acle workshop 2001 · 2002-02-02 · acle workshop 2001 presentations, summaries and poster...

ACLE Workshop 2001

Presentations, Summaries and Poster Abstracts

(contains the speakers full presentations)

Reducing Environmental Risk in Agriculture

Atlantic Committee on Land and Engineering WorkshopFaculté de Génie, Université de Moncton

Moncton, NB

November 1-2, 2001

Published byEastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre

Disclaimer

The contents of the individual articles and presentations remain the responsibility of the authors.Necessary re-formatting has been done, but the presentations, summaries and abstracts are beingpublished essentially “as received”.

The speakers “Power Point” presentations have been converted to Adobe Acrobat pdf format andadded to this document.

Document Information

Each of the speakers full set of presentation slides are available. To view these you must“click” on the title in the summary of their presentation.

These presentation files are best viewed with Adobe Acrobat version 4.0 or newer. Olderversions of Acrobat may not be able to display all the fonts and graphics properly.

You may have to alter the settings on your Adobe Acrobat software before you can automaticallyreturn from the presentation slides file to the main document. If necessary, in Adobe AcrobatReader select:

File / Preferences / Generalthen under “options”, toggle the choice “open cross-doc links in the same window” to off. Thatshould permit you to open linked files in multiple windows and to freely move between them andthe text in the main document.

This document is available on our website : http://www.ccse-swcc.nb.ca

Table of Contents

Workshop Agendai

Planning Committee iii

Plenary Session, Jean-Louis Daigle, chair, ECSWCC 1

Agricultural and Environmental Sustainability Strategies, Terence McRae, Environment Bureau, AAFC, Ottawa 2

Integrating Concepts in Water Management : Success of the Rural Water Quality Program in the GRCA, Tracy Ryan, Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, ON 5

Technical Session I - Nutrient Management, John MacLeod, chair, AAFC, Charlottetown, PEI 9

National & Global Perspectives, Tom Bruulsema, PPI & PPIC 10

Nutrient Management Provincial Perspectives Update, Christine MacKinnon, PEIDA&F 19

A Producer Perspective, Bonar Morton, Producer, Kent County Agri-Conservation Club 22

Technical Session II - Pathogen Management, Ali Madani, Chair, NSAC 24

Industry Perspectives: How do we respond to the public fetish about livestock manure? Laurence Nason, Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture. 25

The Atlantic Perspective, Glen Stratton, NSAC 35

Pathogen Management in Agriculture, Paul Innes, Fergus, ON 40

Technical Session III - Reducing Pesticides Inputs, Ron DeHaan, Chair, PEIDA&F 44

Quebec’s Pesticide Risk Reduction Strategy, Michel Letendre and Raymond-Marie Duchesne, MAPAQ 45

PEI Experience, Rachael Cheverie, PEIDA&F 49

A Producer Perspective, Steve W. Watts, PEI 49

Panel Presentation : Climate Change and Adaptation, Gordon Fairchild, Chair, ECSWCC 50

NB Climate Change Hub. Eddie Oldfield, NB Climate Change Hub. 51

Agricultural Awareness Initiatives, Caroline Pagé, ECSWCC 53

Canadian Climate Impacts & Adaptation Research Network, Kyle McKenzie, Dalhousie University 56

NSAC Climate Change Chair Update. Rob Gordon, NSAC. 57

Agricultural Research Initiatives in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Change. David Burton, NSAC. 58

A Producer Perspective and Role of SCC TAKING CHARGE Initiative, Barry Cudmore, PEI 59

Poster Abstracts 60

POSTERS:

Conservation program for the agriculture landscape. Nicole Allain, Ducks Unlimited(Atlantic Provinces) 61

Hog manure and the potato crop. Allan J Campbell and John Macleod. AAFC.Crops and Livestock Research Centre 62

The Reduction of Milkhouse Waste Water On Dairy Farms. Trevor Dillman. Peter Havard, Ali Madani, Rob Gordon, Alan Fredeen, NSAC. 63

A prototype Conservation Pipeline Wash System for the NSAC RAC Milking Equipment. Peter Havard. NSAC. 64

Soil Conservation for Fresh Pack Carrots. D. Holmstrom, K. Sanderson and S. Wyand. AAFC. Crops and Livestock Research Centre. 65

Effect of potato hilling on soil erosion and runoff rates. D. Holmstrom, R. DeHaan, B. Sanderson and J. MacLeod. AAFC. Crops and Livestock Research Centre 66

Zero/Zone Tillage in Potatoes . D. Holmstrom, W. Arsenault, A.J. Campbell and J. A. Ivany. AAFC. Crops and Livestock Research Centre. 67

Effects of manure management systems on crop yield response. John MacLeod, Allan Campbell, Ted Van Lunen and Dan Hurnik, AAFC, Crops and Livestock Research Centre. 68

Seafood Waste as Sources of Plant Nutrients. John MacLeod, Roger Henry and Allan Campbell, AAFC. Crops and Livestock Research Centre. 69

On-Farm Composting of Fishery By-Products. Teresa Mellish. PEIDAF. 70

Composting of swine carcasses turning a problem into an asset. Teresa Mellish. PEIDAF. 70

Planting Shelterbelts: A Best Management Practice . Tricia Pollock, AAFC PFRA Shelterbelt Centre,

Indian Head, SK 71

Kennebecasis Watershed Restoration Committee Display. KWRC. (Brent Stanley) 72

C-CIARN Atlantic Node Display. C-CIARN Atlantic Node (Kyle McKenzie) 74

Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre Display. ECSWCC. (Caroline Pagé) 75

Atlantic Chapter Soil and Water Conservation Society Display. SWCS. (Gordon Fairchild) 76

Biographies of speakers 77

List of Workshop participants 84

ACLE Workshop 2001

Reducing Environmental Riskin Agriculture

Atlantic Committee on Land & EngineeringFaculté de Génie, Université de Moncton,

Moncton, NB

November 1-2, 2001

The Atlantic Committee on Land and Engineering(ACLE) was established to provide liaison andcommunication among professionals and industryleaders in the Atlantic region. The ACLE hassponsored a number of successful events such as theACLE Symposium 2000 which dealt with BestManagement Solutions in Agriculture. This year theACLE is sponsoring a workshop on "ReducingEnvironmental Risk in Agriculture" a very timelytopic of discussion since Walkerton. The sessionswill include:

Plenary Session : . Sustainability strategies. Integrating concepts

Technical Session :. Nutrient Management . Pathogen Management. Reducing Pesticides Inputs . Climate Change and Adaptation

Poster Session : . Posters related to workshop theme

POSTERS

Conservation program for the agriculture landscape.Nicole Allain, Ducks Unlimited, Atlantic Provinces.

Hog manure and the potato crop. Allan J Campbell andJohn Macleod, AAFC.

The Reduction of Milkhouse Waste Water On DairyFarms. Trevor Dillman, Peter Havard, Ali Madani, RobGordon, Alan Fredeen, NSAC.

A prototype Conservation Pipeline Wash System for theNSAC RAC Milking Equipment. Peter Havard, NSAC.

Soil Conservation for Fresh Pack Carrots. D. Holmstrom,K. Sanderson and S. Wyand, AAFC.

Effect of potato hilling on soil erosion and runoff rates. D.Holmstrom, R. DeHaan, B. Sanderson & J. MacLeod, AAFC.

Zero/Zone Tillage in Potatoes . D. Holmstrom, W. Arsenault, A.J. Campbell and J A. Ivany, AAFC.

Effects of manure management systems on crop yieldresponse. John MacLeod, Allan Campbell, Ted Van Lunenand Dan Hurnik, AAFC.

Seafood Waste as Sources of Plant Nutrients. JohnMacLeod, Roger Henry, Allan Campbell and Mark Grimmett,AAFC.

On-Farm Composting of Fishery By-Products. TeresaMellish, PEIDAF.

Composting of swine carcasses turning a problem into anasset. Teresa Mellish, PEIDAF.

Planting Shelterbelts: A Best Management Practice . TriciaPollock, AAFC- PFRA, Shelterbelt Centre.

OMAFRA Nutrient Management Display. Bill McMillan,OMAFRA.

Kennebecasis Watershed Restoration Committee Display.Brent Stanley, KWRC.

C-CIARN Atlantic Node Display. Kyle McKenzie, C-CIARNAtlantic Node.

Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation CentreDisplay. ECSWCC.

Atlantic Chapter Soil and Water Conservation Society. SWCS.

Bedeque Bay Environmental Management AssociationDisplay. Brenda Penak, BBEMA.

ACLE Workshop 2001 Planning Committee:

Jean-Louis Daigle jdaigle@cuslm.caAli Madani amadani@nsac.ns.caBrian Sanderson SandersonB@em.agr.caRob Gordon gordonrj@gov.ns.caRon DeHaan krdehaan@gov.pe.caGordon Fairchild gordonf@cuslm.caJohn MacLeod MacleodJ@em.agr.caKevin McKendy kevin.mckendy@gnb.ca Claude Robichaud claude.d.robichaud@gnb.ca

Further information may be directed to :

Eastern Canada Soil & Water Conservation Centre1010 chemin de l'ÉgliseDSL Saint-André, NB, E3Y 2X9

Phone:(506) 475-4040; Fax: (506) 475-4030E-mail: ccse-swcc@cuslm.ca

N.B. The Atlantic Board of the Certified CropAdvisory Program (CCA) has approved 6.0Continuing Education Units (CEU) for thisworkhop: 1.5 credits for IPM 2.0 credits for Nutrient Management 2.5 credits for Soil & Water Management

PROGRAM

Day 1 - November 1

11:00 Registration & Poster set up

13:00 Welcome: Rob Gordon, ACLE Chair

13:10 - 15:00 Plenary Session: Chair J.- L. Daigle, ECSWCC

- Agricultural & EnvironmentalSustainability Strategies:Terence McRae, Acting Director,

Environmental Bureau, AAFC, Ottawa

- Integrating Concepts in WaterManagement : Success of the Rural WaterQuality Program in the GRCATracy Ryan, Soil & Water Conservation Advisor, Grand River Conservation Authority(GRCA), Cambridge, Ontario

15:00 Break & Poster session

15:30 - 17:00 Technical Session I: Nutrient Management Chair: John MacLeod, AAFC,Charlottetown, PEI

- National & Global Perspectives :Tom Bruulsema, Reg. Director, EasternCanada and Northeast US, Potash andPhosphate Institute (PPI. & PPIC)

- Nutrient Management ProvincialPerspectives Update: Christine MacKinnon,Manager Agricultural Sustainable Resources,PEIDA&F

- A Producer perspective : Bonar Morton,Producer and member of Kent County Agri-Conservation Club

17:00 - 18:30 Poster Session

18:30 - 19:30 Cash Bar & Reception

Day 2 November 2

8:30 - 10:00 Technical Session II - Pathogen ManagementChair: Ali Madani, NSAC

- Industry perspectives : Laurence Nason,Executive Officer, Nova Scotia Federation ofAgriculture

- The Atlantic Perspective: Glen Stratton,Professor, NSAC

- Pathogen Management in agriculture :Paul Innes, veterinarian and epidemiologist, OMAFRA, Fergus, ON

10:00 Break and Poster Session

10:30 - 12:00 Technical Session III - Reducing Pesticides Inputs

Chair: Ron DeHaan, PEIDA& F

- Quebec’s Pesticide Risk ReductionStrategy : Michel Letendre, IPM and Pesticide Advisor,Direction des Services Technologiques andRaymond-Marie Duchesne, StrategyCoordinator, Direction de l’Environnement etdu Développement Durable, MAPAQ, QC

- PEI Experience: Rachael Cheverie, IPMSpecialist, PEI Agriculture and Forestry,Charlottetown, PEI

- A Producer perspective : Steve W. Watts, Farm Manager, Eric. C.Robinson Farm, PEI

12:00 Lunch served & Poster Session

13:15 - 14:30 Panel Presentation : Climate Change and AdaptationChair: Gordon Fairchild, ECSWCC

- NB Climate Change Hub : Eddie Oldfield, Director, NB CC Hub

- Agricultural Awareness Initiatives :Caroline Pagé, Coordinator, ECSWCC

- NSAC Climate Change Chair Update :Rob Gordon, Head of Engineering, NSAC

- Research Initiatives : David Burton, SoilScientist, NSAC

- A producer perspective and role of SCC TAKING CHARGE initiative: BarryCudmore, Producer, PEI

14:30 Climate Change Panel Discussion -Where to go next?

14:45 ACLE Workshop Wrap-up session : RobGordon, Chair ACLE

Sponsorship:

- PEI Agriculture and Forestry (PEIA&F)- NS Agriculture and Fisheries (NSA&F)- NB Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture (NBAFA)- Atlantic Plant Food Educational Committee- CCAF Agricultural Awareness Partnership Project- Ducks Unlimited Canada

Note: The above sponsorship list does not include thein-kind contribution by various partners / participants.

ACLE Workshop 2001 Planning Committee:

Jean-Louis Daigle ACLE Workshop 2001 Chairman and Coordinator

Ali Madani Chair and Coordinator, Pathogen Management Session

Brian Sanderson Treasurer ACLE and ACLE Workshop 2001 Registrar

Rob Gordon Chairman ACLE

Ron DeHaan Chair and Coordinator, Reducing Pesticides Session

Gordon Fairchild Coordinator, Poster Session; Chair and Coordinator,Climate Change and Adaptation Session; Editor ofWorkshop Proceedings

John MacLeod Chair and Coordinator, Nutrient Management Session

Kevin McKendy ACLE Workshop 2001, Planning Committee member

Claude Robichaud ACLE Workshop 2001, local arrangements

ACLE Workshop 2001

Plenary SessionChair: Jean-Louis Daigle, ECSWCC

Moncton, NB

November 1-2, 2001

ACLE Workshop 2001, "Reducing Environmental Risk in Agriculture", Moncton, NB. Nov. 1-2, 2001 2

Agricultural & Environmental Sustainability Strategies

Terence McRaeAssociate Director, Environment Bureau,

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa

Agriculture is an important part of both Canada’s economy and its land base. It is a complex,$130 billion integrated chain providing one out of every seven jobs. Agriculture is a keycontributor to a trade surplus of $5 to $7 billion a year, and all components are growing. Farmersand ranchers are key custodians of an important part of Canada’s natural heritage.

However, agriculture faces a change in the business environment. Citizen and consumerconcerns about food safety and the impacts of agriculture on the environment are growing. Lowcost competition from new players will continue to put pressure on commodity prices. Advancesin science are creating new opportunities for the sector, but these are accompanied by newchallenges, with the result that Canadian agriculture is becoming more knowledge-based.Continuous development and training are increasingly important.

Agriculture is also facing environmental challenges, due to new scientific information andconcerns, new public demands for action (e.g. Walkerton), environmental constraints to growth(e.g. soil P in Quebéc) and new regulatory requirements including the Federal species at risklegislation, CEPA-toxic ammonia, the Kyoto Protocol and provincial regulations on ILO`s,nutrient management and other practices.

Some impacts are regional, but environment is a national issue. In comparison with other OECDcountries, important environmental indicators across Canada are worsening such as excess soilnitrogen and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. There are also specific problems acrossthe country. For example, the BC shellfish industry is affected by runoff, there are species at riskin the Prairies, contamination in 40% of tested wells in Ontario, smelt population affected inQuébec and fish kills in streams adjacent to PEI potato fields.

If you examine Canadian`s top concerns about agriculture, the environment and food safety arekey citizen concerns, above family or rural issues. Global consumers are as much or morefocussed on food safety issues as Canadians. Export markets are critical to future growth.. Traderisks are about more than tariff barriers and subsidies. Sound environmental management is moreimportant than ever for agriculture`s economic viability.

The environment also represents an opportunity for agriculture to provide environmental benefitsto Canadians, such as habitat for wildlife, improved water quality and reduced emissions ofgreenhouse gases. The environment also represents an opportunity to retain and possibly capturenew markets for “environmentally-responsible” products and for beneficial environmental goods,such as carbon credits.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada`s Agri-Environmental Initiatives include:

• New Business Lines• R & D• CARD initiatives• Sustainable Development Strategy II• Environmental Information

–National Land & Water Information Service–National Agri-environmental Health Analysis & Reporting Program

• Agri-Environmental Policy Framework

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada`s Program Initiatives include:

• Agr Environmental Stewardship Initiative–$10 M / 3 yrs (Adaptation Councils)

• Livestock Environmental Initiative–$1.3 M / 1yr (Livestock groups)

• Climate Change Funding Initiative–$ 4M / 3 yrs for research (CARC)–Skills & knowledge, $465K / 3 yrs (SCC)

• Countryside Canada–$600 K / 3 yrs for biodiversity stewardship (CFA + WHC)

Federal and Provincial Ministers of Agriculture met in June, 2001 and agreed in principle on anew action plan for the sector entitled “Putting Canada First. An agricultural policy frameworkfor the 21st century”. This framework focuses on safety nets, food safety, environment, scienceand renewal, as well as the linkages across these areas. The general principles of the Whitehorseagreement are for: an integrated policy framework with common goals and effectiveimplementation mechanisms; comprehensive coverage of all farms; Brand Canada as the worldleader on environment, food safety, and innovation; stable and long-term funding; and regularand consistent public reporting to citizens.

With regard to the environment, the Ministers’ agreement in Whitehorse specifies the keyelements of “...a comprehensive plan for accelerated environmental action, fully covering allCanadian farms, that will help achieve measurable and meaningful environmental goals in theareas of water, air and soil quality, and bio-diversity. Ministers will seek agreement onindicators, targets, timetables and approaches”.

Environmental goal areas will cover major issues such as Water Quality, including protection ofsurface and groundwater supplies and maintenance of healthy waterways; Air Quality, includinggreenhouse gas emissions and odour and other nuisances; Soil Quality, including soil erosion anddegradation, and Biodiversity of healthy agricultural ecosystems. The Ministers’ agreement alsoprovides guidance on the formulation of goals: they should be Measurable so that they can bequantified and observed, and Meaningful so that they result in significant environmental gains,be understandable and match public priorities. Goals are defined by Indicators, quantifiable,scientific means of representing an environmental issue and measuring progress, and by Targets,

expressed in terms of changes in the indicator of the underlying environmental issue.

The Ministers’ agreement also calls for accelerated action on the environment, meaning newactions and specification of a timetable for actions are required. Stating environmental goals willdrive future steps. The environmental and management goals will determine the shape of thefuture approach and the results it will achieve. Clear, quantitative goals will improve allsubsequent elements. Work is presently underway to develop a more detailed action plan onenvironment in response to the commitments made in Whitehorse.

Integrating Concepts in Watershed Management: Success of the Rural WaterQuality Program in the Grand River Conservation Authority

Tracey Ryan,Grand River Conservation Authority

Summary

The Rural Water Quality Program is an innovative program aimed at improving and protectingground and surface water in the Region of Waterloo, County of Wellington. Protecting waterquality is important for environmental, financial and social reasons and ultimately for theprotection and benefit of the public water system.

It is becoming increasingly clear that one of the most effective ways to protect drinking water isto protect watersheds. A safe secure water supply starts on the land. A multi-barrier approach isrequired to ensure the quality of domestic and municipal water supplies. A watershed approachto protecting water quality also improves the health and viability of the aquatic ecosystem.

The long-term sustainability of municipal water supply systems in the Grand River watersheddepends on the quantity and quality of recharge received by the aquifers, and the quantity andquality of flows in the Grand River. The potential for contamination comes from numeroussources associated with historic and current land use practices in the upstream watershed.Contamination of surface and groundwater results from both urban and rural land uses. Thesesources may be very localized (point sources) or widespread (non-point source) in nature.Potential point sources of contamination include industrial sites, landfills, fuel storage facilities,septic systems, and manure piles. Sources of potential non-point contamination includeinfiltration or runoff of contaminated stormwater, lawn care chemicals, agricultural chemicals,and application of fertilizers (manure, sewage sludge and commercial fertilizer).

In response to general concerns about water quality, and the importance of ensuring a safedependable water supply the Region of Waterloo initiated a comprehensive Water ResourcesProtection Strategy (WRPS). The overall objectives of the WRPS are to limit the risk to waterresources from historic, existing or future land use practices. One aspect of the strategy was thedevelopment and implementation of groundwater and surface water protection programs in bothrural and urban areas. The Rural Water Quality Program is part of this initiative and is aimed atimproving and protecting source water in the watersheds upstream of the surface water intakeand the groundwater priority areas (regional recharge zone).

The Rural Water Quality Program is the first program in Ontario, and perhaps in Canada, wherelocal municipalities are working with the agricultural community to share the cost of protectingand improving water quality at the source. The Region of Waterloo is providing $1.5 million ofmunicipal funds from their user rate budgets to the program over 5 years. Together the City ofGuelph and County of Wellington have allocated $1.35 million to a five year program thatcommenced in 1999. The money is being spent implementing best management practices in theRegional recharge zone and surface water target areas. Agriculture and Agri-food Canadaprovided an additional $225,000 to the Waterloo program through the National Soil and Water

Conservation Program. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs havecommitted $740,000 to the Wellington Program through the Healthy Futures for OntarioAgriculture Initiative.

After investigating source water protection programs in the United States, particularly those inNew York State, a framework was developed to bring together agricultural groups and Regionalstaff to build an innovative program to improve water quality. Discussions began with theOntario Farm Environmental Coalition (OFEC) to determine how best to include the agriculturalorganizations. Early in the program planning it was agreed that there were benefits to bothOFEC and the Region to using the Environmental Farm Plan in the program.

The development of the Rural Water Quality Program was a collaborative process involvingmore than twenty local and provincial farm organizations on the Steering Committee. When theRegion of Waterloo struck the Steering Committee they outlined three priorities for the proposedprogram:

• To improve the security and reliability of the ground and surface water supply in theRegion.

• To reduce the potential for contamination of surface water by pathogens such asbacteria and other microorganisms.

• To reduce the amount of phosphorus entering the surface water system, therebyreducing the variability of the water supply and increasing water treatmentefficiencies over the long term.

At the beginning of the process, members of the Steering Committee, both Regional staff andagricultural representatives, entered into the process with a certain amount of distrust andwariness. Although the consultation tended to slow the development of the program, the processensured that the end product was supported by the community and locally acceptable. TheSteering Committee members are ambassadors and spokes people for the program in theirorganizations and communities. Throughout the process the members gained an understandingand appreciation for the concerns and issues of the agricultural sector and the municipality.

The group operated on the following principles to design the Rural Water Quality Program andare continuing to follow these principles to guide their decision making and funding approvals.• Build on the spirit and philosophy of the Environmental Farm Plan.• Achieve some improved water quality on a large number of farms rather than focus on a high

level of improvement on a few farms.• Incorporate operational and maintenance costs into the incentive structure to ensure the

effectiveness and longevity of the activities undertaken.• Encourage adoption of management practices (i.e. field activities, etc.).• Develop a positive attitude in the farm community that will continue to foster the adoption of

Best Management Practices.• Emphasize that the program provides financial incentives to farmers for contributing to

cleaner surface and ground water.

The Steering Committee identified the best management practices that were appropriate for thearea and set the grant rates and ceilings for each. The Steering Committee also developed and

agreed to the eligibility criteria for the program and for each of the best management practices.This process of program development was used in both Waterloo and Wellington.

The open dialogue between the stakeholders has ensured that the Program both protects waterquality and improves the economic and environmental viability of agriculture. Unlike previousenvironmental programs that set incentive levels and best management practice guidelines inrelative isolation, this program has consulted with and taken direction from the clients, localfarmers. Table 1 shows the projects eligible for funding in Waterloo and the amount of fundingavailable for each project.

Table 1: Projects Eligible for Rural Water Quality Program Funding in Waterloo Region

Group One: Grant only grant rate(%)

maximumgrant ($)

performanceincentive ($)

groundwateror surface

water area?

maximumacreage

Livestock waste management milkhouse wastewater treatment 50 5,000 NA S NA

manure storage 50 15,000 NA S&G NA

clean water diversion 50 2,000 NA S&G NA

livestock access restriction* 75 10,000 NA S NA

Farmstead wellhead protection 50 500 NA G NA

plugging unused wells 75 500 NA G NA

fertilizer, chemical orfuel storage/handling

50 750 NA G NA

Erosion control structures grassed waterways, water andsediment control basins,terraces, streambankstabilization, anddrop inlets

50 10,000 NA S NA

Group Two: Grant with performanceincentives

grant rate(%)

maximumgrant ($)

water area?

maximumacreage

Livestock waste management nutrient management plans 50 500 $200/yr

Cropping practices strip cropping 50 1,000 $20/acre/yr S 50

Fragile agricultural landretirement

stream buffers, fragile landretirement, field windbreaks

75 6,000 $250/acre/yr S&G 10

Group Three: Performance incentivesonly

grant rate(%)

maximumgrant ($)

water area?

maximumacreage

Cropping practices residue management NA NA $20/acre/yr S 50

cover crops NA NA $20/acre/yr S 50

*livestock access restriction materials are eligible for 100% cost-share if installed by the landowner.

The Grand River Conservation Authority delivers the Rural Water Quality Program. One of thekeys to the programs success has been having trained technical staff who work with landownersto develop their projects. Landowners have been very appreciative of the personal attention theyreceive and the ability to contact staff directly. To date over $2.5 million has been provided tolandowners for implementing over 300 projects to improve and protect water quality.

The strength of this program is involvement at the grass roots. A unique aspect of the programhas been the commitment to involve the community in not only the development of the program

but also in the delivery and marketing of the program. The intent has been to develop a truepartnership with the agricultural community in order to develop trust, cooperation andunderstanding. By involving the local organizations at the initial stages of the program, partnersat the table have developed a sense of ownership in the program, which they are able tocommunicate to the community.

The Rural Water Quality Program has become a model of a locally sustainable, cost-effectiveway of improving and protecting the quality of source water, where municipalities andlandowners share in the cost of clean water. Diverting urban user rate dollars from municipalinfrastructure to protect rural source water will meet water quality objectives more costeffectively, generate economic investment in the agricultural community and improve theenvironment.

Groundwater protection and surface water quality is a potentially contentious issue.Municipalities often face opposition to water protection strategies. The Rural Water QualityProgram illustrates the benefits of involving the agricultural community as a partner in theprocess of program development.

ACLE Workshop 2001

Technical Session I:

Nutrient ManagementChair: John MacLeod, AAFC

Moncton, NB

November 1-2, 2001

ACLE Workshop 2001 “Reducing Environmental Risk in Agriculture”, 1-2 November 2001, Moncton, NB 10

Nutrient Management – National and Global Perspectives

T.W. Bruulsema, PhD,

Director, Eastern Canada and Northeast U.S.Potash & Phosphate Institute of Canada, Guelph, Ontario

In the words of Michael Fumento of the Hudson Institute, a “Scary Story” is worrying publicadministrators and government officials, not only in Canada but globally as well. The story’s underlyingmessage is that the input-intensive agriculture needed to feed the future world will harm the environmentand human health… because of increased nutrient use.

The critique of the “Scary Story” could fill many pages, but the pressure is on for agriculture to prove thatits management of nutrients is sustainable. Fortunately, nutrient use and crop production data from thepast 20 years already provide support for improvements in sustainability. Implementation of betterpractices including nutrient management planning and buffer zones along watercourses are alreadyhelping to improve nutrient use efficiency and water quality. But more will be needed.

The aim of this paper is to outline the concerns being raised at the national and global levels, portray thecurrent nutrient balance situation for Eastern Canada, and discuss the nutrient management approachesthat will be needed to document and improve sustainability.

Nutrient Impacts on the Environment and Human Health

In Canada, five federal ministries recently completed an assessment of nutrient impacts on theenvironment, due to be released in June 2001. The assessment concludes: “…nutrients are causingproblems in certain Canadian ecosystems and affecting quality of life for many Canadians.” The majorsources of nutrient loads include both sewage systems and agriculture, but the proportion of loading fromeach is hard to estimate. Among the negative impacts listed:

• Eutrophication of rivers, lakes and wetlands.• Drinking water that no longer meets nitrate guideline.• Health risks from toxic algal blooms.• Fish kills from ammonia toxicity.• Amphibian decline due to elevated nitrate levels.• More acid rain.• Emissions of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas and ozone layer depletor.• Increases in nitrogen oxides, forming photochemical smog.

In addition, the Canadian government has recently proposed the addition of ammonia to the List of ToxicSubstances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999. The Gazette notice of23 June 2001 states:

“Based on probabilistic risk assessments of three water bodies receiving ammonia from typicalmunicipal wastewater discharges, ammonia is considered to be entering the aquatic environment in aquantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-termharmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity. Thus, It is proposed that ammonia beconsidered “toxic” as defined in paragraph 64(a) of CEPA (1999).”

While the assessment identified wastewater discharges as the source of risk, the large quantity ofammonia used in agriculture is also facing scrutiny, and its inclusion in future risk management regulationis a matter of current debate.

A recent Science article (volume 292, pages 281-284) reported that if trends of global fertilizerconsumption from the past 38 years are projected, nitrogen and phosphorus use will increase by 2.4 to 2.7times by the year 2050. The article forecast that this increased nutrient use would drive an identicalincrease in eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) of the world's ecosystems, resulting in habitatdestruction, species extinctions, and loss of biodiversity.

Biodiversity is important, and we in industry share the concern. But will the projected scenario reallyhappen? Here's why it shouldn't.

The authors of the Science report made a mistake in projecting the fertilizer trend. They assumed thatglobal use of fertilizer would continue to increase without slowing, as shown by the line marked "L" inthe figure below. Actually, world consumption figures for phosphorus already show a distinct slowing ingrowth rate, so the curves "E" and "Q" could also be considered projections. In reality, projecting 50years into the future using the past 38 years is simply impossible.

1960 1975 1990 2005 2020 2035 2050

World P

Figure 1. Global fertilizer phosphate consumption (excluding the former SovietUnion) in million metric tonnes from 1961 through 1998, and extrapolationsbased on linear (L), exponential (E) and quadratic (Q) best fits.

The world today (excluding the former Soviet Union) produces 25 percent more crop per unit ofphosphorus fertilizer applied than it did twenty years ago. Simply put, farmers are improving theirnutrient use efficiency. We anticipate this will continue, through continuing research, adaptation andinnovation, using the tools of precision agriculture for more site-specific and better documented nutrientmanagement

Nutrient Situation in Eastern & Atlantic Canada

The amount of nutrients excreted in manure has likely increased over the past 50 years, but notdramatically (Figures 2-4). These amounts were estimated by multiplying Statistics Canada animalinventories by per-head figures for nutrients excreted, adjusted for increasing per-head productivity overtime. The largest amounts have always been excreted by cattle, but the proportion excreted by pigs andpoultry is increasing gradually over time.

While the volume of nutrients in manure appears large compared to that in commercial fertilizer, not allmanure is recoverable, particularly cattle manure owing to unconfined operations, and not all nutrients inmanure are available, particularly nitrogen. A large proportion of manure nitrogen is lost by volatilizationof ammonia during handling, storage and application. The amount of nutrient removal in pastures andhay is not accurately known, as even the area statistics for these crops are uncertain. In addition, a largeproportion of manures considered “non-recoverable” are unevenly distributed on hay and pasture land.For all the above reasons, nutrient balances across a region as large as Eastern Canada are highlyimprecise.

Phosphorus applied to cropland has exceeded crop removal for all of the past 50 years, but the surplus hasa strong declining trend in the past 20 years (Figure 3). The problems arising in recent years are thereforenot the result of increased amounts of manure nutrients, nor of exacerbated imbalances between supplyand removal. Rather, the increasing geographic concentration and use of liquid manure have made itmore difficult to transport manure to fields requiring nutrient addition. In addition, the same two factorshave sharpened odour problems. Another aspect of the use of liquid manure is its tendency to followmacropores to tile drains, increasing the transport of pathogens and to some degree of nutrients towatercourses.

Fertilizer use has declined sharply in the past 15 years in Eastern Canada (Figure 5), but over the sameperiod it has increased slowly and steadily in the provinces of Atlantic Canada (Figure 6). The emphasison higher value crops in Atlantic Canada is likely the major explanation for the difference in the trend.

Eastern Canada Nitrogen Balance

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

thousa

Fertilizer

Manure

Figure 2. Nitrogen balance for Eastern Canada (Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic provinces). Amountsapplied as fertilizer and contained as excreted in manure are depicted as stacked areas summing to totalinputs, while the outputs removed by crop harvest are shown as bars.

Eastern Canada Phosphorus Balance

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

ns) Fertilizer

Manure

Figure 3. Phosphorus balance for Eastern Canada (Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic provinces). Amountsapplied as fertilizer and contained as excreted in manure are depicted as stacked areas summing to totalinputs, while the outputs removed by crop harvest are shown as bars.

Eastern Canada Potassium Balance

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Fertilizer

Manure

Figure 4. balance for Eastern Canada (Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic provinces). Amounts applied asfertilizer and contained as excreted in manure are depicted as stacked areas summing to total inputs, whilethe outputs removed by crop harvest are shown as bars.

Eastern Canada Fertilizer Consumption

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Figure 5. Fertilizer nutrient consumption in Eastern Canada (Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic provinces)from 1966 through 2001.

Atlantic Canada Fertilizer Consumption

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Figure 6. Fertilizer nutrient consumption in Eastern Canada (Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic provinces)from 1966 through 2001.

Ontario Nutrient Management Guidelines: Development History

Nutrient management guidelines grew out of the same process that developed the Environmental FarmPlan (first edition 1994) and the Best Management Practices series of guidebooks. The Ontario FarmEnvironment Coalition (OFEC) was a central player. This coalition is comprised of four partners: theOntario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, AGCare (itself a coalitionof commodity groups concerned with resources and the environment), and the Ontario Farm AnimalCouncil. Through OFEC, producers were comprehensively represented.

Since nutrient management has not been established by any act of the Ontario legislature, but is insteadenforced at the municipality level, the nutrient management guidelines do not have as strong an officialstatus as might be desired. The guidelines were designed with the limitations of municipal enforcementin mind.

Agri-business was also involved in the activities listed above and in the ad hoc committees during whichthe nutrient management guidelines were debated. These meetings had good participation from membersof the Ontario Agri-Business Association (formerly The Fertilizer Institute of Ontario) and the Potash &Phosphate Institute of Canada. In addition, the two organizations provided support for the development ofthe Certified Crop Adviser program.

The Certified Crop Adviser program began in Ontario with its first exams held in 1996. Within twoyears, the performance objectives were revised to strengthen the areas of nutrient management andmanure management. Many of the Ontario CCA’s are involved with nutrient recommendations. A recentsurvey of the approximately 450 CCA’s found that at least 75 are considering future involvement inwriting nutrient management plans, and several are already actively doing so.

Ontario Nutrient Management Guidelines: Current Standards

Nutrient management planning guidelines in Ontario limit the volume of liquid that can safely be applied,based on soil and landscape characteristics. The distance separation requirement from rural residences,and the requirement for tillage on tile-drained land, address some of the odour and pathogen issuesassociated with use of untreated manure. There are also limits on the amount of nitrogen that may beapplied, but the nutrient that is most likely to limit manure application is phosphorus.

The guidelines address the balance between supply and removal of nutrients on a farm-by-farm basis.The NMAN 2000 software, in which these guidelines are embedded, calculates both an agronomicnutrient balance and a crop removal balance. The first balance ensures that nutrients applied do notexceed or fall short of recommended inputs for crop production. The second balance projects changes insoil test levels.

When manure is applied annually, P2O5 application is allowed to exceed crop removal by up to 78 kg/ha.If applied every second or third year, the amount of P2O5 applied may exceed crop removal by 190 or 300kg/ha, respectively. These generous limits allow soils to benefit from other aspects of manureapplication, such as nitrogen or organic matter. However, stricter limits apply to soils where thePhosphorus Index indicates high or very high risk of water contamination. Since the Index increases withsoil test P, surplus applications are not sustainable.

The Phosphorus index is a function of soil susceptibility to erosion and surface runoff, soil testphosphorus, and amounts and application methods of fertilizer and manure (see Table 1). It provides aguideline for the amount of phosphorus that can be applied as a function of distance to the nearest

watercourse. The maximum application is crop removal plus the extra allowance, but many sites may belimited to crop removal only, and near the watercourse the limit may decline to zero (see Table 2).

In Ontario’s soil test system, soils with an Olsen-P level in excess of 60 mg/L are termed excessive. TheP Index increases dramatically when the soil test exceeds 60 and even more so when the soil test exceeds100. However, provided that other factors influencing P loss are low, some manure can still be applied tosoils testing above those levels. Since these soils can be productive, it makes sense to allow manure to beused in these situations, to maintain soil organic matter and replace nutrients removed by crops.

In Ontario the issue of qualifications for nutrient management planning is actively being discussed.Attention is being paid to New York State, where a Certified Nutrient Management Planner designationhas been established, requiring certification as a crop adviser as part of the process. Liability issues are aconcern wherever nutrient management planning is being implemented, but the establishment ofprofessional qualifications is an essential step in the clear delineation of responsibility and liability.

Table 1. Calculation of the Ontario Phosphorus Index.LOW MEDIUM HIGH VERY HIGH EXTREME< 12 12 - 25 25 - 37 > 371. Soil Erosion (USLE in

t/ha/year) 2 4 8 16< 0.5%loam

0.5-2.0%loam

2-5%clay loam

> 5%clay

2. Water Runoff Class(slope and soil texture)

1 2 4 8< 15 15-30 31-60 61-100 > 1003. Soil test P (Olsen,

mg/L) 2 4 8 16 32< 25 25-50 50-75 > 754. Fertilizer P2O5

application rate (kg/ha) 0.5 1 2 4band-

appliedincorporated< 2 weeks

incorporated> 2 weeks

notincorporated

5. Fertilizer placement

1.5 3 6 12< 12 12-36 36-60 > 606. Manure P2O5

application rate (kg/ha) 0.5 1 2 4injected in

seasonincorporatedin < 5 days

pretillage,crop residue,or standing

bare soil; notincorporated

7. Manure/BiosolidApplication Method

1.5 3 6 12The P Index is calculated as the sum of the above seven components.

Table 2. Phosphorus guidelines in NMAN2000, for annual manure applications.Distance to Watercourse (m)

P Index < 3 3-30 30-60 > 60< 30 0 CR CR+78 CR+78

30-50 0 CR CR CR+78>50 0 0 CR CR

CR = crop removal; amount of P2O5 removed by crop (kg/ha)

Beyond Planning: Documented Accountability

Elbert van Donkersgoed, Strategic Policy Advisor of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, wrotethis past spring that “Environmental Farm Plans Have Had Their Decade in the Sun”:

The Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition is a success story, but in the shadow of theWalkerton E. coli tragedy its future has become uncertain.

This coalition was born in 1992. Those were the days! Every government agency andenvironmental watchdog group pursued an agenda for greening agriculture—plans, programs,regulations, advisories—all geared to address the numerous environmental risks that are part ofthe farmer's turf. When farm leaders agreed that agriculture should have its own agenda, OFECwas born. Its beginnings were modest. OFEC published "A Farm Environmental Agenda." adocumentation of 17 areas in which farmers can learn to tread lightly on the creation with fourcommitments to establish a stewardship path.

The 1992 agenda document asked every farmer to do an Environmental Farm Plan. Thisbold, proactive step by the farm community allowed all other agencies and watchdog groups toback off. This major training and risk assessment process by the farm community itself resulted inthousands of environmental farm plans covering well over half of Ontario's farmland, andmillions spent on environmental improvement projects.

Then Walkerton's E coli tragedy happened. The provincial government hasn't waited forthe inquiry results to take action. In January, the Gibbons report was released: a whole newapproach to managing the environment has become the talk of every government agency.

The new agenda is described as "a strategic approach to environmental management." Ittalks of government-wide vision, continuous improvement, outcome-based accountability, place-based assessment, cumulative impacts, flexible compliance tools and incentives, transparency andshared responsibility with stakeholders.

OFEC's Environmental Farms Plans were a response to a more traditional approach toenvironmental protection—emphasizing one ministry having sole responsibility, ensuringcompliance with minimum standards, command and control, and reliance on government to do itall.

In many ways OFEC's Environmental Farm Plans were ahead of their times.Stakeholders through voluntary actions and incentives can accomplish more for the environmentthan government agencies holding us to minimum standards. On-farm, multiple-risk assessmentshave much more to offer than investigating and abating a few specific pollutants.

But Walkerton has moved the goal posts. While Environmental Farm Plans are a one-time commitment to environmental education and the creation of an action plan, they do notdeliver continuous improvement. EFPs are place-based, but only in conjunction with our farmsand farming, not in relation to watersheds and community impacts. Because they are voluntarythey cannot become a tool for demonstrating compliance. They are shared with the scientific andtechnical community but not with the many stakeholders in the countryside.

OFEC's Environmental Farm Plans have had their decade in the sun. The sun is setting.

The sun will also set on the nutrient management plan. As with the best of intentions, plans for nutrientmanagement do not always materialize into action. Crop yields may fall short of the goal or exceed them,the livestock may convert their feed more or less efficiently than intended, the storage may or may notprotect against nutrient loss and the application equipment may or may not put on the right rate.

Our information systems will eventually need to track and trace nutrients through the whole farmenterprise. Perhaps we will call it nutrient management accounting. In the Netherlands, the MINASmineral accounting system provides an example. Commercial enterprises in Ontario are preparing toprovide such services. One example is Agrico Canada’s investment in a high-capacity precision liquidmanure application system that utilizes GPS and GIS to both regulate and record rates of manureapplication on a site-specific basis within fields.

The while nutrient balances are simple, factors governing nutrient loss are not. Risks of watercontamination by pathogens, nitrate, phosphorus are highly specific to crop, soil and landscape properties,and to the sensitivity of local watersheds. In addition, practical and economical manure managementrequires intimate knowledge of crop production practices, sensitivity to soil compaction, etc. These arethe reasons why it is critical to have a professional standard for those advising crop producers and guidingnutrient management. The Certified Crop Adviser program provides such a standard. The efforts ofCertified Crop Advisers will help ensure that the input-intensive agriculture needed to feed the futureworld will benefit the environment and human health rather than harm it.

Nutrient Management - Provincial Perspectives Update

Christine MacKinnon, P.Eng. Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry

This presentation provides an update on nutrient management work underway in the region.

Nutrient management planning, as we understand it today, involves a shift in emphasis from thehistorical approach of plant nutrient deficiency corrections, towards an holistic understanding ofwhole-farm nutrient balances, and the concurrent objectives of minimizing impacts to surfaceand groundwater, preventing the build-up of soil nutrient levels, promoting long-termsustainability, and maintaining crop yield and quality. A Nutrient Management Plan is theproduct of a planning framework and contains a field-by-field analysis of crop nutrientrequirements. The plan guides the producer in the application of fertilizer nutrients and nutrientsfrom organic sources.

Nova ScotiaInterest in nutrient management planning (NMP) has existed in Nova Scotia for many years.More recently a greater focus and emphasis has been placed on the need to develop moredetailed, extensive plans in a science based, practical farm level system. Priorities for thedevelopment of a comprehensive nutrient management planning program for Nova Scotiainclude:

• Standardization of a NMP program• Development of a strategy that brings all players together to ensure a system that is

effective and widely accepted.• Development of a NMP certification process applicable to Nova Scotia conditions• The development of appropriate standards, regulations and laws where necessary to

support NMP including alternatives to regulations that encourage compliance.

The agriculture industry, through the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture has taken the lead inadvancing the development and promotion of nutrient management planning in the province. Asteering committee comprised of representatives of the farming community, agribusiness, privateconsultants, and the Nova Scotia departments of Environment and Labor (NSDEL) andAgriculture and Fisheries (NSDAF) has been formed to provide leadership in the development ofa system of nutrient management planning. A project has been developed that will focus on thedevelopment and piloting of a nutrient management protocol for the province. The project willalso include the development of a nutrient management planning manual and development of apro active approach to the delivery of nutrient management planning to Nova Scotia farms. Morespecifically, this initiative will be working to develop a basic model specific to Nova Scotia. Inconjunction with the Nova Scotia Agricultural College (NSAC) a training program for nutrientmanagement is anticipated. The provision of nutrient management planning is currently expectedto be delivered through the private sector. The province through the lead governmentdepartments of Environment and Labor and Agriculture and Fisheries have been providingongoing support and input into the design and delivery of the program as well as support inresearch. At this point there have been no plans made for specific regulations or laws regardingnutrient management planning.

Newfoundland and LabradorThere have been nutrient management concerns in Newfoundland with respect to yield declines,fertility relationships with animal health and environmental and agronomic concerns. A Phase INMP study was undertaken to obtain detailed soil information as a first step in designing on-farm NMPs. Thirty-seven dairy farms were soil sampled, representing 7000 acres of forageproduction. The soil samples were geo-referenced. Analytical results and fertilizerrecommendations were produced. Suggestions were made for corrective environmental andagronomic actions. Phosphate in the soil samples was over baseline (levels above baselineexceed crop requirements) in 82%, 77% and 100% of the eastern, western and central regionsamples, respectively. Potash in the soil samples was over baseline in the western and centralregion samples. The next step in Newfoundland will be a Phase II “Total” NMP, including fieldhistories, soil sampling and testing, manure sampling and testing, nutrient management factorconsiderations and detailed mapping. The nutrient management factors will include: inventory ofnutrient sources, and considerations of manure storage, animal population, acreage, croprequirements, manure nutrient content and availability and manure application rates. The detailedmapping will examine slopes, soil types, location of watercourses, natural vegetation buffers andillustrate plans to minimize pollution.

New BrunswickNMPs are required in NB under the Livestock Operations Act for new livestock facilities and forexisting facilities expanding 10-fold or more. The new Wellhead Protection program and theWatershed Protection program Phase II both also contain NMP provisions. Access to manurestorage funds also requires an NMP. NB is using the Ontario-developed NMAN software, at aminimum for verifying NMPs once written. There have been 8 NMPs done under existinglegislation, 30 NMPs done under the manure storage program and 15 done by the Agri-Conservation Club in Kent Co. The NB ESI program for 2001 has provisions for the costs toproducers of hiring certified nutrient management planners. NB has a nutrient managementspecialist and is in the process of hiring a nutrient management advisor. There are plans to giveNMP training courses for Nutrient Management Planners. A Nutrient Management PlanningSteering Committee was struck in October 2001 and includes:

• New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government• New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture• New Brunswick Soil and Crop Improvement Association• Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre• New Brunswick Institute of Agrologists

The Nutrient Management Planning Steering Committee will develop the outline of the contentfor NMP training courses for Nutrient Management Planners. A proposal is being considered forthe delivery of NMP courses by March or April 2002.

Prince Edward IslandThe concentration of nitrates and other nutrients in P.E.I. groundwater and surface water hasbeen increasing over time. Investigations by the P.E.I. Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture andEnvironment indicate a strong relationship between land use and groundwater nitrate

concentrations. In 2001, the Department of Agriculture & Forestry commissioned a study toassess technical and policy options for NMP in P.E.I. P.E.I. has a strong concern about over-fertilization of row crops, in addition to manure management.

The Agricultural Crop Rotation Act was passed in April 2001, requiring that regulated crops begrown in a three year rotation with cereals and forage. Exemptions will require an approvedCrop Management Plan which includes components of a nutrient management plan.

The Department of Agriculture and Forestry will be leading the development of a nutrientmanagement strategy for P.E.I. in cooperation with industry and other departments. Pilotprojects are underway on potato fertility with Cavendish Farms, and conservation clubs with thePEI Soil & Crop Improvement Association.

Nutrient Management : A Producer Perspective

Bonar MortonProducer and Member of Kent County Agri-Conservation Club

I am very pleased to be here to give you my perspective on nutrient management. Ours is afamily farm. We operate a dairy farm and a small feedlot with 180-head of dairy animal and 50-head feeder beef. We crop approximately 400 acres; 80-acre of cereal grain, 35-acre of silagecorn, 40-acre pasture, 100-125 acre of straight alfalfa, the remainder orchard grass, brome grass,double cut clover. I am the fourth generation farmer. Our ancestors came here in 1926 andsettled in Ford Bank. They planned to settle in Miramichi but went they arrived it was all on fireso they stayed in the barnhouse overnight. The next day they sailed to Richibucto and this iswhat you get 175 years later. I operate the farm with my wife and two sons. Forty years ago wehad about 40-head of cattle on a hay diet, today we are silage with 230 heads. I have had theopportunity to learn from the two previous progressive generations and the foresight of theyounger generation not too many people have had such an opportunity. In 1999 theConservation Club offered a course in nutrient management which really sparked our interest. We attended several workshops organized by the Club on sprayer calibration, fertilizer-spreadercalibration, manure spreader calibration. The place where we live and farm is all bordered bywatercourses. Of the 400 acres we have, every field has a watercourse as a border. The mainstream that runs through the home farm was identified as being of concern for bacterialcontamination by the local watershed group.

In 1999 we enrolled in the nutrient management plan, had all fields mapped and identified, soilsamples were taken on all fields, manure was tested for nutrients, the manure spreader wascalibrated to be able to apply the recommended amount of manure per acre. The fertilizerspreader was calibrated for spreading the appropriate amount that the soil samples called for. Before having a nutrient management plan, we purchased 48-50 tons of fertilizer, the last twoyears we purchased 32 tons, half of it ammonia nitrate plus an additional hundred acres of land. A number of fields need very little fertilizer that last two seasons we applied 34-0-0 to grass andalfalfa at about 100 lb of product per acre. This year we purchased 23-8-234 for silage corn andbarley not under seeded. We used 25-15-15 on barley seeded down before nutrient managementplan we would have used 19-19-19 and 12-24-24 as you can see what the phosphorous andpotassium was doing. Soil samples showed phosphorous level of high 266 and a potassium highof 460. The management plan made us aware of the large amount of nutrient that were availablein the soil. With the previous fertilization practices, we were headed for trouble with potentialwater pollution of nitrates. We also had trouble with milk fever in the dairy cows because of thehigh phosphate level in the feed stuff. Now manure is spread farther from the barn and on fieldsthat require it and on additional field that we just acquired that have not had livestock manureapplied on them for years. In 1999, we built a manure storage lagoon to help save the nutrientand stop the runoff into the main watercourse.

In conclusion, nutrient management plan is a great tool along with the agronomist to helpcontrol your nutrient level in the soil. People like me do not have the expertise or time to put allthe parts of the puzzle together but with help from the agronomist and a nutrient managementplan we are able to better put the puzzle together. In between the low level of 8 for phosphorousand a high of 266 and a potassium low of 19 and a high of 460 a more economic and efficientfigure must be found to make it more cost effective. Nutrient management is not for everyone. Some of us are farmers some are miners. Most farmers in general do not think about thenutrients they have in their soil, they spread manure when it is close to the barn and less cost tomove it. It is really too early for us to tell how valuable the nutrient plan is since we are only inour second year, but up to now great savings on fertilizer has been realized. We have increasedour land base, reduced fertilizer use, a dollar saving of $3,000 to 4,000 has been achieved. Thepublic has to pay part of the cost as environmental issues enter the picture. People who receivemanure from the Metz Farm would benefit from a nutrient management plan. The public couldbe assured that the manure was being utilized by the plants and not leaching into thegroundwater. Things are not like they use to be when 3-15-6 or 6-12-12 was king of fertilizer.

ACLE Workshop 2001

Technical Session II:

Pathogen ManagementChair: Ali Madani, NSAC

Moncton, NB

November 1-2, 2001

- -ACLE Workshop 2001, "Reducing Environmental Risk in Agriculture", Moncton, NB. Nov. 1-2, 2001 25

Industry perspectives: Pathogen Management

How do we respond to the public fetish about livestock manure?

Laurence Nason,Executive Officer,

Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture

When Rob Gordon asked me if I would take part in your meetings he told me that myrole would be to discuss pathogen management from a practical perspective – a farmbusiness owner’s perspective. I told Rob at the time that that was no problem. However,when I looked over the program and agenda for your workshop a week or so later andnoted the qualifications of speakers and saw that I was part of a technical session, I reallybegan to feel a little out of place.

I am not an engineer or a scientist. And you can be thankful that I am not an economist,because they take a cold, hard, unfeeling and inflexible perspective on almost everything– including pathogen management I presume – that demands solutions that can bedescribed in the same manner.

My academic training is in sport and recreation management and policy. However, I dohave 20 years of experience as a farmer and as a policy advisor to the agriculturalcommunity in Nova Scotia for the past 6 years.

I have also had a long involvement with local government as an elected official.

So, you will forgive me if I interpret the subject you have assigned me – pathogenmanagement an ‘Industry Perspectives’ – in terms of manure or waste management andpublic health, areas that I am somewhat familiar with.

To set the context for what I want to say:

I think what we are talking about is the relationship between public health and agriculture– more specifically public health and manure – the farm practices surrounding thehandling of farm waste and their impact on public health.

Today we hear a lot about health care and the frailties of our health care system. Most ofwhat we hear is related to hospitals, health care professionals and the infrastructurerelated to caring for the sick. We have been conditioned through the media, by the healthcare establishment, and other special interests to believe that the key to a healthy societyis more hospital beds, more health care professionals, more medical technology, etc.

That may be the case if you are concerned with looking after those who are already sick,but perhaps not if you are really concerned with public health.

Most people are surprised to learn that the greatest contribution to the health ofCanadians over the past 150 years was made not by doctors or hospitals but by localgovernments. This lack of appreciation of the role local authorities play in the health ofCanadians is primarily due to the fact that very little is really written about it – it just getsdone.

When it gets done poorly we sometimes hear about it.

Health problems – contagious diseases, domestic water pollution, waste disposal, evenaccidents and violence – emerge more acutely where people gather together incommunities and consequently decisions are taken by the community to deal with thoseproblems through their local governments.

There are some complications when trying to capture the essence of the role localauthorities actually play in public health simply because of the complex links betweenhealth and life in the community; these links ultimately lead to consideration of suchissues as land-use and urban planning, protection of the environment and economicdevelopment and of course the political process itself.

What is public health? In local government circles the definition will usually soundsomething like this:

…the art and science of improving the health status of the population, ofpreventing sickness and promoting the efficiency of health services through thecoordination of community efforts (Rochon, 1997).

The history of local government’s lead role in public health goes back to an 1834 studyby a gentleman by the name of Edwin Chadwick; a study on the conditions of thelabouring classes in Britain. His report spawned a movement aimed at improving theenvironment and general sanitation in communities that eventually moved across theAtlantic Ocean to Canada and resulted in the development of infrastructure to provideclean water to communities and to deal with waste, and eventually to the regulation ofprivate water and waste systems in rural areas.

During the first half of the twentieth century modern medicine developed powerfuldiagnostic and treatment tools which meant that a ‘clinical supremacy’ soon took overfrom the public health movement and better health became equated, in the minds of thepublic and political leaders with doctors and hospitals (Starr, 1982).

By the 1950’s public health initiatives were predominantly focused on hospitals andmedical technology with little attention being paid to the basic infrastructure responsiblefor keeping communities healthy – clean water and sanitation.

Problems with the medical model in recent years are turning the spotlight back onceagain to public health – away from the emphasis on treatment to other areas such as theone you are concerned with here – clean water.

If you follow the case for clean water as it is being presented in the main stream media,sometimes I feel that the biggest deterrent to supplying clean water to North Americans,is agriculture and agricultural practices.

I don’t believe this is necessarily so.

While there are certainly many things we can do differently in our industry to ensurewater quality; I do not think we are the primary problem, at least here in Atlantic Canadawe aren’t.

A case in point

In 1996, in Garland, a small community in the Annapolis Valley, a group ofresidents got sick and it was determined that it was from contaminated well water.It was determined that wells in the area were unusable and a ‘boil water’ orderwas issued ; however, the exact source of the pollution could not be determined. Itwas naturally assumed that the problem must be agriculture.

These residents immediately pointed the finger at Bill Bezanson, a local beeffarmer. The community demanded that the Departments of Agriculture andEnvironment shut his farm operation down.

Unable to prove that the Bezanson farm was the source of the pollution, theresidents decided to go after the farmer, using what was then called theAgricultural Operators Protection Act, claiming that his farm operation affectedthe reasonable enjoyment of their property.

After an investigation, the Farm Practices Board determined that the Bezansonfarm was using generally accepted farm practices with respect to the handling offarm waste. The Board reported that the practices being used by the Bezansons ,quote - “were equivalent to or better than accepted practices in the area.”– endquote.

In May 1999 the problem with water quality still existed. Some individualsactually moved away from the community for lack of an acceptable and safewater supply and the community, with the help of the media, and file pictures ofmanure on a field, began, once again, to point the finger at the Bezansons .

This time the Department of Environment tested the wells of communityresidents. Twenty-six wells were tested and 10 of those wells revealed traces ofbacteria. The bacteria was eventually traced to a faulty septic system and theowner was ordered to clean-up the problem.

As of 2 weeks ago, October 2001, the owner of the faulty septic system has nottaken any action and probably won’t in the future. If the situation is cleaned up itwill more than likely be a case of ‘paying the polluter’ to comply with the order toclean up.

If, in this case, farm practices had been found to be the cause of the pollution aMinisterial Order would have been issued and the farmer would have had to dealwith the problem regardless of the cost or be put out of business. And, in alllikelihood the farmer would have been fined for polluting .

If you mention Garland to most Nova Scotians they immediately associate it withthe story of how a farmer ruined the quality of life for residents of a ruralcommunity – which is not the case at all.

This is clearly a case of people responding to how they feel about a situation andnot allowing the facts to alter their perceptions.

Here, I want to interject a personal observation.

One thing I could never understand about the law – If you dump some arsenic inGrannies tea you are sure to feel the full force of the law, you will no doubt be put away.But if the community itself poisons a whole community through some cavalier process, atworst, they can expect a partly fine, at best they can expect some public agency to pay fora clean-up.

A farmer spreads manure on a field and is immediately perceived to be responsible forany pollution that may exist in local water supplies. If it is spread close to a water courses/he will probably be fined . If there is leakage from an on-farm waste storage facilitys/he will be fined. Yet, 250,000 residents of Halifax/Dartmouth area flush their wastedirectly into Halifax Harbour without blinking an eye – it is somebody else’s problem toclean up the pollution.

Halagonians will tell you very quickly that they do not want to dump waste in theharbour. They will say they have no choice.

Of course they have a choice. Everyone outside of urban areas takes responsibility fortheir waste, including farmers.

The points I want to make here are:

The broader objectives of public health will always be pursued by and on behalf of thelocal community. That is why public health issues such as clean water and waste disposalhave always been dealt with at the local level and will, to a greater extent, be in thefuture.

Local governments have always had a primary interest in basic environmental servicessuch as waste disposal, sanitation, the provision of clean water and even the eliminationof such nuisances as offensive odours, noise dust etc. – all of these areas are of vitalinterest to agriculture.

As greater emphasis is put on the importance of clean water, local authorities will assumegreater responsibility for its provision to the community.

The more enlightened and progressive local authorities will surely take an intersectoralapproach to public health that will include the coordination of community planning,, foodand agriculture, the environment, the economy, social life and lifestyle opportunities.And they will likely involve farmers in the decision making process.

While senior levels of government will retain the regulatory powers required to ensurethe protection of water sources, local governments will be given the responsibility ofdelivering clean water and they – local authorities – will play a key role in defining ourrole as an industry in ensuring clean water.

In Nova Scotia local authorities already have enough permissive powers under theMunicipal Government Act, and the Environment Act to severely disrupt farm activitiesand even put farmers out of business.

As an industry we need to learn to work more closely with local authorities who will, toa great extent, define the way we can farm in the future.

The second point I want to make is:

Agriculture is a large visible industry.

We don’t always smell good, we make a lot of noise and dust.

We are not well organized – at least in comparison to other interests involved in waterissues.

We are a natural and easy target to strike out at when problems with water quality arise.

When environmental problems, like contaminated water surface, those who have frontline responsibility must find a scapegoat. What better place to deflect attention than tofarmers. We see this time- and-time again. Note, that in the Garland situation it was 4years before the on-site disposal systems of residents were tested.

I note that the term ‘sustainable’ is found on your agenda in a number of placesassociated with the words ‘strategies’, ‘resources’, ‘development’– sustainable strategies ,sustainable strategies for agriculture.

Words really have no inherent meaning beyond their social context and meaning variesgreatly from person to person. Sustainable strategies can mean economic, social,environmental and/or political improvements depending upon the speakers interest.Different interests use the term ‘sustainable development’ to promote their own particularvision of the future.

‘Sustainable farming’ has many different meanings, and how we attain the many goalsthat are inherent in this term we all tend to use so loosely to describe the future, willdepend on a myriad of environmental, political and even emotional issues.

I believe that most farmers vision of the future expressed in terms of ‘sustainableagriculture’ is a blending of environmental, social and economic opportunities thatstrives to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs.

‘Sustainable agriculture’ offers a balance and that is the very reason it has become amajor public policy issue.

Once an issue enters the realms of the public policy process it becomes subject to all theinfluences of all the varied actors in that process – governments, legislative bodies andagencies, political parties, the media and special interest groups.

Manure management – and by association pathogen management – has entered the realmof the public policy process as one of the goals of sustainable agriculture, and has thusbecome subject to the influences of all the rational, and the irrational actors, in thatprocess.

As an industry we better be ready for that. We better be prepared to develop sustainablepractices, implement them and adjust them to fit community values. And we better beprepared to defend our actions.

Since our industry, and for that matter, life itself depends upon access to clean,unpolluted water, we should all be thankful for the increased public awareness andconcern over this vital resource that is generated by the debate. At the same time, weneed to be concerned when special interest groups, ambitious political actors andmisinformed critics who may propose simplistic solutions to complex water managementissues.

(The most simplistic of all – do away with animal agriculture).

♦ If large global interest groups such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are capturingthe public agenda, then, as an industry we had better learn to understand them,understand how they think and make an attempt to work with them.

♦ If political actors decide that it is expedient to impose solutions for improving waterquality on agriculture rather than recognize their own responsibility and theresponsibility of their constituency, then as an industry we had better learn to dealwith that reality.

♦ If simplistic solutions are suggested we must be in a position to present acceptablealternatives.

The issues and concerns with respect to agricultural practices are both real andperceptual. Perceptual issues may not have any real scientific basis but are perceived asreal by the public, and, in turn may generate political support leading to political action.As a result certain legitimate and even environmentally benign practices may bechallenged simply because of the public’s negative perception or lack of tolerance.

Like the link between Chernobyl and nuclear disaster, or Hagersville and burning tires,Walkerton’s name has been permanently connected with the stigma of bad water. And,the finger has been pointed directly at agriculture and agricultural practices. The tragicevents of Walkerton have changed, forever, the way urban society views agriculture andthe way that farmers will be allowed to farm. So says the main stream media in Canada.

Walkerton really signaled the end of ‘freestyle’ farming. “that is the way we have alwaysdone it’ will no longer be an acceptable answer and will illicit a very specific responsefrom the public.

You can’t do it that way anymore because it affects my quality of life!

The reality today is: If farm practices , related to manure management are deemedunacceptable, farmers will have three choices, change what they are doing, pay fines orget out of business.

I believe that most farmers realize this reality; and they recognize that everything they doin the future will be carefully scrutinized by the public. And, I believe farmers aremaking a real effort to change the way they do things – to meet the expectations of thecommunity.

When I first started farming in the early 70’s, there was one thing you could absolutelynot do – work on Sunday. If you undertook any type of farm operation other thanrequired maintenance on a Sunday you were ostracized by the community .

However, you could spread manure anywhere and at anytime, except Sunday of courseand you could back your manure spreader into a pool in the river and scrub it down witha stable broom to prepare it for storage.

By the early 90’s things had changed. You could perform any farm operation you wishedto on Sunday; but go near the Stewiacke or Pembrook rivers with manure and you willfind yourself ostracized by the rest of the community and you could find yourself incourt. It is no longer permissible, not only to clean equipment in a water course, but tospread manure near a water course, and to store manure improperly. And, interestinglyenough, the person who may be the first to object, will probably be a fellow farmer.

Is it proof that there is some wisdom in the old adage that: With God all things arepossible, without Him all things are permissible.

It is evidence that in the relatively short span of 2 decades farmers, in the Stewiacke atleast, have developed a new mind set with respect to the management of farm waste. Theprincipal reason for the change was pressure from the local community.

That rate of change is not quick enough. It may have been 20 years ago, but not today.The time we will be allowed to react to pressure from the community on issues aspotentially dangerous as manure management will be measured in months, not decades,not even years.

I mentioned the expectations of the community. Where water quality is concerned thoseexpectations are unyielding and probably shaped by unrealistic and inaccurateperceptions of agriculture’s role when a water quality problem does arise.

People respond to how they feel about a situation and rarely allow the facts to alter theirperceptions, and how they feel is usually shaped by the popular media.

1. The agricultural industry needs to take a more determined and balanced approach indealing with the media. When the community perceives that a potential health risk isassociated in any way with agriculture, perceived or real, that is a serious problem.

2. It is an emotional issue. Where emotional issues are concerned perception quicklybecomes the reality. Too often our reaction is: don’t comment, leave it alone and itwill go away. It won’t.

3. We can influence the way the community perceives any health risks associated withagriculture, but we have to learn to face these issues head-on and explain our positionclearly and professionally. And, Yes, if there is culpability we need to face that headon as well.

Communities all across this country are sending the agricultural community a clearmessage, What they are saying in effect is:

If you choose to farm that is your right, but the community has an equal right to beprotected, and you will be held responsible for the consequences of your actions.

That is a message we need to listen to very closely.

My perspectives on pathogen management – and I want to insert a disclaimer here – maynot necessarily be the industry’s perspectives, that is, I am sure you could find somefarmers that would say that I am full of pathogens. But, then some farmers may beforced out of business if, as individuals, they fail to deal seriously with this issue that mayimpact on water quality.

While the regulatory environment surrounding this issue is being driven and will continueto be driven in the future by senior levels of government, it will be strongly influenced bylocal governments.

And, it is a fact that basic public health services, like the provision of clean water, will beorganized, administered and delivered by the community through their localgovernments.

I mentioned earlier that I have been involved with local government . When I left thatpart of my life behind I promised myself that I would never become cynical about it.

I have broken that promise. Again, I mentioned earlier the rational and irrational actors inthe political system. My cynicism about the local government extends to the rationality oftheir decision making processes.

That may be a large problem for our industry as we change our approaches to dealingwith farm waste simply because the decision making process is uninformed and it willnot allow us enough time to take the actions that may be necessary

There are many examples of the power and influence of local government and thesometimes irrationality of their decision making processes.

Kings County ---- manure disposal by-law to take effect January 2003

Yarmouth County --- set backs that prevent the establishment of hog, chicken andfur operations within the municipality.

Yuurlink situation ---- municipality basically puts farm out of business.

I mentioned earlier that agriculture becomes the front line scapegoat. That’s my cynicismagain.

Scapegoat – an ancient practice in the middle east where communitiestransferred their guilt and troubles to a goat and chased it of into thedesert.

While I do believe that agriculture often gets tarred with a pretty broad brush where waterproblems are concerned; I also know that would not be the case if there were not somebasis in fact.

The industry has some problems with respect to this issue both real and perceived andthose problems will have to be dealt with at both levels – changes on the ground withrespect to farm practices and changes in the way we approach the public relations aspectsof the issue.

I believe that the farm community realizes that it has to deal with this issue and is takingsteps to do so.

The question is: How much time do we have to change before we are chased of into thedesert.

Pathogen Management – The Atlantic Perspective

Dr. Glenn Stratton, P.Ag,Department of Environmental Sciences,

Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Truro, NS

When the topic of “pathogen management” is discussed in the context of “reducingenvironmental risk in agriculture”, water quality issues normally come to the forefront.These include concerns over the microbiological quality of both groundwater and surfacewater that is used, either as sources of drinking water for humans and livestock, or assources of irrigation water for crops. In turn, the proper storage and disposal of animalmanure is one of the key aspects of pathogen risk management in agriculture. Since waterquality is the primary environmental issue associated with pathogens, it is the one to beemphasized here. However, it is not the only issue. Others include the presence ofpathogens in food and the role of on farm food security measures in mediating thisproblem, as well as the impact of pathogens on the health of farm animals. Of course,these are all national, as well as regional concerns.

Background Information: Pathogens

The microorganisms that tend to be mentioned most often when discussing water qualityinclude the coliforms, fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli, and selected parasites, such asCryptosporidium and Giardia. The public is often confused about the differencesbetween these organisms relative to health risks.

Coliforms, in technical terms, includes the aerobic and facultatively anaerobic,gram-negative, non-spore-forming, rod-shaped bacteria that ferment lactose withgas production within 48 hr at 35°C. This group includes non-pathogenicbacteria that are found in soil and water, as well as a number of pathogenic andnon-pathogenic bacteria that are found in human and animal feces. They areenumerated as “total coliforms” per 100 mL of water, which can be consideredan indicator of overall cleanliness. High total coliform counts point to thepresence of either soil, sediment, or other natural sources of coliforms, possiblyeven fecal matter from animals. Coliforms are quite sensitive to chlorinationand can also be killed by boiling contaminated water. In Canada, the maximumacceptable concentration of coliforms in drinking water is zero, although asingle sample can have up to 10 coliforms per 100 mL as long as subsequentsamples are free of coliforms.

The fecal coliforms are a subset of the total coliforms. In technical terms, fecalcoliforms include all coliforms that can ferment lactose at 44.5°C and includesspecific bacteria such as E. coli. The occurrence of fecal coliforms in waterindicates the presence of fecal matter from warm-blooded animals. In turn, thepresence of fecal matter indicates the potential for human pathogens to bepresent, but does not guarantee their presence. Fecal coliforms are also quitesensitive to chlorination and can be killed by boiling contaminated water. In

Canada, the maximum acceptable concentration of fecal coliforms in drinkingwater is zero, with no exceptions. For recreational waters the guideline is 200per 100 mL.

E. coli is the most important fecal coliform, in that it is naturally found in veryhigh numbers in all fecal matter. Most of the E. coli in feces are harmless, butsome strains of E. coli are pathogenic and potentially fatal. In addition, there area multitude of other pathogens that can potentially be found in animal feces,such as Salmonella, Shigella, Vibrio, Yersinia, Campylobacter, and viruses.

Cryptosporidium and Giardia are protozoan parasites, both of which are foundin human and animal feces. They are usually present in water as cysts, orresistant resting stages, that can be fairly resistant to water treatment chemicals,such as chlorine. Extensive boiling of contaminated water will kill the parasites.In Canada, there are presently no numerical guidelines for these parasites indrinking water.

Background Information: Water quality

A major reason for our emphasis on water quality is the fact that it is an essential andpriceless resource. Of all the water in the world, only 4.9% is freshwater. Of thisfreshwater, 0.2% is surface water, 68.4% is groundwater, and 31.4% is tied up in snowand ice. In Canada, 74% of the population relies on surface water, which normallyrequires treatment to remove pathogens. The other 26% of the population relies ongroundwater, two thirds of this in rural areas. In the Atlantic region this reliance ongroundwater varies from a low of 29% of Newfoundland and Labrador’s population to100% of Prince Edward Island’s population. The numbers for Nova Scotia and NewBrunswick are 50% and 64%, respectively. In PEI and NB the main use of groundwateris municipal, while in Nfld and NS the main use is rural domestic consumption.

Another reason for concern over water quality is an increase in the number of cases ofwaterborne illnesses that have arisen in recent years. Prominent examples include theWalkerton, Ontario disaster in May 2000 and the North Battleford, Saskatchewanincident in May 2001. Although only the incident in Walkerton was directly linked to anagricultural source, it has sensitized the public to agriculture as a potential cause of waterquality problems.

In Walkerton, excessive rainfall washed manure from a beef operation into apoorly maintained well that was part of Walkerton’s water supply. TheEscherichia coli O157:H7 in the manure infected over 2,300 people and causedseven deaths, prompting a provincial inquiry, $15 million in repairs toWalkerton’s water distribution system, and multiple lawsuits. Actually, the beeffarmer involved has been named as a defendant in Walkerton lawsuits, eventhough his operation has been applauded for its high level of environmentalstewardship and best management practices. As well, new Ontario legislation

has been introduced to deal with Nutrient Management. This legislation setsprovince-wide standards for the management of materials containing nutrients,including manure and other materials generated through agricultural operations,commercial fertilizers, biosolids generated by municipal sewage treatment,septage from septic tanks, and pulp and paper sludge.

In North Battleford, drinking water contaminated with Cryptosporidium infectedhundreds of people and was initially linked to three deaths, which were laterconfirmed to be due to other factors. A faulty filtration system failed to removethe pathogen from water believed to be tainted with the town’s own sewage,leading to a three month long boil order. In 1993 Cryptosporidium caused about100 deaths and 400,000 cases of illness in Milwaukee.

In Atlantic Canada we have recently been plagued by a large number of boil water orders.Some examples include St. John’s Nfld in July and August 2001, Truro, NS in August2001, New Glasgow, NS and Waverly, NS in July 2001, Yarmouth NS in June 2001, andCharlottetown, Stratford, and Cornwall, PEI in October, 2000. Also, there have beenfrequent warnings in Fredericton, NB regarding the high levels of bacteria in the St. JohnRiver. Newfoundland and Labrador have been especially hard hit. A provincial reporton water resources notes that of May 23, 2001 there were 322 active boil orders in 223communities.

The National Water Research Institute, among others, has highlighted the need fornational water standards. This Institute has also emphasized that we need to start treatinglarge-scale agriculture less like farms and more like factories, since some large farms canproduce as much fecal waste as a small town. This problem is less pronounced in theAtlantic region, since most large-scale animal production systems are found further west.However, it does highlight a key problem in agriculture, which is the concentration ofhigh levels of agricultural wastes in relatively small areas. This puts rural communitiesin agricultural areas at higher risk, due to their higher dependency on groundwater andless money for infrastructure to guarantee water quality. What is required to reduce thepathogen risks associated with agriculture is to implement better wastewater managementpractices and to address water management at the watershed level.

The Atlantic Perspective: Some research initiatives

At the Nova Scotia Agricultural College (NSAC) researchers have been addressing anumber of water quality issues in cooperation with various government agencies, farmcommodity groups, and individual farmers. Further details about some of the followingissues and related research studies will be provided during the workshop.

Surface water quality: Pathogen management

The drought conditions experienced by many areas in Atlantic Canada over the pastnumber of years have elicited a number of potential water quality problems. One isirrigation. Irrigation water, whether coming from a farm pond or river, can also be a

source of pathogens, especially during times of drought when water levels are low and airtemperatures are above average. These pathogens can then contaminate the productsbeing irrigated, which should be a serious concern for a number of producers, especiallyin fresh fruit crops like strawberries. An on-going study in the Annapolis Valley of NovaScotia is looking at the development and use of chlorination systems to treat river waterused for irrigation.

Another result of drought conditions is the lack of water for animals. In some cases,animals are being given more access directly to streams that can then becomecontaminated with feces or overloaded with disturbed sediment. In light of this,researchers at NSAC are conducting a watershed project in the Annapolis Valley of NovaScotia where streams are monitored throughout a watershed for bacterial contamination.

Another outcome of drought conditions has been an increase in the construction of farmponds. These are designed to provide either drinking water for livestock, or irrigationwater for crops. These ponds are often susceptible to contamination from manure, eitherdirectly or via runoff. This can lead to pathogen problems related to irrigation and animalhealth.

Of course the application of manure to fields can be a potential source of surface watercontamination with pathogens. For the past number of years researchers at NSAC havebeen monitoring fecal coliform levels in surface runoff from crop and pasture fieldsfertilized with liquid manure and composted manure.

Groundwater quality: Pathogen management

Researchers have also been monitoring the levels of fecal coliforms in drainage waterfrom tiled fields receiving liquid manure and composted manure. One trend noted hasbeen large numbers of fecal coliforms from plots receiving no manure. The literaturestates that this can be due to deposition by wildlife, but it is more likely due to inherenterrors associated with the quantitation of fecal coliforms using Most Probable Number(MPN) techniques. As a result, we have recently switched to E. coli monitoring usingMembrane Filtration (MF). Additional studies on the movement of E. coli through soiltreated with manure are now underway using columns containing intact soil cores. MFdata indicate no E. coli in untreated soil, but significant levels of E. coli in leachate frommanure-treated soils. Parameters to be evaluated in these experiments include the effectof tillage on pathogen movement, the impact of soil moisture at the time of manureaddition, and the effects of freeze-thaw cycles on pathogen leaching. In addition, fieldstudies are underway on the survivability of E. coli in tilled and untilled soil receivingmanure inputs.

Wastewater treatment: Pathogen management

Researchers at NSAC have been extensively investigating the efficacy of constructedwetlands in treating pathogen levels in a number of agricultural wastes. These includethe overflow from lagoons containing liquid hog and dairy manure, and milk house wash

waters. In addition to constructed wetlands at a number of NS farms, several miniature-scale and full-scale research wetlands have been constructed at NSAC. These wetlandsare very effective at reducing the levels of E. coli and BOD. As well, the efficacy of peatfilters as waste treatment systems is also being studied.

Solid waste treatment: Pathogen management

One of the most environmentally significant solid wastes from agriculture is animalmanure. Several of the projects mentioned above compare the levels of pathogens inboth surface runoff and tile drainage from crop and pasture fields receiving liquid andcomposted manure. Composting reduces the levels of pathogens in manure.

Another pathogen issue in agriculture is the disposal of animal mortalities. There areseveral projects being undertaken at NSAC on the composting of animal carcasses.These presently include mink and hogs. Leachate from the compost piles and samples ofthe finished product are collected and monitored for the presence of pathogens.

Some General Sources of Information: Water quality

Government of Canada. Environment Canada. Web site – Water information:www2.ec.gc.ca/water/e_main.html

Newfoundland and Labrador. Department of the Environment. 2001. Web site – Waterresources management: www.gov.nf.ca/env/Env/water_resources.asp

Prince Edward Island. Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment. Web site– Water quality: www.gov.pe.ca/fae/env/waterquality.php3

Nova Scotia. Department of Environment and Labour. Web site – Clean water watch:www.gov.ns.ca/enla/RMEP/h2o.htm

New Brunswick. Department of Environment and Local Government. Web site – Waterquality: www.gnb.ca/elg-egl/0009/0001/0009-e.html

Ontario. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2001. Information on theNutrient Management Act. www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/agops/index.html

Pathogens in the farm environment – characterizing the risk

Paul Innes DVM MScDavid Alves DVM PhD

Veterinary ScienceOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs,

Wellington PlaceRR1 Fergus ON N1M 2W3

paul.innes@omafra.gov.on.ca

Points to consider regarding pathogen management in agriculture

Livestock farms are raw food production sites – pathogens are endemic.

Health Canada estimates that between 1-2 million people have an illness associated withfood each year and between 20-40 deaths are attributed to these cases. Other significantimpacts result from person-years lost, missed work, health care expenses and long-termhealth sequelae.

Under-reporting is a significant bias in the population statistics – eg. it is estimated thatonly one in five E.coli infections are reported. Of the reported cases, Campylobacter isthe most frequently isolated pathogen, followed by Salmonella, E.coli andCryptosporidium.

People other than the food-consumer face risk associated with pathogens from agriculturethrough secondary infections, water contamination, antimicrobial resistance, and crosscontamination.

Based on the epidemiology of reported outbreaks, and from known scientific evidence,Salmonella, E.coli, Cryptosporidium, and Campylobacter pose the most significant risk(probability and impact). Significant outbreaks of other bacteria, viruses and parasitesalso occur sporadically. The environmental risk of new agents such as prions fromscrapie-infected sheep has not been widely researched in Canada. Environmentalexposure to prions has been associated with outbreaks of Chronic Wasting Disease offarmed elk in Saskatchewan.

Pathogens become established in the livestock and their environment through a complexecology of exposure and recycling associated with feed, feed additives, water, chronicinfection, clinical cases, transient colonization, addition of infected animals, rodents, andnutrient management with manure and biosolids.

The significant pathogens (Salmonella, E.coli, Cryptosporidium, and Campylobacter) aregenerally prevalent in the digestive systems of livestock (ruminants, swine and poultry).However, entero-hemorrhagic E. coli strains (EHEC) such as O157:H7 are rare in swineand poultry, and Cryptosporidium spp. of public health significance are rare in poultry.

Significant strain variation occurs resulting in certain host-specificity and virulence.Genomic study is an active area of research that will help with determining the mostlikely sources of pathogens in outbreaks and assist with the best approaches to decreasingthe risk of environmental exposure. For example, some outbreaks due toCryptosporidium have been genomically linked (DNA) to human sewage.

Testing methods are advancing rapidly. Research results over 3 years old may not bevalid. Transient shedding of Salmonella and EHEC make multiple herd level samplesover time the best estimate of pathogen load.

Excretion often occurs without clinical disease and is more likely in young stock (EHEC,Cryptosporidium and Salmonella).

Human infections can result from very small infective doses – especially in high riskgroups (children, the elderly, immunocompromised, and people taking antibiotics). The“pathogen island” concept leads to clusters of virulence genes being transferred amongbacteria. Genes conferring antibiotic resistance “jumping” between bacteria in theenvironment is an emerging issue.

Low level, chronic exposure to antibiotics can “turn on” verotoxin producing genes inEHEC.

These pathogens can survive 1-5 months in the farm environment and survival can bemuch longer in cool and damp conditions. Susceptibility to disinfectants varies –Cryptosporidium and Salmonella have the potential to be very resistant to manydisinfectants. Turbidity/debris allows protection of pathogens from disinfectants in waterand farm environment.

The complex ecology of pathogens in the farm environment makes experimental study offactors in isolation inadequate. The potential for regrowth of virulent bacterial pathogensis often ignored.

There is some evidence that the prevalence of EHEC and Cryptosporidium in water, andEHEC human infections, are higher in watersheds of agricultural areas.

Preventing exposure associated with the farm environment

Very few farm management factors significantly influence excretion. However,modelling studies with EHEC indicate that, if found, key mitigating factors on-farmwould have the largest effect on reducing pathogen load in the food chain and theenvironment (eg. new proposed EHEC vaccines).

Keeping livestock environment clean and dry, using a high level of hygiene andbiosecurity, and minimizing antibiotic use would have some effect on reducing pathogenload.

Composting of manure and deadstock works to significantly reduce pathogen load.Young stock manure should be given highest priority if possible. This may be difficult todo in liquid manure systems.

Liquid manure requires storage for 60+ days to significantly reduce pathogen levels.

On farm precautions need to ensure reduction of exposure to high risk groups of people.

Shallow wells (less than 100 feet) in sensitive areas are high risk. Best ManagementPractices for well placement, construction and management are critical.

Any coliform counts (even without positive fecal coliform test) may indicate unpotablewater (EHEC difficult to find). Testing frequently (2-3 times per year) is needed.

Multiple barrier concept needed to mitigate risk for surface and ground watercontamination and food safety, due to complex nature of the ecology. Multiple barriersare needed to ensure safety of raw foods produced on-farm – including preparation(irradiation will not address the environmental concern with pathogens).

A precautionary approach using the highest levels of Best Management Practices (BMPs)for nutrient management (eg. Environmental Farm Plan) is likely the most prudentapproach when relevant research is lacking.

Knowledge gaps and approaches to consider

Further study of the effect of BMPs on significant pathogens.

Does infectious dose of significant pathogens (not inert markers) persist in liquidmanure/soil/biosolids in the natural setting?

Are there treatments for slurry/biosolids that significantly reduce survivability ofpathogens?

Are there farm factors that have been missed? Field trials are needed to assess theefficacy of proposed new vaccines for EHEC.

Genomic linkage to human outbreaks through on-farm surveillance may help characterizeimpact of agriculture.

More stochastic modelling of pathogens in farm environment will lead to multiple criticalcontrol points.

Research teams should involve extension scientists to ensure relevant application ofresults into policy.

Piggyback surveillance sampling on any new inspection/statutes/programs to assessextent of risk moving off-farm.

Study of pathogens in the farm environment leads to extensive horizontal linkages toother ministries/agencies.

Using GIS data from watersheds, aquifers, livestock density and other relevant land usescan help to identify sensitive areas and reduce exposure to environmental pathogens.Projects of this nature are currently underway in several municipalities in Ontario.

October 3/01

ACLE Workshop 2001

Technical Session III:

Reducing Pesticide InputsChair: Ron DeHaan, PEIDA&F

Moncton, NB

November 1-2, 2001

Direction des services technologiques, 200, chemin Sainte-Foy, 9e étage, Québec (Québec) G1R 4X6Téléphone : (418) 380-2100, poste 3577- Télécopieur : (418) 380-2181

Courriel : michel.letendre@agr.gouv.qc.ca

Quebec’s Pesticide Risk Reduction Strategy

Michel Letendre1, IPM and Pesticide Advisor,and

Raymond-Marie Duchesne2, Strategy Coordinator

Direction des Services Technologiques (1) and Direction de l’Environnement et duDéveloppement Durable (2), MAPAQ, Québec

The Quebec Pesticide Risk Reduction Strategy (QPRRS) was implemented in 1992 by theQuebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its stakeholders, with the aim ofdecreasing by 50% the amount of pesticides applied on Quebec’s agricultural land by year 2003.In 1997, a more long-term goal was added, that of enhancing the adoption of IPM by growers.Since 1998, these efforts have received additional support through funding provided by theSt.Lawrence Vision 2000 Action Plan, a Canada-Quebec agreement for the protection andconservation of the St.Lawrence River. For the period 1998-2003, the focus has been given tofield crops (small grains, corn and soybean), apple and potato.

Actions supported by the Strategy

• Strategic action plans

• Since 1997, a number of crop-specific strategic action plans have been developed andimplemented by strategic teams in support of the goals of the QPRRS. The cropspresently covered are apple, berries, cranberry, carrot-onion-lettuce, cole crops,greenhouse crops, potato and field crops (cereals, corn, soybean). Priority is given toshort-term results.

• Intensification of actions leading to pesticide reduction and IPM implementation in cropsrepresenting major pesticide uses (apple, potato and field crops). Between 1998-2001, 72R&D and technology transfer projects, amounting to $ 1,8 M, have been funded throughthe St.Lawrence Vision 2000 Action Plan.

• Follow-up of the Action Plan for Reducing Insecticide Risks in and around Orchards.

• Quebec’s Plant Pest Warning Service

• The service was set up by MAPAQ in 1975, with the mandate of informing growers onthe actual presence and potential evolution of crop pests and beneficials in their area andof advising them on the most suitable pest management tactic, in an IPM and sustainabledevelopment context.

• It is composed of 11 sub-networks (apple, small fruits, cole crops, cucurbits andsolanaceous crops, muck soil vegetables, sweet corn, potato, field crops, greenhousecrops, Christmas trees and ornamentals), each under the responsibility of a cropprotection advisor and supported by an expert and field-monitoring committee as well asby an efficient Pest Diagnostic Lab.

• The network produce more than 200 Pest Warnings and Information Bulletins annually;these are sent to 1 700 direct subscribers (6 000 subscriptions) which, in a large majority(84%), receive the information free of charge by email. The warning and bulletins arealso available on the QPPWS Web site : http://www.agr.gouv.qc.ca/dgpar/rap. Inaddition, the network produce monitoring guides, an image bank, etc.

• Group extension services

• MAPAQ is also funding the implementation of sound agricultural practices (scouting,reduction of herbicides uses, implementation of IPM strategies, etc.), through groupextension services. These services involve currently more than 5 000 farms in 2programs: technical support groups (30 groups, involving 600-700 farms growing mainlyfruit and vegetable) and agro-environmental clubs (approx. 75 groups, involving 4 300farms mainly involved in field crops)

• Grower/public information and education

• Implementation of 3 courses on IPM at the technical college level. The one on apple isalready available; the two others will be dealing with field crops (scheduled for 2001) andpotato (scheduled for 2002).

• On-farm demonstrations and practical workshops on IPM and herbicide reductionstrategies, and on the efficient and safe use of pesticides. In 2001, field crop growersattended 60 such activities.

• Publication of various documents related to pesticide reduction and IPM. More than 100000 copies of these documents have been distributed free of charge since 1998

• Development of Indicators for Pesticide Risk Reduction

• Enhancement and support of a Provincial Pesticide Residue Analysis Program in FreshFruits and Vegetables. Following a major thrust given to the program by the QPRRS in1998, approximately 1 000 samples (75% from Quebec) are now analysed annually.

• Collaboration to the Annual Provincial Pesticide Sale Data Report produced by the

Ministry of Environment. Risk indicators are being evaluated to enhance the report. The1997 data are available on the MOE web site.

• Development of a self-evaluation matrix for adoption of agro-environmental practices(including IPM) by growers

• Other Pesticide-related Activities

• Sprayer Verification and Calibration Program. Two certification sessions are available,one on conventional and one on orchard sprayers. In 2001, 84 persons were certified forgiving the service.

• Obsolete Pesticide Collection. Under the initiative of the QPRRS, phase 1 of this programhas been made accessible to the agricultural community located north of Montreal in theFall of 2001. This initiative is funded jointly by the Crop Protection Institute (nowCropLife Canada) the Quebec Ministry of Environment, the Quebec Farmers’ Union andMAPAQ

• Reduced Pesticide Rates Working Group. The group was set up in 1998 with the mandateof monitoring the situation on the use of reduced pesticides rates in Canada, the U.S. andEurope, and of advising the QPRRS Coordination and Implementation Committee onactions to be taken. This has resulted in the publication, in 2000 (French version) and2001 (English version), of an information leaflet on the use of reduced herbicide rates infield crops (50 000 copies printed).

• Communication and marketing

• The QPRRS has now its own web site(http://www.agr.gouv.qc.ca/dgpar/agroenv/strategie-slv.html), logo and slogan.

• Various activities and publications also help promote the Strategy, its activities as well asIPM within the growers’ community and with other stakeholders.

•• AAnnnnuuaall bbuuddggeett

• MMAAPPAAQQ iinnppuuttss aapppprrooxxiimmaatteellyy $$ 55 MM ppeerr yyeeaarr iinn hhuummaann aanndd ffiinnaanncciiaall rreessoouurrcceess iinn tthheeSSttrraatteeggyy,, tthhrroouugghh vvaarriioouuss pprrooggrraammss

• Other stakeholders include the SStt..LLaawwrreennccee VViissiioonn 22000000 AAccttiioonn PPllaann,, wwiitthh aann aannnnuuaalliinnppuutt ooff $$ 00,,55 MM ffoorr tthhee ppeerriioodd 11999988--22000033,, AAggrriiccuullttuurree aanndd AAggrrii--FFoooodd CCaannaaddaa,, tthheeQQuueebbeecc FFaarrmmeerrss’’ UUnniioonn,, QQuueebbeecc MMiinniissttrryy ooff EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt aanndd ootthheerr QQuueebbeeccddeeppaarrttmmeennttss..

RReessuullttss oobbttaaiinneedd

•• DDeeccrreeaasseedd ppeessttiicciiddee ssaalleess

•• TThhee llaasstt ooffffiicciiaall Annual Provincial Pesticide Sale Data Report produced by the Ministryof Environment points out a reedduuccttiioonn ooff 55,,33%% iinn aaggrriiccuullttuurraall ppeessttiicciiddee ssaallee ffrroomm 11999922 ttoo11999977.. FFoorr iinnsseeccttiicciiddeess aanndd ffuunnggiicciiddeess,, tthhiiss rreedduuccttiioonn rreeaacchheedd 1155%%.. PPrreelliimmiinnaarryy ddaattaaiinnddiiccaattee aann aaddddiittiioonnaall rreedduuccttiioonn iinn ssaalleess ooff 55%% bbeettwweeeenn 11999977 aanndd 11999988 ((1100%% bbeettwweeeenn11999922 aanndd 11999988)),, wwiitthh aa ssiiggnniiffiiccaanntt ddeeccrreeaassee ffoorr ffiieelldd ccrrooppss aanndd ppoottaattoo hheerrbbiicciiddeess..

•• MMoorree iimmppoorrttaanntt,, dduurriinngg tthhee 11999922--11999977 ppeerriioodd,, aa rreedduuccttiioonn ooff 1111%% iinn tthhee ppeessttiicciiddeepprreessssuurree iinnddeexx ppeerr hheeccttaarree wwaass aacchhiieevveedd ((33,,66 vvss 33,,22 kkgg//HHaa));; aa ssttiillll mmoorree iimmppoorrttaannttrreedduuccttiioonn ooff tthhiiss iinnddeexx iiss eexxppeecctteedd iinn tthhee 11999988 RReeppoorrtt..

• Decrease of pesticides in water

•• DDuurriinngg rreecceenntt yyeeaarrss,, aa rreedduuccttiioonn in the concentration of certain problem herbicides, suchas Atrazine, has been observed in the agricultural watersheds monitored by the QuebecMinistry of Environment, although new pesticides are now being detected.

•• IInnccrreeaassee iinn tthhee nnuummbbeerr ooff ffaarrmmss iinnvvoollvveedd iinn ppeessttiicciiddee rriisskk rreedduuccttiioonn aaccttiivviittiieess

• Nearly 6 000 farms were involved in IPM-related activities in 2001

•• YYeeaarr aafftteerr yyeeaarr,, wwee nnoottee aallssoo aann iinnccrreeaassee iinn tthhee aaccrreeaaggee ooff ccoorrnn aanndd ssooyybbeeaann ggrroowwnnwwiitthhoouutt cchheemmiiccaall iinnppuutt,, uunnddeerr mmeecchhaanniiccaall wweeeeddiinngg oorr wwiitthh rreedduucceedd rraatteess ooff hheerrbbiicciiddeess

Designing IPM Programs for Crop Production in PEI.

Rachael M. Cheverie,

IPM Specialist, PEIDAF

Approximately 113,000 acres of potatoes are grown annually on Prince Edward Island. Thisacreage has increased dramatically over the past 10 years and has led to an increase in pestproblems and reliance on pesticides, however, environmental concerns over agricultural run-offinto island waterways have highlighted the need for more sustainable production practices. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is regarded as a method to achieve environmentally andeconomically sound production. In order to be successful, IPM programs need to be designedfor each commodity relative to the geographical production area. Pilot projects in 2001, testedthe feasibility of a number of IPM practices in PEI.

Reducing Pesticide Inputs on PEI Potatoes

Steve W. Watts,Farm Manager,

Eric C. Watts Farm Inc., PEI

Eric C. Robinson Inc. operates a mid-large size potato farm in the eastern part of Prince Countyon Prince Edward Island. Owners and management share a strong philosophy towards farming inan environmentally responsible manner. A holistic approach is taken to achieve this goal andincludes numerous strategies including, but not limited to, various soil conservation practices,residue management, waste reduction/elimination and pesticide reduction projects.

The author discussed several pesticide reduction initiatives and elaborate on rationale, currentstatus and future challenges.

ACLE Workshop 2001

Panel Presentation:

Climate Change and AdaptationChair: Gordon Fairchild, ECSWCC

Moncton, NB

November 1-2, 2001

New Brunswick Climate Change Hub

Eddie Oldfield,Director

Climate change is the change in the average weather of any given region, changes intemperature wind patterns and precipitation, changes in the climate of the earth as awhole or changes in the rate and magnitude of change. This climate change may haveserious implications for the Environment, natural ecosystems and human health.

Our climate is changing and the changes are attributable to human activities that haveincreased the concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Greenhouse gases(GHG) from human activities include carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons,nitrous oxide, and HCFC’s & HFC’s. The carbon dioxide concentration in theatmosphere has increased 31% since 1750, the highest level it has been in 20 millionyears.

The increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to a trappingof incoming solar radiation that produces a “greenhouse effect” that warms theatmosphere. Scientists are now predicting an increase in average global temperature ofbetween 1.4 and 5.8 C. by 2100.

We need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Currently, the transportation andenergy sectors are the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, while the agriculturesector contributes about 10 to 13 % of Canada’s emissions. As part of its response to itsthe commitments under the “Kyoto Accord”, Canada has developed a First NationalBusiness Plan and Implementation Strategy on Climate Change. To enhance awarenessand understanding of climate change, Canada has established provincial and territorialClimate Change Hubs.

The New Brunswick Climate Change Hub is part of a larger network of Hubs across thecountry. Which is part of the First Business Plan and Implementation Strategy on ClimateChange. The Hubs are multi-stakeholder entities facilitating public education andoutreach activities on climate change. The New Brunswick Hub is hosted by the NewBrunswick Lung Association and is funded by the Government of Canada, the NewBrunswick Environmental Trust Fund and other partners.

The New Brunswick Climate Change Hub’s objectives are to inform, educate and buildawareness of the science and impacts of climate change, including the capacity to adapt;to develop a broad support for making climate change a priority; and to encourage andmotivate New Brunswickers to take personal; and corporate actions to reduceGreenhouse gas emissions.

The NB Hub is an excellent resource for information, supports community-basedactivities and projects (in education and outreach), helps to identify and form partnerships(for outreach), encourages policies and actions that reduce GHG emissions and promotesindividual and corporate leadership in climate change issues.

The New Brunswick Climate Change Hub

Tel: (506) 462-0930Email: cchub@nb.lung.ca

Address:

The New Brunswick Climate Change HubThe New Brunswick Lung Association

65 Brunswick Street,Fredericton, NB

E3B 1G5

Climate Change Agricultural Awareness Initiative

Caroline Pagé, M.Sc. Water Sciences

Climate Change Agricultural Awareness Partnership Project CoordinatorEastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre (ECSWCC)

Climate variability has always been a major factor in the vulnerability of agriculture tofluctuating economic conditions and can affect agriculture’s impact on the environment.Potential climate change impacts on agriculture are significant considerations inbalancing future economic development, potential environmental consequences andcompetitiveness. The increasing temperature predicted by Climate models could increasethe risk of pest infestation, flooding events, drought, soil erosion and moreover, have adirect impact on water quantity and quality, thus increasing competition for this valuableresource.

The agriculture sector, especially producers, can play a key role in reducing greenhousegase (GHGs) emissions and in sequestration of GHGs. It is estimated that between 10%and 13% of Canadian GHG emissions come from the agriculture sector. Even if thoseemissions are less than from the energy and transportation sectors, the emissions fromagriculture are of concern. In contrast to the other sectors where Carbon Dioxide is themain GHG, agricultural activities emit methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) in a largerproportion (38% and 61% respectively). However, those two GHGs are known for havinga global warming potential (GWP) much more important then CO2.

To identify how we could reduce the GHG emissions coming from agriculture, we haveto better understand how those GHGs are produced. Research initiatives are underway tocharacterise the sources but we can say that manure, ruminant animals and fertilizers areimportant sources. Consequently, activities have to be organised to promote awareness ofthe agricultural sector leadership role in reducing GHGs and adaptation to climate changein the region.

Following it's engagement in Kyoto to reduce it's emissions of GHGs, the CanadianFederal Government established the Canadian Climate Change Action Fund (CCAF).The CCAF has been created to support research and awareness initiatives that fosteremission reductions. One of these initiatives is the Awareness Partnership Project. Thepartners in this project are: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) - Prairie FarmRehabilitation Administration (PFRA) Shelterbelt Centre; Canadian Cattlemen’sAssociation (CCA); Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA ); Eastern Canada Soil &Water Conservation Centre (ECSWCC); and Soil Conservation Council of Canada(SCC). The goals of this initiative are to 1) increase awareness of producers and thegeneral public of GHG issues and solutions (carbon sequestration, emission reductions)relative to the agri-food industry; 2) build and strengthen the national network oforganizations, agencies, and institutions that can contribute to agricultural solutions toGHG issues; and 3) identify and promote Best Management Practices that can reduceGHGs emissions.

Each of these partners have a role to play in this project, either through events such asworkshops, conferences, field tours; or through awareness material such as videos,brochures, stands, articles, etc. Two full-time coordinators have been hired to manage thisProject: one was hired by AAFC-PFRA at the Indian Head Shelterbelt Centre and focuseson Western Canada and the other one, myself, was hired by the ECSWCC and is workingon promotion and awareness in Eastern Canada. The main objectives of our work will bethe promotion of Best Management Practices (BMP) that could be used to mitigate theemissions of GHGs. Some of these BMP are already well known but others need to beadapted and promoted. The important BMPs identified by the partners for reducing GHGemissions are :

• Grazing management• Land use conversion and land use enhancements (Forages in rotation,

permanent forage cover on environmentally sensitive lands)• Tree planting on agricultural lands (windbreaks, buffer zones)• Manure management• Soil conservation and soil erosion reduction• Fertilizer management

As a key partner, the ECSWCC is playing a crucial role in this project. The Centre's rolesare to help organise workshops and awareness activities, produce awareness material,review the EFP workbook and BMP to include GHGs, demonstration sites and fieldtours, networking with organisations and stakeholders and coordination. Since thebeginning of the project last February, some important activities have already beenorganised such as the Environmental Farm Planning Workshop in Moncton, March 29-31, 2001, a Leadership Training (train the trainers) session and this panel discussion atthis ACLE workshop. Networking is being established with the SCC TAKING CHARGETeams in Atlantic Canada and Quebec as well and we are in the process of identifyinghow we can work together.

Other joint initiatives are being considered like demonstration sites, EFP Workbookrevision and creation or revision of existing Climate Change infosheets to Eastern Canadaconditions. These activities should improve awareness and understanding of agriculture’simpact on the GHG budget and climate change and bring about a positive attitude in theprivate and public sectors for demonstration projects and adoption of agriculturalpractices which sequester carbon (agroforestry, range management, direct seeding andmodel farms) and reduce GHG emissions (manure management and reduced tillage).

As Climate Change is of common concern, you also can play a role in this initiative, bothpersonally, as a citizen, and professionally, as a land engineer or agricultural specialist. Inthe latter case, we are there to collaborate with you. Whether it is to identify a ClimateChange speaker, organise a field tour or distribute awareness material, we can supportyou. We should not forget that agriculture has a role to play in Climate Change and we,as agricultural specialists, should all take positive actions.

We hope these awareness activities will lead to conscientiousness in Eastern Canada andconsequently that actions will be undertaken to reduce GHGs emissions from theagriculture sector. These actions will have to be done in partnership between theagricultural community, the environmental groups, the government, the institutions andthe whole society and take into consideration the economic viability and environmentalsustainability of the industry.

Canadian Climate Impacts & Adaptation Network ( C-CIARN )Atlantic Canada Regional Node

Kyle McKenzie,Coordinator

C-CIARN Atlantic is the Atlantic Canada Regional Node of the Canadian Climate Impacts andAdaptation Research Network. The theme of the network is what impact climate change willhave on Canada and how we will adapt to these changes. C-CIARN Atlantic's aim is to stimulateinteraction between those who do research into impacts and adaptation (university andgovernment researchers) and those who can make use of the information (community groups,private sector corporations, planning and policy making bodies, etc.). This interaction can be inboth directions, as not only will stakeholders benefit from research, but also they can helpidentify areas in which new research needs to be done.

C-CIARN is organized into six regional (Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, British Columbia,and Northern Territories), and seven sectoral (agriculture, coastal zones, fisheries, health,landscape hazards, and water resources) nodes, with offices across the country.

Through its web site (http://atlantic.c-ciarn.ca), C-CIARN Atlantic offers free membership in thenetwork, allowing interested parties to keep up with developments in the field of climate changeimpacts and adaptation and network with individuals and organizations with appropriateinterests, expertise, or needs. Funding and conference opportunities will also be promoted. If youhave a problem or need with regard to impacts and adaptation, C-CIARN Atlantic can assist youto find help.

A research database is under construction. This will list all research done on climate changeimpacts and adaptation done in the Atlantic Provinces, as well as link to similar databases inother regions of the country.

C-CIARN Atlantic will host a workshop in the winter of 2002. Researchers and stakeholdersfrom around the Atlantic Provinces will be invited to gather and share their research andexperience in the impacts and adaptation field, as well as help determine future researchpriorities to be communicated to funding agencies.

Agriculture is among both the most impacted and the most adaptable sectors. Adaptationincludes not only minimizing the negative impacts (such as coping with drought), but alsomaximizing the positive impacts (such as utilizing longer growing seasons). Adaptation alsoincludes potential to mitigate further impacts through greenhouse gas emission reduction andcarbon sequestration. Some adaptation strategies for agriculture might include cropdiversification, irrigation, crop insurance, and financial subsidies.

NSAC Climate Change Chair Update

Rob GordonHead of Engineering

A Research Chair in Climate Change has been established at NSAC. The Climate ChangeResearch Chair is supported by funding from:

• Climate Change Funding Initiative for Agriculture• NSAC• Environment Canada• Nova Scotia Soils Institute• Nova Scotia Agri-Futures

The Climate Change Research Chair represents a dedication of human resources to research andoutreach activities:

• researching and implementing greenhouse gas mitigation options• evaluating climate change adaptation and impacts issues• measuring baseline greenhouse gas emission levels

NSAC Climate Change activities:

• funding through the Canadian Foundation for Innovation• State of the art tunable diode laser gas analyzer systems

• CH4

• N20

Agricultural Research Initiatives inGreenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Change

David BurtonClimate Change Research ChairNova Scotia Agriculture College

In addition to activities in extension and public outreach currently being initiated in theregion there several research programs being initiated that address the issues of themitigation of greenhouse gases from agriculture.

The greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are different from other sectors of theCanadian economy in that they primarily involve the production of nitrous oxide andmethane from biological processes rather than carbon dioxide emissions associated withfossil fuel use. There is considerable uncertainty as to the magnitude of these emissionsand the opportunities to reduce these emissions under Canadian conditions. The ClimateChange Funding Initiative in Agriculture was undertaken by Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada to address information gaps in the greenhouse gas emissions from Canadianagriculture. This presentation will review the various projects funded under thisinitiative, highlighting the projects being conducted in the Atlantic Region.

Climate Change and Adaptation - A Producer Perspective and the role of the SCC “Taking Charge” Initiative

Barry Cudmore,

Producer, Brackley Beach, PEI

We have probably all heard something about climate change and global warming. The radiationfrom the sun reaches the earth, some is reflected or re-radiated back into space and some istrapped by the atmosphere and contributes to warming the earth. The concentration of“Greenhouse gases” (GHGs) have built up in the atmosphere in the industrial era trapping moreof this radiation and the atmosphere is warming more than it did before. This effect is known asGlobal Warming.

This climate change can have serious impacts. Consider the costs of recent extreme events suchas the Ice Storm of 1999 ($1.2 B), the floods in the Saguenay in 1996 ($500. M), the 1997 RedRiver Flood ($4 M.), the Calgary hail storm of 1996 and 1991 ($140 M & $360. M), or the stormsurge of 200 in PEI $2 M). The risks of extreme climate events such as these demonstrate thepotential financial impacts of climate change. There are also increased risks for soil erosion,agricultural runoff and consequent pollution.

What can agriculture do to do its part in reducing the risks of climate change? There are practicalmeasures and interventions in agriculture than can reduce GHG emissions from agriculture orcontribute to the sequestration of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These include bettermanure and fertilizer management, improved animal feeding strategies, improved pasturemanagement, improved soil management practices and agroforestry.

Conventional plowing was once commonplace, but conservation tillage or no-till is now oftenrecommended. Conservation tillage can favour the buildup of organic matter in the soil. This soilorganic matter contains carbon, and represents a “soil sink” that traps some of the carbon thatwould otherwise end up in the atmosphere as GHG contributing to global warming and climatechange.

Following BMPs for nutrient or manure use can reduce GHG emissions from agriculture andreduce the risks of climate change. Retiring marginal land, improving cropping systems,agroforestry and restoring wetlands are other practices that could reduce the potential impacts ofglobal warming and climate change.

The Soil Conservation Council of Canada has had a “Taking Charge” project for the past twoyears with producers across Canada. The Taking Charge Teams in each province have beenmeeting and participating in activities examining the roles of individual producers, conservationorganizations, the provincial governments, the federal government and agricultural organizationsin reducing the risks represented by climate change.

Climate change is a complex issue, but farmers must “Take Charge” and participate in thenational process, public awareness, political awareness, policy discussion and design and inclimate change impacts and adaptation implementation strategies in agriculture.

ACLE Workshop 2001

Poster Abstracts

Moncton, NB

November 1-2, 2001

CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR THE AGRICULTURELANDSCAPE

Nicole, Allain,Ducks Unlimited, (Atlantic Provinces)

Founded in 1938, Ducks Unlimited is a private, non-profit organization dedicated to the

conservation of wetlands for the benefit of North America’s waterfowl, wildlife and

people. To date we have secured and protected over 18 million acres of habitat,

established nearly 6 thousand projects across Canada and are recognized as the nations

most trusted and respected conservation organization. The Ducks Unlimited staff

comprises of Biologist, Engineer, Habitat technicians, GIS specialists, Agricultural

specialists, Policy specialists, Conservation program managers, Administration advisors,

Accountants, Secretaries and Membership service representatives.

The Atlantic region is an important breeding, staging and wintering area for several sea

duck species, black ducks, and geese. DU’s focus in this area includes the conservation

and restoration of key wetland habitat for waterfowl and other wetland species. DU

program is focused on the coastal and agricultural areas of the Maritimes as these areas

represent the most productive habitats and have been most altered by man.

A significant component of DU’s conservation program offers an extensive agricultural

program. This program focuses on small wetland restoration, waste management system

ponds, soil conservation practices, riparian management, fencing and watering system as

well as development of promotional tools and educational. We deliver these programs in

partnership with wetlands and watershed groups, conservation clubs and associations that

want to improve water quality in their area. Society benefits from these initiative

programs by reducing the threat of nutrient and bacterial contamination to drinking and

recreational waters. The shell fishing benefit from a reduction in bacterial loads reaching

shell-fishing areas. Waterfowl and aquatic wildlife benefit, as productive habitat is

maintained and enhanced.

Hog Manure and the Potato Crop

Allan J. Campbell and John MacleodCrops And Livestock Research Centre, AAFC

A three year study was started to compare rates of liquid and solid hog manure to fertilizer applied atequivalent nitrogen (N rates) in growing a crop of Russet Burbank potatoes. Manure and fertilizer wereapplied to provide the following rates of N; 0, 75, 150, 300 kg/ha. All treatments were broadcast with a lowlevel boom or a box spreader and were pre-plant incorporated. The highest rate of liquid manure was 180t/ha and the highest solid application was 82 t/ha. All treatments received a base fertilizer treatment of 25-200-200. Plots were grown on a new field each year.

In 1999 the yield of marketable potatoes ranged from a low of 15 t/ha to a high of 37 t/ha. In 1999 theliquid manure and fertilizer treatments out yielded the solid manure treatment. In 2000 the yields rangedfrom a low of 22 t/ha to a high of 32 t/ha. In 2000 the highest yield was with liquid manure with thefertilizer second and the solid manure third.

In both years the potato crop fertilized with liquid manure had the highest yields and highest yields wereobtained at rates that gave between 150 and 300 kg of N. The same trends were true in the case of thefertilizer treatment. In the case of the solid manure the curve was still climbing at the 300 kg rate of Nindicating that if more solid manure had been applied then yields may have increased Also this was only aone year application of solid manure, if solid manure was applied each year of the rotation residual effectsfrom previous years may have improved potato yields. The data presented indicates that potatoes can besuccessfully grown using liquid manure as the main nitrogen source.

The Reduction of Milkhouse Waste Water On Dairy Farms

Trevor DillmanPeter Havard, Ali Madani, Rob Gordon, Alan Fredeen,

In order for dairy farms to produce high quality milk it is necessary for them to clean theirpipeline systems using a large volume of water and chemicals after each milking. Byusing a pilot milking system that models a tie-stall dairy operation, alternative methods ofwashing, using less water and chemicals, are being evaluated. The alternative methodsinclude recycling of the detergent and acid solutions and the reuse of water for multiplecycles. The alternative methods could reduce total water use up to 50% and chemical useup 60 %. The evaluation procedure includes: collecting and analyzing milk samples forbacterial counts, surface measurements of bacterial counts and ATP levels. Test pointswere chosen at the beginning, midpoint and end, so that a complete analysis of thealternative cleaning methods may be carried out. In addition measurements of the washwater properties are being monitored and recorded. The preliminary results show that it ispossible to clean the pipeline systems using less water and chemicals. Results indicatethat the cleanliness of the system was achieved when by both the recycling of washsolutions and reusing of wash water was tested. Evaluation was based primarily on labpasteurized counts and ATP measurement gathered during the trials.

A Prototype Conservation Pipeline Wash Systemfor the NSAC RAC Milking Equipment

Peter HavardNova Scotia Agricultural College

A prototype wash system for cleaning of pipelines and milking equipment has beendesigned and is currently being constructed for the NSAC Ruminant Animal Centre (RAC) andfor testing this winter. The system is based on experience and results of a wash system andpipeline installed at the BEEC facility at Agrotech Park in Truro. Results of tests at this facilityare presented in another poster shown here by Trevor Dillman a postgraduate student working onthis project. Measurements have shown that water and chemical can be reduced by over 50%without loss of sanitation.

The wash system being constructed is designed to be able to operate in two differentstrategies for conservation. The first one is being called “recycling” in which we repeatedly usethe same detergent wash and acid rinse for the same purpose. The acceptable frequency ofchanging this water will need to be established through careful monitoring of the system. Thesanitizing rinse will also be saved and used as the first rinse water after milking. This strategy isexpected to save 60% of water use and higher amount of chemical depending on frequency ofchange. The second wash strategy is called “reuse” in which the water being used for sanitizebefore milking is saved and heated for use as the detergent water and this water is saved againand used as the first rinse water. The acid rinse will be saved and reused for the save purpose. We expect similar water savings but chemical savings are acid and some chlorine in detergent. This system is expected to require less management compared to the recycling approach. Bothapproaches will be tested under farm conditions.

The system is independent of the current wash system so in the event of a problem theoperator can use the previous wash system. The conservation wash system consists of twocontrol boxes and a set of three storage tanks. The Mitsubishi FX controller provides the maincontrol with 8 digital inputs and an expanded 22 digital outputs. The controller is programmablefrom a PC type computer allows us to update a program or load a completely new programs. The controller automatically controls three chemical pumps, hot and cold water valves, 8 ball andflap valves, three fifty gallon plastic tanks, 3.5kW titanium heater, stainless steel tank supportstructure and the main vacuum pump. The poster will show the layout of the system and presentthe control strategy and expected results.

Soil Conservation for Fresh Pack Carrots

D. Holmstrom, K. Sanderson and S. WyandCrops and Livestock Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

In Prince Edward Island, carrot producers are concerned with the increase in soil erosion in theirfields. A recently completed Environmental Farm Plan by one producer indicated that thecurrent practice of fall applied glyphosate on the forage crop followed by moldboard plowingand then discing and harrowing before planting the carrot crop was not sustainable. This wasfurther aggravated by preparation of the beds for the carrots using a Rumptstad hiller (powerhiller). In the fall of 1999, a project was initiated to determine the effect of several conservationtillage methods with and without mulching on soil erosion rates. Data gathered in the 2000 cropyear indicated conservation tillage did not reduce relative soil erosion rates as determined using aportable rainfall simulator following planting. Broadcast mulching prior to spring tillage didreduce relative soil erosion rates but resulted in planting problems making the practiceimpractical. In the spring of 2001, post planting soil conservation practices were compared atthree sites. One site had cereal grain as the previous crop, another was pearl millet which wasspring moldboard plowed and the third was pearl millet which was spring chisel plowed. Preliminary analysis of the data indicate relative soil erosion rates were only different at the pearl millet site which was spring chisel plowed. At that site, it was found that between rowmulching reduced relative soil erosion rates as compared to between row rye grain or dyking andthe conventional practice. Relative erosion rates were found to be between 2.2 and 3.1 timeshigher than between row mulching.

Effect of potato hilling on soil erosion and runoff rates

D. Holmstrom, R. DeHaan, B. Sanderson and J. MacLeodCrops and livestock Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

In the past few years, a number of fish kills have occurred across Prince Edward Island with manyof them being attributed to runoff from adjacent potato fields. It was observed at a number of thefish kill sites that the method of hilling influenced the amount of runoff. One hiller in particularleft a compacted furrow between potato hills which was felt reduced water infiltration andincreased the rate of runoff from the field. In 2001, a study was established to determine theeffect of three hilling techniques and two hilling times on relative soil erosion rates, water runoffand bromide concentrations in the runoff. The three hilling techniques were one pass hiller, onepass hiller equipped with between row loosener and conventional hilling which consisted of twopasses with between row tillage implement equipped with S tines followed by a final tillage passwith the same tillage implement equipped with a spade hiller. The two hilling times were three tofive days after planting and at ground crack or potato plant emergence. To give an indication of thetransportation of chemicals in the runoff, potassium bromide salt was sprayed on the soil fiveminutes prior to commencing rainfall simulator tests. Bromide salt was used because of its lowconcentration in the soil and because it is highly soluble in water. Ten samples were collectedevery twenty to thirty second intervals following the start of runoff. Each sample was analyzed forbromide concentration, weight of sediment and volume of runoff. Tests were conducted after thefirst hilling and after the second hilling. Results from the first year of the experiment indicated thatthere were no significant differences in runoff amount or relative soil erosion rates among the fivetreatments. However, time to runoff was different. Conventional hilling had runoff sooner than theone pass hiller equipped with a between row loosner when it was done three to five days afterplanting. In 2001, soil conditions were quite dry at the time of hilling. This resulted in lessbetween row smearing than has been observed in previous years with the one pass hiller. Futurework is required , therefore, to verify the results before recommendations can be made to growers.

Zero/Zone Tillage in Potatoes

D. Holmstrom, W. Arsenault, A.J. Campbell and J. A. IvanyCrops and Livestock Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Zero tillage, the practice of no tillage prior to the planting of crops and zone tillage, the practiceof tilling the area only where the crop is planted, have been used extensively in corn, as a methodof soil conservation. Limited use of this practice has been applied to row crops, such as potatoes,because of problems that occur during planting, hilling and harvesting operations. Because soilerosion is a major problem with potatoes , scientists at the Crops and Livestock Research Centre(CLRC) initiated an experiment in the fall of 1999 to evaluate zero and zone tillage, residuemanagement and conventional tillage in potatoes. Data was collected on soil moisture, relativesoil erosion rates as determined using a portable rainfall simulator, depth of seed piece, soilcompaction as measured indirectly using a cone penetrometer, weed control and potato yield.Data for the first two years of the project indicate that zero tillage does result in more variabilityin the depth of the seed piece at planting but zone tillage and residue management are similar toconventional tillage. Relative soil erosion rates did not appear to be different. However, thatmay be due to the time of measurement as runoff for the zero and zone tillage treatments couldnot be collected at simulated rainfall rate of 10.2 cm per hour. Penetrometer resistance levelswere higher for the conventional, zero and residue managed treatments as compared to the zonetillage treatment. Weed data taken in August showed that applied herbicides controlled annualbroadleaved weeds well and there was no difference in broadleaf perennial weeds betweentillage methods. Yield from the zero tillage treatment was lower than the other three treatments.

Effects of manure management systems on crop yield response

John MacLeod, Allan Campbell, Ted Van Lunen and Dan Hurnik,Crops and Livestock Research Centre, and PPIG Research Group, AVC Inc.

Manure from the AVC Inc. swine feeder barn was used to compare composted and uncomposted solidmanure to liquid manure. Manure was applied at various rates based on its N content. Liquid manure wasapplied with a conventional tanker equipped with a manifold of drop tubes spaced 0.6 m apart. Compostedand uncomposted solid manures were applied with a floor chain box spreader equipped with a pan underthe beaters to ensure a uniform spread pattern. Manures were incorporated the same day as spread. Manures were compared to equivalent N rates from a 20-10-10 fertilizer, the fertilizer mix which had theclosest nutrient ratio to the manures used. Rates of application ranged from 0 to 200 kg N per hectare in 50kg per hectare increments.

Forage (a barley ryegrass mix) was planted in the spring of manure application. Two cuts of forage weretaken for yield analyses. Yields of forages increased in response to increased rates of all nutrient sources. Similar yield increases were obtained with the liquid manure and fertilizer. Yield increases in response toincreased manure rates were lowest from the composted manure. Uncomposted manure gave yieldresponses intermediate between the liquid manure and the composted manure.

Oats were grown the second year after nutrient application without any additional nutrient application.Grain yields were determined by harvesting a 1.25 m x 8 m section with a small plot combine. Oat yieldresponses were highest following the liquid manure application, intermediate following application ofuncomposted manure and lowest after application of composted manure. There was no oat yield response tomineral fertilizer applied in the previous year.

This work represents of only one series of experiments they indicate that the liquid manure system is anefficient system for recycling nutrients. Nutrient utilization was similar from liquid manure and mineral fertilizer in the seeding year and utilization of nutrients from liquid manure was much more efficient in thesubsequent year. Nutrient utilization from composted and uncomposted solid manure was less effectivethan from the liquid manure indicating that N in solid manures is in less available form than the N in liquidmanure.

Seafood Waste as Sources of Plant Nutrients

John MacLeod, Roger Henry, Allan Campbell and Mark GrimmettCrops and Livestock Research Centre, AAFC

Current disposal of seafood processing by-products via landfill and other systems for land disposal are notsatisfactory due to risks of water contamination and odour generation. To evaluate the potential for use of suchby-products in cropping programs a study was initiated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in collaborationwith the PEI Seafood Processors Association. The objectives of the study areas follows: S to characterize the chemical composition of various fish processing wastes,S to develop a system for composting lobster/crab processing waste, S to determine safe loading rates for fresh and composted lobster processing wastes S and to determine optimum use in high value segments of agriculture (organic and nursery).

All seafood waste products contain substantial concentrations of plant nutrients. Each tonne of lobster or crabprocessing wastes contained 26 - 67 kg N, 11 - 31 Kg P, 1.5 - 5 kg K , 128 - 260 kg Ca , and 6 - 14 kg Mg ona dry matter basis. Moisture levels ranged from 23 - 75 % . Mussel wastes contained 11 - 17 kg N, 1 - 1.5 kgP. 1 - 2 kg K, 340 - 360 kg Ca and 1 kg Mg per tonne in the shell portion of the waste and 105 - 130 kg N, 0.4 -0.5 kg P, 1.2 - 1.4 kg K, 63 - 70 kg Ca and 2.7 - 2.9 kg Mg per tonne in the Bissel portion of the waste.Concentrations of most nutrients in composts made from the wastes with sawdust in approximately equalportions generally were somewhat higher than half the concentrations of nutrients in the wastes. Theconcentrations of N in the composts was generally lower than half the concentrations in the wastes.

Direct application of waste to soil is currently being compared to application of composted wastes in a rangeof organically produced crops and in nursery production of native shrubs and trees. Availability of nutrientsand potential accumulations of heavy metals will be evaluated.

On-Farm Composting of Fishery By-Products

Teresa MellishPrince Edward Island

Department of Agriculture and Forestry

Being surrounded by water in a province which has the fishery as an important contributor to itseconomic base, it is only natural that Island farmers have long recognized fish and fishery by-products as valuable nutrient sources. Fishery by-products are available annually and are richin nitrogen (N), phosphorous ( P), potassium (K ) and calcium (Ca) and can contribute toenvironmentally sustainable agricultural production. However, with the growth of rural non-farmresidents, the tolerance for the odours generated during the storage and spreading of these fisheryby-products has decreased. Composting is one way to minimize or eliminate odours from fisheryby-products. During the summer and fall of 2000 a demonstration project was conducted on twoIsland farms to develop successful composting techniques for lobster/crab waste and whole fish.

Composting of Swine Carcasses Turning a Problem into an Asset

Teresa MellishPrince Edward Island

Department of Agriculture and Forestry

Prince Edward Island has an intensive pork production sector. The trend for larger number ofanimals to be concentrated on fewer farms has led to livestock mortality disposal problems.Guidelines under the Prince Edward Island Environmental Protection Act recommend compostingas an acceptable method of disposal. Composting is a natural, biologically sound process inwhich high temperatures kill pathogens. It produces a useful, inoffensive product and is a simple,cost-efficient and effective method of breaking down biological material. The Prince Edward IslandDepartment of Agriculture & Forestry in cooperation with the Prince Edward Island HogCommodity Marketing Board initiated a project involving five Island swine producers to evaluatecomposting of swine carcasses. The project was conducted from the fall of 1995 through the summerof 1996 and all producers involved in the project have continued using composting todispose of death losses on their farms. The use of composting to dispose of normal death losses hascontinued and recently hog producers are building compost sheds on their farms.

Planting Shelterbelts: A Best Management Practice

Tricia Pollock,Climate Change Awareness Co-ordinator,

AAFC PFRA Shelterbelt Centre, Indian Head, SK

Properly planned and maintained shelterbelts provide many benefits. They reducewind, control blowing snow, protect livestock, buildings and gardens and trap snow toreplenish dugouts. Shelterbelts also provide diversification opportunities, habitat forwildlife, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester atmospheric carbon.

Farmyard shelterbelts protect buildings, gardens and livestock by reducing windand controlling blowing snow. Sheltered buildings have reduced heating costs andsheltered livestock have greater financial gain. Field shelterbelts prevent soil erosion,hold snow on fields, protect newly seeded crops and swaths and increase crop yields.They also reduce fossil fuel use by reducing the amount of acreage in crop productionand sequester atmospheric carbon resulting form agricultural practices. Forest belts aremulti-use shelterbelts which consist of a least 3-rows of trees and shrubs. They reducesoil erosion, trap snow and increase crop yields. Forest belts provide diversificationopportunities such as fruit and maple syrup production. Wildlife tree plantings providenesting cover, a food source and shelter from the weather. Planting a variety of trees andshrubs increases biodiversity in agricultural landscapes.

The Kennebecasis Watershed Restoration Committee

Brent Stanley,KWRC

The Kennebecasis Watershed Restoration Committee (KWRC) is a non-profit organizationwhose mission is to restore the aquatic environment of the Kennebecasis River Watershed tohistorical conditions for fish and other aquatic and terrestrial life.

The Committee’s goals are met through strategic habitat restoration, educational and advisoryinitiatives, and promoting public awareness and participation in the restoration of theKennebecasis River Watershed.

Strategic habitat restoration and enhancement activities are designed to promote aquatic healthand water quality through improvements to the aquatic ecosystem in its entirety. The KWRCis committed to continuing restoration activities throughout the Kennebecasis Watershed in aconcise and effective manner to reach the goal of a watershed with sustainable aquaticresources.

The KWRC, has been orchestrating and implementing restoration activities within theKennebecasis Watershed since 1994. The initiative began with a comprehensive habitatassessment identifying concerns throughout the watershed. In total, 285.5 km of stream wasstudied through a variety of methods (i.e. stream survey work, water quality sampling andstock assessment). Based on the findings from this assessment, a prioritized list of impactedsites were compiled for the watershed to provide a clear direction could be set for restorationefforts by the committee.

Trout Creek was identified as one of the most heavily impacted of the significant tributaries tothe Kennebecasis River and was of suitable size to provide an excellent test bed forrestoration efforts. The smaller size of Trout Creek enabled the group to refine streamenhancement techniques, promote public participation and initiate an education andinformation campaign. The development of a stakeholder group for Trout Creek and thepromotion of Best Management Practices (BMP's) and other educational initiatives for thecommunity have heightened awareness of water quality and aquatic health issues for the area.

The restoration efforts on Trout Creek demonstrated that the techniques developed andapplied have had a positive impact on the stream’s health. The in-stream structures haveshown dramatic results over the short period of time they have been installed. Annual icegeneration has diminished remarkably; damage by annual flood events and erosion have beenreduced; water quality and aquatic health have improved with significant narrowing anddeepening of the channel. The re-establishment of riparian vegetation has provided a bufferfor the watercourse, filtering out non point-source pollutants and providing shade to lowerwater temperatures. Riparian vegetation provides cover for aquatic species, habitat for avianand terrestrial species, and is critical in stabilizing stream banks thus reducing acceleratederosion. Restoration efforts have improved the over-all health of the system thus offering

habitat for species associated with the ecosystem. Educational initiatives have providedknowledge for stakeholders to incorporate BMP's into their day to day activities.

In light of the success of the Trout Creek project, the committee has expanded restorationefforts to all tributaries of the Kennebecasis Watershed. We have placed approximately 400in-stream structures (i.e. digger logs, rock sills, stable fords, etc.), erected more than 20 km offencing and planted approximately 60,000 seedlings within riparian zones with the fullcooperation, participation and in-kind support of the stakeholders of the watershed,particularly the farming community. Community and landowner involvement and awarenessare essential components to our projects that will help to ensure the sustainability of thewatershed for years to come.

Canadian Climate Impacts & Adaptation Network ( C-CIARN )Atlantic Canada Regional Node

Kyle McKenzie,Coordinator

C-CIARN Atlantic is the Atlantic Canada Regional Node of the Canadian Climate Impacts andAdaptation Research Network. The theme of the network is what impact climate change willhave on Canada and how we will adapt to these changes. C-CIARN Atlantic's aim is to stimulateinteraction between those who do research into impacts and adaptation (university andgovernment researchers) and those who can make use of the information (community groups,private sector corporations, planning and policy making bodies, etc.). This interaction can be inboth directions, as not only will stakeholders benefit from research, but also they can helpidentify areas in which new research needs to be done.

C-CIARN is organized into six regional (Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, British Columbia,and Northern Territories), and seven sectoral (agriculture, coastal zones, fisheries, health,landscape hazards, and water resources) nodes, with offices across the country.

Through its web site (http://atlantic.c-ciarn.ca), C-CIARN Atlantic offers free membership in thenetwork, allowing interested parties to keep up with developments in the field of climate changeimpacts and adaptation and network with individuals and organizations with appropriateinterests, expertise, or needs. Funding and conference opportunities will also be promoted. If youhave a problem or need with regard to impacts and adaptation, C-CIARN Atlantic can assist youto find help.

A research database is under construction. This will list all research done on climate changeimpacts and adaptation done in the Atlantic Provinces, as well as link to similar databases inother regions of the country.

C-CIARN Atlantic will host a workshop in the winter of 2002. Researchers and stakeholdersfrom around the Atlantic Provinces will be invited to gather and share their research andexperience in the impacts and adaptation field, as well as help determine future researchpriorities to be communicated to funding agencies.

Agriculture is among both the most impacted and the most adaptable sectors. Adaptationincludes not only minimizing the negative impacts (such as coping with drought), but alsomaximizing the positive impacts (such as utilizing longer growing seasons). Adaptation alsoincludes potential to mitigate further impacts through greenhouse gas emission reduction andcarbon sequestration. Some adaptation strategies for agriculture might include cropdiversification, irrigation, crop insurance, and financial subsidies.

The Atlantic Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Society

Gordon Fairchild,secretary, SWCS Atlantic Chapter

The Soil and Water Conservation Society is nonprofit, scientific and educational organization ofprofessional conservationists. The Soil and Water Conservation Society is recognized and respected as aneffective advocate for the conservation of soil, water and related natural resources. The mission of the Soiland Water Conservation Society is to foster the science and the art of soil, water and related naturalresource management to achieve sustainability. The Society promotes and practices an ethic recognizingthe interdependence of people and the environment.

In 1941, leaders of the soil conservation movement, including Hugh Hammond Bennett, the ``Father ofSoil Conservation``, founded the Soil Conservation Society of America. In 1987, the organization wasrenamed the Soil and Water Conservation Society to better reflect the Society’s interest in soil and waterconservation and the organization’s international membership and scope of activities.

The Society operates from its headquarters in Ankeny, Iowa. James Bruce in Ottawa is the CanadianPolicy representative on the SWCS Board of Directors and Laurens van Vliet in British Columbia is theCanadian Region Director for the SWCS. The SWCS has 75 Chapters throughout the USA, Canada andthe Carribean, including very active chapters in Alberta, Ontario and Atlantic Canada. The Chapters arethe backbone of the SWCS. They elect their own officers, create their own committees, sponsorconferences, workshops and conduct other conservation activities.

The Atlantic Chapter of the SWCS was founded in 1995 in response to a perceived need for a Chapter toplay a role in liaison, communication and networking between conservation professionals in the Atlanticregion. The Atlantic Chapter has an executive elected from the

Atlantic region and one provincial councilor appointed from each of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.

The Atlantic Chapter had been fairly active throughout the 1995-1997 period, holding several workshops,field tours and meetings, including the workshop ‘Watershed Management: Making it Work’ held in St.John’s, Newfoundland in November, 1996. In 1998 and 1999, the Atlantic Chapter established a newnewsletter which it distributes free-of-charge to professionals in the Atlantic Region. In 2000, the Chapterheld the Workshop “Water Sector: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change” in cooperation withJim Bruce and Global Change Strategies International Inc. That highly successful workshop was heldconcurrently at the 11th Atlantic Region Hydrotechnical Conference in Moncton. The proceedings of thatworkshop and other Chapter information can be found on the Chapter’s webpage at:

http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/bccse/Index_fr.htm

The Atlantic Chapter of the SWCS continues its role in liaison, communication and networking betweenconservation professionals in the Atlantic region.

ACLE Workshop 2001

Biographies

Moncton, NB

November 1-2, 2001

Thomas W. Bruulsema

Tom Bruulsema has been the Director, Eastern Canada and Northeast U.S. of the Potash andPhosphate Institute of Canada since 1995. Tom was Post-Doctoral Research Associate at theUniversity of Minnesota, Department of Soil Science in 1994 and served 1986-1990 with theMennonite Central Committee as Research Agronomist in Noakhali, Bangladesh.

He completed a B.Sc. in agriculture in 1983, and an M.Sc. in Crop Science in 1985, both at theUniversity of Guelph, and a Ph.D. in Soil Science at Cornell University. Tom is the author of anumber of technical and scientific papers, has made many technical presentations, has been afrequent participant industry workshops and training sessions, and is an active member of manyprofessional associations (CSA, CSSS, AIC, ASA, SSSA, AAAS, CCA).

David L. Burton

Dr. David Burton currently holds the Senior Research Chair in Climate Change at the NovaScotia Agricultural College. Dr. Burton, originally from Aylesford Nova Scotia, has a B.Sc.from Dalhousie University, a M.Sc. from the University of Guelph and a Ph.D. from theUniversity of Alberta. For the past eight years Dr. Burton has been a faculty member in theDepartment of Soil Science at the University of Manitoba and served as the Acting Head of theDepartment in 2000-2001. His area of specialization is Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry.

Dr. Burton’s research examines the role of the soil environment in influencing the nature andextent of microbial metabolism in soil. His current research programs involve an examination ofthe production and consumption of greenhouse gases in natural and agricultural landscapes,sustainable manure management practices, bioremediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soil andthe assessment of the quality of the soil biological environment and its influence on overall soilquality. It is the aim of this work to better understand the factors that control microbialmetabolism and to use this information to developing sustainable land management systems.

Dr. Burton received a B.Sc. in Biology from Dalhousie University in 1979, an M.Sc. in SoilScience from the University of Guelph in 1982, and a Ph.D. in Soil Biochemistry from theUniversity of Alberta in 1989. Dr. Burton is or has been a member of the Nova Scotia Institute ofAgrologists, the National Climate Change Secretariat – Agriculture and Agri-Food Table, theManitoba Environment Committee, the Canadian Society of Soil Science (National Secretary1995-2000), the Canadian Agricultural Research Council Expert Committee on GreenhouseGases and Carbon Sequestration, the Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation ResearchNetwork Atlantic Canada Regional Node (C-CIARN Atlantic) Advisory Committee, and theScientific Review Committee – Program on Biological Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks,Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Rachael Cheverie

Rachael graduated from MacDonald College in 1994 with B.Sc. (Agr) in SoilScience and from the University of Guelph in April, 1997 with M.Sc. in Environmental Biology.Her thesis topic was 'Resistance Management Strategies for the use of NewLeaf Potatoes forControl of the Colorado Potato Beetle'

She worked in Technology Development for Dow AgroSciences Canada out of Guelph untilAugust 1998 when returned to PEI to take position of IPM Specialist, with the PEIDAF.

Barry J. Cudmore

Barry Cudmore was born Charlottetown and graduated from UPEI with a B.Sc. in 1972. Barry isfrom a farm family and has been involved full time with the farm operation since 1975. Theirfarm includes a 200 sow (farrow to finish) operation, 400 acres of grains, 50 acres of hay and 55acres of elite seed potatoes. Barry has been very actively involved in agricultural sustainabilityand in supporting family farm issues in PEI, including participation: as chair of the PEIEnvironmental Farm Plan Steering Committee; as a committee member on the PEI Round Tableon Resource Land Use; as a member of the National Agricultural and Environment Committee;as an agricultural industry spokesperson on PEI and for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture;and as a founding member of an international development group “Farmers Helping Farmers”.Barry, his wife Ellen and four children, Jeanne, Heather, Andrew and Peter have an excellentfamily farm. Their swine operation has won productivity awards each year since 1987. Barrywas inducted into the Agricultural Hall of Fame in 1999.

Raymond-Marie Duchesne

Dr. Duchesne received a B.Sc. in biology in 1974 and a Ph.D. in entomology from UniversitéLaval in 1980. His specialty is biological control of insects using viruses. He worked for theQuébec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 1980-1986 as a pesticide specialist and1986-1997 as head of biological control of crops. Since 1997, he has been coordinator of cropprotection strategy and coordinator of pesticide management in agriculture for the SLV 2000program. He is an active member of several professional and scientific societies.

Paul Innes

Dr. Innes was born and raised in Toronto. After graduating from the Ontario Veterinary Collegein 1992, he spent 4 years in private practice in southwestern Ontario before returning to theUniversity of Guelph to complete a Masters degree in Epidemiology. Paul has worked as aprivate consultant on issues of food safety and risk assessment, and is currently the SurveillanceVeterinary Epidemiologist with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. His main responsibilities in this position are outbreak investigation and surveillance for issues ofsignificant animal health and related public health importance.

Michel Letendre

Michel graduated with a B.Sc. in biology and a M.Sc. in entomology from the Université deMontréal. He has worked with the Québec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food since1974 as research entomologist in pest insects of field crops (1974-1987), forage plantscoordinator of the Pest Protection Warning Network of Québec (avertisseur du Réseaud’avertissements phytosanitaires- plantes fourragéres, 1987-1998), and as IPM specialist andprovincial coordinator of the minor use pesticide program since 1998.

He has been the President of the Canadian Expert Committee on IPM since 1999, representsQuébec on the Canadian Crop Production Committee, and is an active member of many othercommittees and scientific or professional associations.

Christine MacKinnon

Christine MacKinnon is the Acting Director of Farm Extension and Market Development withthe Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture & Forestry. She is a graduate of NSAC,Macdonald College of McGill University and the University of Saskatchewan. She is aprofessional engineer with experience in agricultural extension, environmental protection, policyand strategic planning.

Kyle McKenzie

Kyle McKenzie is the Coordinator of the Atlantic Canada Regional Node CanadianClimate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network at Dalhousie University.

Kyle received a B.Sc. (Honours, Geology) from Dalhousie University in 1991, aM.A. (Regional Planning and Resource Development) from the University of Waterloo,1996 and a Certificate in Environmental Entrepreneurism from the University of WesternOntario in 1997

Kyle has been previously emplyed with the Nova Scotia Department of Transportation andPublic Works, 1998-2000, and SNC Lavalin, 2001.

Terence McRae

Terence has worked with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) since 1992. He iscurrently Associate Director, Environment Bureau, AAFC.

He was co-leader of AAFC's Agri-Environmental Indicator Project(1993-2000) and is presentlyChairman of OECD's Joint Working Party on Agriculture and the Environment. Prior to workingwith AAFC, he worked with Environment Canada's State of the Environment Program andInland Waters Directorate (1985-1992).

He earned his BA (Sociology) in 1981 from Bishop's University, B SC (Agriculture) in 1985from McGill University, a Graduate Diploma (International Development/Cooperation ) in 1991from the University of Ottawa and a MA (Geography) in 2000 from Carleton University.

Bonar Morton

Bonar farms with his family in Kent County, New Brunswick. He is a fourth generation farmer.The family farm started in 1926 when the family settled in the Richibuctou area from Scotland.Their farm has a small feedlot with 70 head of feeder beef and also 180 dairy cattle. They crop400 acres. Eighty acres are cropped to cereals (barley and oats), 35 acres to corn, with 40 acresas pasture, 100 acres in alfalfa and the rest is in orchard grass and double-cut clover. Bonarjoined the Kent County Agri-Conservation Club in 1999.

Laurence Nason

Laurence operated a feedlot and seedstock farm operation in Stewiacke, Nova Scotia for 20years. He has had a very long, active involvement with local government, having served as awarden of Colchester County for 12 years. He has a management degree from DalhousieUniversity, and degrees from universities in Holland and in England.

He is currently the Chief Executive Officer of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture.

Eddie Oldfield

Mr. Oldfield is the Director for the New Brunswick Public Education and Outreach Hub, basedin Fredericton at the New Brunswick Lung Association. The Climate Change Hub is a multi-stakeholder group funded by Provincial and Federal governments to increase public educationand outreach on climate change in New Brunswick.

Mr. Oldfield has recently been appointed to the national Youth Roundtable on the Environment –a group of youth from across Canada that provide input to the Minister of Environment DavidAnderson on key environmental issues, policies and programs.

He is also a student at Ryerson University, taking courses online in Applied Digital Geography and Geographical Information Systems (GIS). In addition to his studies in GIS, Mr.Oldfield is the designated Green-Map Maker for the City of Fredericton, NB, as part of theinternational Green Map System.

In his spare time (☺) Mr. Oldfield enjoys playing and composing music (piano, guitar, sings), aswell as drawing and painting.

Caroline Pagé

Caroline Pagé was recruited in June 2001 by the Eastern Canada Soil and Water ConservationCentre (ECSWCC) as co-ordinator for Eastern Canada for the CCAF Climate Change AgriculturalAwareness Partnership Project. Her role consists of developing and adapting education material forthe public and the agricultural community as well as participating in the promotion of agriculturalpractices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

She completed her B.Sc. in biology at Université Laval, Ste-Foy, QC in 1996 and obtained a Masterdegree (M.Sc.) in water sciences from the National Institute in Scientific Research in Water (INRS-Eau), Sainte-Foy, QC in 1999. Through her studies, she gained experience in ecotoxicology, animalecology and water sciences.

Originally from Quebec city, she moved in New Brunswick in 1999. She first worked in projectmanagement as co-ordinator of international projects in natural resources at the Université deMoncton- Campus Edmundston and the Centre of Excellence in Agricultural and BiotechnologicalSciences. She also completed two contracts with the ECSWCC working on climate change relatedconferences. A world traveller, Caroline has also conducted missions in China, Benin, France andBelgium and travelled extensively in Mexico, Panama and Europe.

Tracey E. Ryan

Tracey is the Supervisor of Conservation Services at the Grand River Conservation Authority. Shereceived a Bachelor in Environmental Studies at the University of Waterloo in 1985 and a Mastersof Science in Rural Extension from the University of Guelph in 1999.

Ms. Ryan has been providing assistance to farm families and rural landowners to help them protectand improve water quality on their properties for over 15 years. She has worked for three differentConservation Authorities and is firmly committed to managing water on a watershed basis. Traceyhas been coordinating the development and delivery of the Rural Water Quality Program since itsinception.

Glenn Stratton

Dr. Stratton received a B.Sc. (Agr.), M.Sc. and his Ph.D. from University of Guelph and has beenProfessor of Environmental Microbiology at NSAC in the Dept. of Environmental Sciences for 21years.

Dr. Stratton is the coordinator of the NSAC Environmental Studies program; an adjunct Profin the Dept. of Biological Engineering, Dalhousie University; a Research Associate in the Dept. ofBiology, Acadia University; and a member of the Board of Directors of the NS Soils Institute.

Steve Watts

Steve was raised on mixed farm in Prince Edward Island. He has a diploma in International PotatoProduction Technology and a BSc (Agr) in Plant Science from Nova Scotia Agricultural College.

Steve worked two years in Potato Extension Activities with PEI Department of Agriculture, and now12 years with Eric C. Robinson Inc. He is responsible for management of a3500 acre farm, includingprimary crop potatoes and a modern packing facility. He is also responsible for activities associatedwith introduction, evaluation and market development of proprietary European potato varieties.

ACLE Workshop 2001

List of Participants

Moncton, NB

November 1-2, 2001

THE LIST OF PARTICIPANTS WILL BE ADDED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

acle workshop 2001 · 2002-02-02 · acle workshop 2001 presentations, summaries and poster...

Documents

acle high school campus 2016

the getty conservation institute field trip report...

the or-acle

acle orientation (alc - august 14, 2014)

acle - greater norwich growth

acle ventaja competitiva

settlement name: acle settlement hierarchy

acle publicidad 2011

acle buap estudio de mercado

biology presentations for a-level, in multimedia james...

acle & bure to yare benefice: who’s who · 2021. 1....

film for music -...

climaterio masculino acle, claudia cibulis, viviana...

acle desarollo del producto 2012

guide de rÉmunÉration acle - 2018 remuneration guide...

acle st...

acle up diliman season 1 primer

acle & bure to yare benefice: who’s who...2 acle & bure to...

achieving performance while reducing storage ! acle

retos y riesgos calidad total alfredo acle...