| |
|
Published in Summer 2003
|
Waste or wasted opportunity?
|
Intensive livestock operations in North America
|
| |
|
By Scott Bury
|
| |
|
|
|
| © Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada / Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada |
Agriculture on an industrial scale has created a
major challenge for the farm sector in disposing of animal wastes, but also several opportunities for
low-cost energy.
That was the gist of the International Policy Conference on Animal Wastes/Nutrients, hosted by
the Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA),
in Ottawa on 6 and 7 May.
Animal wastes from agriculture are attracting more attention from governments and the general public as the agricultural industry’s production of pork, beef
and poultry becomes more concentrated.
According to a report from the AWMA, livestock farming has become a business dominated by large facilities raising thousands of animals each. The report found that the eight largest commercial pork producers in Canada owned 275,800 sows, and the 25 largest in the US owned over two million. In the US, 110 operations control 47 percent of the total industrial production of pork.
The amount of manure generated by such large, intensive livestock operations, or ILOs, is usually
much more than can be handled by traditional methods of spreading it as fertilizer on crop fields. Further,
ILOs increasingly face community opposition because of the smell and for health threats, both perceived
and real.
The conference in Ottawa, therefore, brought together nearly 100 people from various levels of government, industry associations and suppliers, to share innovations in animal waste management.
|
© Jeff Vanuga/Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA
A hog farm in Lyons, Georgia, where waste management is completely automated and temperature controlled. |
New approaches to problems
Delegates to the AWMA’s conference heard about new approaches and proven solutions that range from something as simple as changing the shape of the trough that collects animal wastes, to new methods of processing it into biogas fuel.
“The value of these conferences is in bringing technical and other people together to share information, and move the yardstick forward in government policy,” said Steve Hart, president of Innovative Environmental Solutions and organizer of the conference. “It brings people together in a non-confrontational place and helps to spread the gospel
of waste management and technological transfer.”
“International conferences are a good opportunity
to exchange information and knowledge. Often, our problems have already been solved elsewhere, and sharing information means that work doesn’t have to
be done twice,” explains Joergen Hinge of the Danish Agricultural Service, who came to the conference to describe Denmark’s achievements in managing animal waste and maximizing use of nutrients from it.
Hinge shared several successful approaches from Danish farm policy: the use of v- and w-shaped slurry channels, for example, reduces the evaporation of ammonia by up to 25 percent in field tests, while cooling slurry in pits brings about a further 20 percent reduction in evaporation. This results not only in a healthier atmosphere for the farmers and the animals, but also less odor for the surrounding community.
|
© Jeff Vanuga/Natural Resources Conservation Service
A confined feeding operation of cattle in Yuma, Arizonea. |
The ventilated air from barns can be cleaned with high-tech scrubbers, but they’re expensive, said Hinge. On the other hand, Denmark reduced odor concentration in ventilated air by 80 percent simply by filtering the air through wood chips or straw.
But where Denmark—and indeed, most of western Europe—has really advanced ahead of North America is in the use of biogas for fuel. Work in this area began in earnest during the energy crisis of the 1970s, but then slackened in North America. Europe progressed more steadily, however, with several new developments in the late 1980s. There are now 45 biogas plants in Denmark, said Hinge, and over 2000 in Germany.
These and other measures have allowed Denmark to reduce its surplus production of nitrogen and carbon dioxide from agriculture by 20 percent over the past 20 years, while livestock production has increased by 20 percent since 1990. “These results have implications
for Denmark’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol,”
said Hinge.
This kind of international focus is becoming more prevalent in the livestock production industry. The North American industry itself is now largely integrated, with the bulk of Canada’s production exported,
mostly to the US. The Mexican livestock industry is
also becoming increasingly concentrated in large operations and increasingly integrated into the North American markets.
“Animals move between the three countries of North America throughout their lifecycle,” said Chantal Line Carpentier, head of the Environment, Trade and Economy Program at the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).
The report found that the eight largest commercial pork
producers in Canada owned 275,800 sows, and the 25 largest
in the US owned over two million.
All three countries now have intensive livestock operations involving millions of animals. And, said Carpentier, the countries share a common natural environment—what affects one will affect all. However, there is great variation in regulations on ILOs in the three countries, and even between individual states and provinces, according to a study of regulation in
the three countries done by the CEC.
In the US, one federal law specifically addresses water issues associated with confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), with state and local authorities also having jurisdiction over many environmental aspects of these operations. In California, environmental groups are suing to have the federal Clean Air Act apply to CAFOs, which until now have been solely regulated, if at all, by state authorities.
Rather than imposing solutions, the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has taken the approach of bringing together states, academia and the industry. “The goal in regulating concentrated animal feeding operations has been to develop a mix of voluntary approaches and regulation,” said Sally Shaver of the US EPA. “We want to achieve both a healthy environment and a healthy industry.”
The US Department of Agriculture has likewise adopted the tactic of working with interested groups to find solutions, explained spokesman Thomas Christensen.
“Ours is a voluntary, science-based approach that encourages local leadership, financial assistance to producers and direct technical assistance. The producer must make the decisions that work for him or her,” said Christensen. He pointed to regulations covering CAFOs, developed in collaboration between the Department of Agriculture and the EPA, as an example of the success of collaborative approach.
Toward harmony
Still, there is a huge amount of variation in regulations within and between Canada, Mexico and the US.
Greater “equivalence” in regulation of ILOs and their environmental impact would benefit all citizens of all three countries, Carpentier said. “When the natural environment is spoiled, we all pay for it in two ways:
we pay through the loss of the quality of our environment, and then we pay to clean it up.
“It’s important to determine if producers select
locations where more lenient environmental regulations and enforcement exist, since ILOs can cause a variety of environmental and human health problems if left unchecked.”
However, preliminary findings at the Wallace Center for Alternative Agriculture at Winrock International have found that prices and business climate influence the geographic shift in hog and dairy farming around the United States, not environmental regulations.
“There are more similarities between the agricultural industries of Canada and the US than differences,” said Christensen of the Department of Agriculture. “Both countries want strong agricultural sectors and a clean environment.
“The challenge is getting the technology to achieve both out to the producers, and to show them how to use it appropriately,” he said. “Producers are already swamped with information. How do they sort it out?”
Getting the word to the producers is also a problem. “Not many farmers can afford to take two or three days away from their farms to come to conferences like this,” said Malcolm Newall, president of Farm Energy, a company that sells systems for producing biogas from manure, and controlling odor and emissions.
Several delegates to the conference suggested more formal mechanisms for sharing information between agencies, provinces, associations and producers, and for testing and finding solutions. However, Wayne Richardson of the Climate Change TEAM of Natural Resources Canada said “the development of technologies to solve problems brings research together and puts it into practice already.
“We don’t need more mechanisms and fora to share information. Let’s just get on with it.”
|
Top
