farms that dried manure was reported in each of the Prairie provinces, as well as New Brunswick and British Columbia.
Generally, manure additives are not used to a great extent. Nationally, only
1.8% of farms included them in their manure management. Of particular interest,
though, is that New Brunswick reported the highest proportion of farms (4.6%)
that used additives.
|
Treatment of stored manure, Canada and
provinces, 2001 |
FEMS results show that typically, dairy and hog farms in Canada treated manure
to a lesser extent than beef farms in 2001 (Figure 5). Nearly two-thirds of dairy
farms and over one-half of hog farms did not treat manure. Additives were used
most extensively by hog farms, while composting and drying were more prevalent
on beef farms in 2001.
|
Figure 5. Treatment of stored manure, by animal type, Canada, 2001 |
Feed additives or specialized feeding strategies have been designed to reduce
the nutrient content of manure and to help animals make the best use of their
feed. For example, the enzyme phytase improves the ability of pigs and
poultry to digest the phosphorus in feed, hence reducing the risk of phosphorus
pollution due to manure. Phosphorus run-off from farmland into water bodies can
cause eutrophication through the overgrowth of algae and aquatic plants, which
reduces oxygen levels in the water.
FEMS results show that nationwide, only 3.8% of farms in Canada used feed additives
or specialized feeding strategies in 2001 (Table 8). This represents only 6.3%
of the manure produced. Provincially, these results show significant variations.
The use of feed additives or specialized feeding is above the national average
in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Ontario, for both the proportion of farms and the
proportion of manure produced. More specifically, Quebec had the highest proportion
of farms that have adopted a specialized feeding strategy or feed additives (8.7%),
representing the highest proportion of manure production (14.3%) modified by
feeding practices of any province. This greater use of additives can be explained
by the importance of hog production in Quebec and by the strict provincial regulations
to prevent phosphorus pollution. Over time, phosphorus has been building up in
much of the land in Quebec, as the amount of nutrients applied to fields has
exceeded the amount that could have been used by crops.
|
Use of feeding strategies to reduce manure nutrient content, Canada and provinces,
2001 |
Table 9 shows that feeding strategies to reduce manure nutrient content are
most frequently used in the hog industry. Nationally, 18.8% of hog farms, producing
39.2% of hog manure, used feed additives or specialized feeding to reduce the
nutrient content of manure in 2001. This compares to 4.2% of dairy farms and
2.5% of beef farms, representing 5.2% and 2.9% of dairy and beef cattle manure
production, respectively. The largest hog farms (1,595 pigs or more) made the
greatest use of these feeding strategies; 40.4% of these farms, accounting for
44.5% of hog manure, reported using feed additives or specialized feeding strategies.
Even on farms with the smallest hog herds, the share of manure produced on farms
using feed additives (13.4%) was greater than that produced on the largest beef
farms (4.5%) or the largest dairy farms (8.3%).
|
Use of feeding strategies to reduce
manure nutrient content, by size of herd, Canada, 2001 |
Manure odours from livestock buildings, which pose site-specific concerns, can
be reduced in different ways. To control odours, farmers can install windbreaks,
filters on exhaust fans, and other devices.7 To choose the appropriate odour
control method, various factors need to be taken into consideration, including
costs of practices, effectiveness of strategies and proximity of livestock facilities
to neighbouring communities.
FEMS results show that 18.7% of livestock producing farms in Canada used some
method to control livestock odours in 2001 (Table 10). The most popular method
of odour control were wind barriers, reported by 10.9% of livestock farms. These
relatively low figures reflect the fact that odour control is not necessarily
an issue, especially if a livestock farm is relatively small or located far away
from communities or neighbours. Furthermore, 9.0% of farms with livestock did
not have barns or buildings for livestock; hence the issue is not relevant for
these farms.
Provincially, results differed significantly. Manitoba had the highest percentage
of farms using some method of odour control (36.9%) while Quebec had the lowest
(13.0% of farms). Wind barriers were used to the greatest extent in the Prairie
provinces. The use of wind barriers in the Prairie provinces may be encouraged
through the availability of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA)
Shelterbelt Program. Manitoba had the highest proportion of farms using wind
barriers to control odours (28.1% of farms). Finally, filter fans were used to
the greatest extent in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Ontario (respectively
9.9%, 9.3%, and 6.8%).
The majority of livestock producing farms do not use any method to control odours
from their livestock buildings. In 2001, almost three-quarters (74.4%) of farms
with livestock in Canada reported not having a method to control odours. The
largest proportions of farms with livestock that did not report any method to
control odours were in Quebec (86.5%) and New Brunswick (79%), though several
provinces were not too far behind.
Table 11 shows that 33.2% of hog farms had some method of odour control. This
compares to 18.3% for both beef farms and dairy farms. Wind barriers, the most
commonly used method, were in place on 17.3% of hog farms.
Methods used to control odours from livestock building also varied by herd size.
Larger farms with livestock generally reported more frequent adoption of odour
control methods on their livestock buildings. This is especially true in the hog
sector. In 2001, the farms with the largest hog herds (1,595 hogs or more) reported
a larger share of wind barriers (27.0%) and other methods (14.5%) than smaller
hog farms. This is not surprising, as large modern intensive hog operations maintain
a high concentration of animals in a confined area and can generate significant
odours if not managed properly. Furthermore, odour control methods were more likely
to be found even on farms with the smallest hog herds (less than 566 hogs) than
on farms with beef and dairy cattle of any herd size.
|
Control of odours from livestock buildings, Canada and provinces, 2001 |
|
Control of odours from livestock buildings,
by size of herd, Canada, 2001 |
Specific manure management plans (MMPs) or broader nutrient management plans
(NMPs) usually include records for each of the farm's fields and information
on soil test results, nutrient requirements of crops, crop yields, rotation plans,
and of course, nutrient application from manure and commercial fertilizers. The
purpose of both MMPs and NMPs is
to balance the application of nutrients with crop requirements, thus reducing
nutrient losses to the environment.
According to the 2001 FEMS,
17.7% of all livestock producing farms in Canada had developed a formal MMP (Table
12). Overall, 7.8% of the farms (13.1% of manure production) developed their MMP as
part of a broader NMP. Another
5.9% of the farms (8.4% of manure production) developed their MMP because
it was required by government regulations. An additional 4.0% of the farms (4.8%
of manure production) developed their MMP mainly
because of farmers' personal concerns for the environment.
The development of MMPs differ
significantly on a provincial basis, mostly due to differences in farmers' codes
of practices, provincial regulations or municipal by-laws. For example, Quebec
had the highest proportion of farms (52.3%) that had developed a MMP,
accounting for 67.6% of manure produced in 2001. Also, 29.4% of farms in this
province, representing 40.8% of manure production, had developed a MMP to
comply with government regulations. In addition, 19.0% of Quebec farms (23.5%
of manure) had developed a MMP as
part of a broader NMP. This
reflects the more stringent provincial regulations introduced in 1998 in Quebec
to reduce pollution from agricultural sources.
The rest of Canada, however, had a significantly lower proportion of farms
that had prepared a MMP. Regulations in these provinces tend to require such
plans only for the very large and intensive livestock operations.
Nationally, the dairy sector had the highest proportion of farms (38.4%) that
had developed a MMP, followed
closely by the hog sector (35.4% of farms) (Table 13). In contrast, beef farms
had the lowest proportion of farms (13.7%) with
MMPs. Overall, 17.6% of dairy
farms, 14.0% of hog farms and 6.6% of beef farms had developed a MMP as
part of a broader NMP. In
addition, 15.3% of dairy farms and 16.0% of hog farms had developed a MMP to
comply with regulations, compared to 3.2% of beef farms. Moreover, about 5% of
both dairy and hog farms developed a MMP because
of farmers' concerns for the environment.
|
Development of formal manure management plan, Canada and provinces, 2001 |
|
Development of formal manure management plan, by animal type, Canada, 2001 |
Figure 6 shows that MMPs were more prevalent on farms with larger herds in 2001.
As an example, 49.4% of the largest dairy farms (more than 131 dairy cows and
heifers) developed a MMP, compared to 26.6% of the smallest dairy farms (less
than 47 dairy cows and heifers). Amongst the largest dairy farms, 24.0% had developed
a MMP as part of a NMP, 18.3% to comply with regulations and 7.1% out of concerns
for the environment.
MMPs were the most prevalent on large hog farms (more than 981 pigs) where more
than one-half of farms had developed a MMP. Of particular note, more than two-thirds
of the largest hog farms (more than 1,594) had developed a formal MMP. In addition,
more than one-third of the these largest hog farms had developed a MMP to comply
with regulations and about one-quarter of these farms had developed a MMP as
part of a NMP.
The largest hog farms had the highest percentage (65.4%) of farms using a MMP.
The smallest hog farms (less than 566 animals) had a smaller percentage (6.3%)
of farms required to use a MMP; these farms also reported a small share (8.5%)
of MMPs developed as part of a broader NMP. These low percentages reduce the overall
share of hog farms that employ an MMP. Note that if the smallest hog farm size
was removed, the average percentage of hog farms using a MMP climbs to 56.0%.
|
Figure 6. Development of formal manure management plan, by size of herd, Canada, 2001 |
Beneficial management practices (BMPs), often based on regional conditions,
encompass farm production or management practices that reduce environmental risks
or realize environmental benefits. Manure management BMPs are designed to prevent
runoff, protect groundwater and surface water, and minimize manure nutrient losses
and odour emissions into the environment.
Nationally, almost 40% of farm respondents (with 41.7% of manure produced) indicated
that they were unfamiliar with local BMPs for manure management in 2001 (Table
14), suggesting a real need for education and awareness of beneficial practices.
An additional 30.5% (with 7.7% of manure produced) reported that manure management
BMPs were not relevant for their operation; these would likely be primarily crop
farms with small livestock enterprises. Conversely, 17.8% of farm respondents
whose operations represented 32.6% of manure production had fully implemented
the BMPs related to manure management. In addition, 10.7% of farm respondents
whose operations represented 15.9% of manure production had partially implemented
BMPs for manure management.
There were important regional differences in the implementation of BMPs.
These differences were mostly due to variations in provincial regulations, farmers'
local codes of practices and farming practices, and types of agricultural production
taking place. All of these factors are functions of regional agronomic conditions.
Of particular interest, the provinces with the highest adoption of manure management
BMPs were Quebec and
British Columbia. In Quebec, 65.4% of farms representing 92.5% of manure production
had fully or partially implemented manure management
BMPs. Meanwhile, British
Columbia reported 33.7% of farms, producing 56.5% of manure, with fully or partially
implemented manure management BMPs.
Figure 7 shows that the implementation of BMPs for
manure management was also related to herd size. Almost two-thirds of the hog manure
produced by the three categories of the larger hog farms (more than 565 hogs) was
on farms that had fully or partially implemented BMPs for
manure management. This contrasts with 48.1% for the hog manure on the smallest
farms (less than 566 hogs). Similarly, 48.8% of beef cattle manure produced by
the largest beef farms (more than 425 beef cattle) was on farms that had fully
or partially implemented BMPs for
manure management compared to 34.8% of beef cattle manure on the smallest farms
(less than 163 head).
|
Beneficial management practices for manure management, Canada and provinces, 2001 |
|
Figure 7. Beneficial management practices for manure management, by size of herd, Canada, 2001 |
Canadian livestock farmers have a wide choice of options for managing the manure
produced on their farms and farmers have to find the proper approach to deliver
manure to their crops with minimal environmental impact. If manure is not utilized
by plants and soil, excess nutrients may accumulate in the soil or seep into
groundwater systems.
The 2001 FEMS provides key information about
- seasonal application of manure to farmland,
- how and when manure is incorporated into the soil after it is
spread on fields,
- the treatment of stored manure,
- feeding strategies farmers use to reduce nutrient content of
manure,
- odour control options,
- adoption of manure management plans and nutrient management
plans, and
- the implementation of beneficial management practices specific
to manure management.
The survey shows that the adoption of manure management practices varies by
province, type of animals produced and size of herd. These factors are interrelated
as regional variations in climate and agronomic conditions lead to the different
types of animals raised, which in turn impacts the type of manure being managed
(solid/semi-solid or liquid), the production system used (animal raised under
confinement or outdoors) and environmental regulations and issues.
Nationally, FEMS data show that:
- 37.3% of manure was applied to land in the fall, 34.7% in spring
and 25.3% in summer. A smaller proportion (2.7%) of manure was applied during
the winter;
- most of the beef cattle manure (43.6%) was applied in the fall.
In contrast, most of dairy cattle and hog manure (over 40% for both) was
applied during the spring;
- there was little difference in the seasonal application of manure
to land between farms with smaller or larger herds;
- 47.1% of manure produced in 2001 was left on the surface of
the soil or incorporated into the soil more than a week after its application.
Meanwhile, 17.7% of manure was injected or incorporated into the soil the same
day the manure was applied to the land;
- most beef cattle manure (53.3%) was left on the surface or incorporated
into the soil more than a week after its application while 38.5% hog manure
was injected or incorporated into the soil the same day it was spread on the
field;
- farms with larger herds had the largest proportions of manure
injected or incorporated into the soil without delay;
- 3.8% of Canadian livestock farms used feed additives or feeding
strategies to reduce manure nutrient content; however, 40.4% of large hog
farms (more than 1,594 pigs) operated under a regimen that used feed additives
or rations formulated to reduce manure nutrient content;
- About one-quarter of Canadian livestock farms used some method
to control manure odours from livestock buildings. The highest share of livestock
buildings with odour control methods were found on hog farms;
- 8.4% of manure produced was on farms that had formal manure
management plans required by government regulations, 13.1% of manure was on
farms that had nutrient management plans and 4.8% of manure was on farms that
had manure management plans developed because of concerns for the environment;
manure management plans were more predominant on farms with larger herds;
- 32.6% of manure produced was on farms where respondents reported
that they had fully implemented the beneficial management practices related
to manure management in their region while 15.9% of manure was on farms having
partially implemented these practices for manure management. Conversely, 41.7%
of manure was on farms where the farm operators were unfamiliar with beneficial
management practices for manure in their region.
1. FEMS was conducted in March 2002 by Statistics Canada for Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada. The survey provides a broad coverage of farm management
practices that are related to the environment in all sectors of Canadian
agriculture.
2. This article does not examine manure management practices on poultry
and other livestock production due to data limitations.
3. The first article in this series, Manure Storage in Canada,
addresses issues related specifically to manure storage systems.
4. FEMS results have been combined with estimated manure production
coefficients and 2001 Census of Agriculture livestock numbers to estimate annual
manure production, helping to illustrate the significance of the many survey
results. (For details on the methodology used to calculate manure production,
see Appendix 1.) Throughout the article, we will refer to these extended calculations
as FEMS results.
5. For more details on how size categories were established, consult
the first article on Manure Storage.
6. Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Agriculture.
7. While this section looks at ways of dealing with odours
emanating from livestock facilities, aeration is also used primarily as an odour
control method, by mitigating odours in stored manure. Refer to Section 2.3 Treatment
of stored manure.
|
