In This Section

Topics

Task Force on Intensive Agricultural Operations in Rural Ontario Consultations
Summary of Consultations

Author: OMAFRA Staff
Creation Date: 200
Last Reviewed: 11 May 2004


| Task Force Report | Proposed Standards | Discussion Paper |

Table of Contents

  4. Conclusions

Message from the Co-Chairs

We're pleased to present a summary of consultations we held on behalf of the Ontario government in response to ongoing concerns about the effects of intensive agricultural operations on water quality and the quality of life in rural Ontario.

The objective of the consultations was to develop a plan that meets both the productivity and environmental needs of the agriculture sector and rural residents.

The response we received was tremendous. We heard from more than 700 people and listened to 140 presentations. We greatly appreciated the high quality of the submissions, and the thoughtful concern demonstrated by participants, and want to thank everyone for their efforts. Obviously, this is an issue of great interest, and we believe that we've already made some progress in the fact that so many different stakeholders had an opportunity to present their point of view, and hear from others.

A discussion paper and questionnaire were distributed, and public meetings held across southern, south-western and eastern Ontario. Telephone conference calls were offered and made to farmers in Northern Ontario. Written submissions and completed questionnaires were also received from interested parties. The panel received submissions from delegations representing farm organizations, concerned citizen groups, individuals, municipalities, planners, Medical Officers of Health and provincial stakeholder groups.

An extensive review of how other jurisdictions handle intensive agricultural operations was also conducted. Most Canadian provinces, several states in the U.S. and some countries in Europe were reviewed.

We appreciate that the issue of intensive agricultural operations is a very complex and sensitive one. The following document summarizes most of the information we gathered during the consultation. We acknowledge that some issues were raised during the meetings or in the written submissions which are not mentioned in the report because we wanted to remain strongly focused on the consultation objective. We will continue to refer to the excellent information compiled throughout this exercise as we work together to implement the findings of this report.

Dr. Douglas Galt
Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Mr. Toby Barrett
Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of the Environment


| Top of Page |

Public Involvement

Meetings:

Public meetings were held between January 17 and 31, 2000 at Burford, Glencoe, Clinton, Orangeville, Chesterville, Hastings and Guelph. Six hundred and twenty-eight people officially registered at these sessions, however, it is known that several more attended who chose not to register. Groups and individuals made 130 presentations at these meetings.

To ensure input was gathered from rural municipalities, Dr. Galt and Mr. Barrett participated in the annual conference of the Rural Ontario Municipal Association - Ontario Good Roads Association (ROMA / OGRA) held in Toronto on February 21 & 22, 2000. More than 1,600 conference participants heard a presentation given by Dr. Galt and Mr. Barrett. Ten municipal delegations took the opportunity to comment on the issues surrounding intensive agricultural operations and provide input into possible ways of resolving these issues.

Written Submissions:

Written comments were received through the mail, by fax and by electronic mail. The 200 written submissions can be broken down into the following categories: 10 per cent from individual farmers; 14 per cent from farm organizations; 24 per cent from municipal officials and staff; 48 per cent from concerned citizens; two per cent from agri-businesses; and two per cent from other interest groups.


Questionnaire:

Four hundred and twenty completed questionnaires were received from a broad spectrum of stakeholders. The breakdown is as follows: 49 per cent from farmers; 41 per cent from concerned non-farm citizens; nine per cent from municipal staff and officials; and one per cent from agri-businesses.

Environmental Bill of Rights Registry Posting:

A notification of the consultation was also posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) Registry. EBR Registry number TC00E0001 was posted from January 14, 2000 to February 13, 2000. The posting had a link to the discussion paper and to the questionnaire.

| Top of Page |

Summary Of What Was Heard

Presentations at all the public meetings and the written submissions were of a high quality. The public meetings allowed participants to learn a little about the other point of view, and perhaps develop a different perception about some of the issues.

General

The consultation confirmed that there are several issues regarding intensive agricultural operations in Ontario and that action needs to be taken. Further, there is an expectation that the government should actively pursue remedies. Many stressed the need for a better understanding of the issues; most felt that they could do a better job of working together to solve local problems.

The following summarizes the recurring themes contained in the presentations and written submissions:

The term "intensive" needs to be better defined. There was a great deal of discussion but no consensus on the meaning of the word. Generally, most people felt that managing manure and other nutrients is only part of the overall issue, and that all farm practices need to be properly managed.

People consistently asked for a legislative framework that would allow municipalities to regulate and enforce nutrient management planning. A plan to deal with complaints was also requested.

With a few exceptions, most participants felt that the current provincial guidelines and standards are adequate, but that there is a need for better methods of enforcement. Two notable exceptions were the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae and building codes. Many people indicated the need for an enhanced or stricter enforcement of existing provincial environmental legislation.

Some felt that existing provincial policies should be reviewed to address issues surrounding the term "intensive". Examples include removing large operations from the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, thus removing protection for large agriculture operations; establishing a new category for "intensive" under the Planning Act; and removing the exemptions for agriculture in the Environmental Protection Act.

A few participants felt that Class Environmental Assessments should be used under the Environmental Assessment Act. Several people felt that a moratorium should be placed on new large livestock operations.

There were several presentations on technologies capable of reducing odours and better methods for managing liquid manure. Most people felt the technologies looked promising, but many participants expressed the view that to be economical, practical and effective the technologies required further development.

Today's Farming

The consultation highlighted the fact that there is a conflict between the need for Ontario farms to be competitive on a world scale and the ideals about traditional farming (this includes lifestyle norms of both farm and non-farm neighbours). The trend to larger agricultural production units often conflicts with rural neighbours' ideals and values.

Several consultation participants suggested that a "vision" for rural Ontario must be established or at least re-confirmed as the first step to solving the problems associated with intensive agricultural operations.

Another key message was the need to set aside the political and emotional sides of the issues and make science-based decisions. Some felt that any attempt to solve a technical problem by means of more regulations would likely fail.

| Top of Page |

What is Intensive?

There was a great deal of discomfort with the use of the word "intensive". Most agricultural groups and individuals argued that all modern farms are intensive; so the term should not be used to differentiate a segment within the industry.

Intensive farming is really concentrated farming, for example, focused on one product or type of livestock. It was suggested that a better term might be "concentrated agricultural operations". Some groups with an environmental focus already refer to large livestock facilities as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).

Despite the controversy surrounding intensive operations, most individuals and environmental groups said they did not want to ban these "large" farms. They did, however, express a desire to have these farms located in areas in which the whole community would not be as adversely affected, and that they operate under a stricter set of rules.

While many participants believed that all agricultural operations should be more strictly regulated, most focussed their attention on large livestock farms. Greenhouse and mushroom facilities were also two notable areas of concern. The composting process of a mushroom operation and the impacts of greenhouses, such as from light, heat, wind and climatic changes, effluent discharges and pesticide usage in and around a greenhouse complex were cited as potential concerns.

There were many interpretations of how an "intensive" or concentrated agricultural operation should be defined:

  • For livestock farms: Many suggested that a livestock farm with more than 150 livestock units (LU) on a farmstead site is intensive. Others suggested there be at least 600 livestock units. And others suggested 1,500 livestock units. Several people felt that the density of the number of animals should be used as the criterion. Examples included, greater than 1 LU per acre; greater than 1.5 LU per acre; and greater than 2 LU per acre.
  • For cash crop farms: Some felt that farms having more than 2,000 acres should be considered intensive; others felt the number should be more than 5,000 acres.
  • For greenhouse operations: Any operation having more than 15 acres under glass was suggested as being intensive.
Planning in Rural Ontario

Rural planning was heavily criticized. Farm lot severances received a great deal of attention and were cited as the number one cause of rural confrontation.

It was suggested that lot severances are "a one-way street". In other words, once a lot is severed, it almost never reverts back to the original farm property. Many questioned the wisdom of this pattern.

Some presenters suggested that "buffer zones" be considered for the areas around residential and tourist areas, including along major waterways and shorelines. The most notable examples were the request for an eight kilometre buffer along Lake Huron and a buffer near the hamlet of Trent River.

It was suggested that the Planning Act should be changed so that municipalities can establish a new category of farming operation to cover larger farms. Some municipalities would like to classify these larger farms as commercial or industrial for property tax purposes. There was also interest in charging development fees that would help cover the additional servicing needs of these larger agricultural operations, especially for anticipated increased road maintenance.

| Top of Page |

Minimum Distance Separation

The Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) formulae were recognized as effective planning tools. However, it was felt that the distances were not sufficient to provide enough separation between differing land uses. Wind direction and the use of innovative technologies were not taken into consideration in the formula. Farmers were concerned that houses on severed lots were not constructed far enough away from farm operations, and homeowners felt that large pig barns should be required to be constructed further away from residences.

There were also complaints that the MDS "expansion" factor is being misused in order to construct large barns closer to residences than should be allowed. Others felt that MDS I should protect farmland for more than 150 livestock units (LU), and that the MDS formulae should be strengthened through legislation.

Some participants felt that the definition of the MDS livestock units should be reviewed. Concern was given that the livestock unit did not accurately reflect nutrient values.

Manure Storage - Building Code

Many presenters suggested that building codes should be updated with specific standards for designing leak-proof manure tanks. It was felt that engineers should be required to design agricultural structures and be present during construction. The engineer should be also required to approve the structure following a satisfactory final inspection of the project.

Some proposed that tile be placed around and under manure storage tanks and barns to monitor for leaks. Some proposed that a class environmental assessment should be required before a building permit is issued. Others thought that a Certificate of Approval should be required for lands receiving manure.

Nutrient Management Planning

Most people were in favour of using nutrient management planning (NMP) as part of the solution to address issues related to large agricultural operations. Many people asked for consistency across the province; but several said that local flexibility was also needed. The present patchwork of NMP by-laws was deemed unsatisfactory by the participants. Most people felt that the guidelines/standards in place were adequate, but that enforcement was weak.

Provincial legislation enabling municipalities to pass NMP by-laws and undertake subsequent enforcement was identified as necessary. Many others argued that regulating nutrients and their enforcement should be a provincial responsibility, not a municipal one.

Most agreed that NMPs should be required for all nutrients and for all users of nutrients. However, many felt that this might not be workable for everyone. Cash crop farm organizations strongly disagreed with this idea. A graduated entry or phase-in process was suggested in which NMPs would become mandatory only after a prescribed period of time.

There was some discussion regarding third-party review of nutrient management plans. Some said the reviewer should be the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Some conservation authorities offered to be third-party reviewers, but many other participants were opposed to this idea. There was some discussion that MOE could be part of a review, especially for very large livestock operations.

Many felt there should be prescribing guidelines or rules for all aspects of nutrient management planning. Some components of concern include: manure storage, transportation and application; record keeping; winter spreading; notifying neighbours before spreading; and registering agreements on land titles.

Many participants stated that local municipalities should have the flexibility and authority to control intensive farming and manure management. This could include introducing stringent by-laws and enforcing the use of a NMP. Municipalities could then introduce land base requirements and mandatory long term lease agreements. Many also pointed out, however, that this option would result in intensive farming only in the areas where local politicians do not oppose it. This could lead to heavy concentrations of large farms in some areas, and none in others. Whether controls should be province-wide or local was a commonly raised issue.

Alternative technologies for handling liquid manure and dealing with odours were suggested by many as potential solutions to reduce the frequency of complaints. Composting, annelidic conversion (worms), snowfluent, manure drying, biofilters, dehumidification of exhaust air and community methane digestors were some of the alternatives suggested. Many participants said that any rules or regulations that may be instituted should include requirements to incorporate new and alternative technologies.

| Top of Page |

Advisory Committees

Many suggested that local advisory committees be established to respond to complaints arising from NMP related issues. These committees would be formed on a county/regional basis. Some thought that there should be a mediator position to deal with issues, if local advisory committees were not able to come to a satisfactory resolution. Infractions of applicable legislation would be handled by the appropriate provincial or federal ministry/agency.

Enforcement


Many commented that more or stricter enforcement of existing environmental legislation was needed.

Review of Other Jurisdictions

A scan of selected North American and European jurisdictions revealed a number of similarities and differences in current and proposed legislation to address environmental, economic and socio-political issues surrounding intensive agricultural operations.

Common features among most of the jurisdictions include:

  • Stricter accounting of nutrient use, whether through the preparation of a nutrient management plan (North America) or a farm-level nutrient input/output budget (Europe) is a core element in most programs.
  • Livestock and concerns over manure (odour, nutrients etc.) were the dominant reasons for requiring legislation related to intensive farming operations. A slightly different approach is taken depending on whether the jurisdiction has to address an environmental problem created by mismanagement of manure (e.g. the Netherlands) or whether it is trying to buildup a resource (e.g. Manitoba).
  • While their use was encouraged, alternative manure processing technologies were not found to be a significant tool used to address nutrient and odour concerns around manure management. The exception is Denmark, where biogas production is a significant component of their manure management approach. It took a great deal of research and development for Denmark to achieve this level of success.
  • There is more and more legislation around the construction, inspection and monitoring of manure storage systems to ensure they do not leak. Monitoring of nutrient budgets (nutrient plans), in general, is more intense in Europe at present than in North America. Periodic auditing or random monitoring of NMPs is becoming more commonplace in Canada.
  • Essentially all jurisdictions strongly discourage the spreading of manure during the winter season or on frozen ground. Many jurisdictions go as far as stating specific periods in the year when manure or fertilizer cannot be spread, but will often provide a caveat in the event of an emergency situation.
  • While many jurisdictions reviewed have established legislation aimed at "intense operations", all jurisdictions have established codes of practice for proper manure use and encourage all farmers, regardless of production size, to follow them.

Key differences include:

  • The definition of animal unit (AU) or livestock unit (LU) was not consistent among jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions base the value primarily on total animal weight, some base it on weight and manure nitrogen excreted by the animal, while others base it on a complex evaluation of animal weight, manure nitrogen production and odour factors.
  • The thresholds for defining an intensive livestock operation vary among jurisdictions. The largest variation is found among Canadian provinces. There is less variation in the US due to the fact that confined animal feeding operations are defined by the federal US-EPA (Environmental Protection Act). In Europe, the definition hinges more on land capacity of the operation than solely on livestock numbers. For example, producers exceeding a certain livestock unit density (LU's/ha) are required by regulations to abide by certain rules or refrain from certain manure management activities.
  • While the standards for acceptable nitrate levels in groundwater are similar among jurisdictions, how the standard is presented is not consistent. Nitrate concentrations can be expressed as NO3 or as NO3-N. In Europe, the limit is generally expressed in terms of the allowable concentration of NO3 while in North America, it is generally expressed as the allowable concentration of NO3-N. Thus the European limit, which matches the World Health Organization limit, is 50 ppm (ie: 11.3 ppm NO3-N). In North America, the limit is 10 ppm NO3-N. Some North American jurisdictions like California have expressed this limit in terms of nitrate as 45 ppm nitrate which is approximately 10 ppm NO3-N.
  • The minimum manure storage capacity requirement varies among jurisdictions, depending on the length of the non-growing season.
  • There is disparity among regions as to the level of support farmers receive to address pollution concerns. In general, European producers and American producers receive a higher degree of direct financial and or technical assistance to address environmental issues at the farm level.

| Top of Page |

Conclusions

As a result of the consultations, the task force concludes the following:

Planning

The task force believes the province should continue to facilitate the development of a rural vision.

Although there was much discussion on the issue of "intensive", there was no consensus on what constitutes an intensive operation but it is apparent that proper management practices are a common concern among stakeholders consulted.

The task force finds that although the policy of the province has been to allow land use planning decisions to be made locally, there are a few practices presented by participants that merit further review such as: discouraging new severances in prime agricultural areas; and encouraging the rejoining of severed parcels that have not yet been developed. In addition, any new legislation or policy should encourage the development of new technologies and enable the use of proven environmental technologies for agricultural operations that are in close proximity to urban areas.

Minimum Distance Separation:

The task force maintains that the use of Minimum Distance Separations remain a valuable planning tool, however the MDS formulae should be reviewed, with attention paid to clarifying the livestock unit issue. The task force further concludes that a MDS style formula be investigated that would address the potential issues associated with greenhouses, mushroom facilities, on-farm composting operations, etc.

Building on Past Successes

The task force found that stakeholders believe most tools to manage this issue are already in place. The task force advocates the completion of NMPs by all nutrient users. The task force also recognizes that NMP follow-up and enforcement are key concerns.

Clarifying Roles and Authority:

The task force concludes that stakeholders are in favour of introducing provincial legislation that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the province and the municipality regarding nutrient management. The task force concludes that municipalities should be given clear authority to require and enforce nutrient management plans.

Improved Approach:

1. Develop uniform policy: the task force supports the development of a uniform, enforceable policy requiring all nutrient users to create and implement NMPs. This should be a phased approach focusing on large livestock operations first; then all livestock operations within a timeframe, for example, five years; and then all nutrient users within 10 years.

2. Develop farm categories: The task force supports the development of categories of agricultural operations, which would require different levels of approval. In all cases approval should continue to be at the municipal level. Examples include:

  • Farm Category 1: MDS required; NMP required but kept on file at home;
  • Farm Category 2: NMP required and third-party reviewed; MDS required; adequate manure storage capacity required;
  • Farm Category 3: Intensive Agricultural Operations' Certificate required. Examples of components that could be part of this certificate include: NMP; MDS; engineered plans, soils investigation at farmstead site; use of landscaping around farmstead site; in some circumstances there could be provision for other approaches, such as use of odour reduction technology and liquid manure treatment / processing technology; etc.
  • Farm Category 4: Other agricultural operations category: explore other categories, such as for greenhouses, mushroom facilities, on-farm composting operations, cash crop farms, etc.

The task force concludes that if a farmer is applying manure to land which the farmer does not own, a third-party reviewed NMP should be required.

The task force recognizes that there was no consensus on where the cutoff should be for these categories. The task force also realizes that a review of the MDS "livestock units" may lead to the development of different numbers or perhaps even an entirely new approach. Therefore after considering practices in Ontario and emerging trends in similar jurisdictions, the task force concludes that for a starting point there is general support for the following levels:

  • Farm Category 1: less than 150 Livestock Units (LUs)
  • Farm Category 2: 150 - 450 LUs
  • Farm Category 3: greater than 450 LUs

3. Provincial Role: Third-Party Review: the task force concludes that the province should continue to coordinate third-party reviews of various documents (e.g. NMPs, structural plans, soil investigative work, use of technologies, etc.) prior to farm building construction for large livestock operations.

4. Develop Guidelines: the task force supports the development and implementation of provincial guidelines for the management of nutrients. These guidelines should be prescriptive in nature to ensure consistency across the province.

| Top of Page |

Enforcement

The task force recognizes the near unanimous opinion of participants in the consultations that people breaking environmental laws need to be dealt with effectively in a timely fashion. The task force heard that there is a need for clear authority and proper enforcement to ensure water quality and odour issues are addressed. The task force believes that the Farming and Food Production Protection Act should not be perceived as a 'licence to pollute'. The task force encourages the Ministry of Environment to continue its prosecution of environmental legislation offenders.

The task force concludes that upper tier municipalities should be given clear authority for the enforcement of NMP issues that do not violate provincial or federal legislation. The task force believes that the enforcement and auditing of NMPs is critical. The task force feels there may be merit in developing an approach that utilizes some features that are used in the Ontario Grower Pesticide Safety Program with an enhanced auditing feature.

Advisory Committees

The task force recognizes the success that municipalities have achieved in the past through the use of advisory committees, which have given them advice on a variety of agricultural issues. The task force concludes that advisory committees, comprised of a broad community representation, be established to assist municipalities in informing farmers, mediating complaints, giving advice to municipalities; but these advisory committees should not be used for enforcement purposes.

Education

The task force concludes that there is strong support for more education and awareness programs to foster a better understanding of the issues by all parties. Programs should include: focusing on good neighbour practices; developing resources that explain agricultural production practices including nutrient management; and sponsoring a conference such as "Environmental Law, the Farm and You".

 

| Top of Page |

For more information:
Toll Free: 1-866-242-4460
E-mail: nman.omafra@ontario.ca