Lili - Cerdos 2009bmp_hog

8/14/2019 Lili - Cerdos 2009bmp_hog

1/111

Environmental Manual

for Hog Producers in

Alberta

BENEFICIAL

MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES

E N V I R O N M E N T




2/111


3/1111September 2002

FOREWORDBeneficial Management Practices: Environmental Manual forHog Producers in Alberta

These farm practices guidelines were developed for Alberta pork producers through the coopera-tion of industry, government and interested stakeholders to create greater awareness and under-standing of beneficial management practices for the environment for pork producers in Alberta.

Information presented in this publication is based on the best available research data and years ofexperience. The guidelines presented are intended to provide a range of management options forhog producers of various sizes. This document is a living document and will be updatedregularly to incorporate new proven technologies and information on environmental practices.Individuals not experienced in pork production practices should not extract portions of thispublication, nor draw inference, without considering all aspects of production. These guidelinesshould not be adopted literally into legislation, in whole or in part, by any level of government.

Developed by:Alberta Pork

Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development

Funded by:Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Agriculture Initiatives

Western Economic Diversification Fund

Alberta Pork

Alberta Agriculture, Food & Rural Development

Alberta Environmental Sustainable Agriculture

Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development Fund

Acknowledgements:Alberta Pork

Alberta Agriculture, Food & Rural Development

Intensive Livestock Working GroupTexas A & M University

Landwise

The Wilson Law Office

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Center

Alberta Environment

Alberta Association of Agricultural Fieldmen

Natural Resources Conservation Board

Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Canadian Farm Business Management Council

Environmental Law Center

Alberta Health and Wellness

University of AlbertaAherne Nutrition Consulting

West Peake Consulting Ltd.

Agviro, Inc.

Prairie Swine Centre Inc.


4/111

DisclaimerThe primary purpose of the Beneficial Management Practices: Environmental Manual for Hog Producers in

Alberta is to assist producers in implementing beneficial management practices.

It is important to be aware that while the authors have taken every effort to ensure the accuracy andcompleteness of the Manual, the Manual should not be considered the final word on the areas of lawand practice that it covers. Producers should seek the advice of appropriate professionals and experts asthe facts of individual situations may differ from those set out in the Manual.

All information (including descriptions of or references to products, persons, web sites, services orpublications) is provided entirely "as is" and the authors make no representations, warranties orconditions, either expressed or implied, in connection with the use of or reliance upon this information.This information is provided to the recipient entirely at the risk of the recipient and, because therecipient assumes full responsibility, the authors shall not be liable for any claims, damages or lossesof any kind based on any theory of liability arising out of the use of or reliance upon this information(including omissions, inaccuracies, typographical errors and infringement of third party rights).


5/111

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Client and Objective

1.2 Background

2.0 Potential Environmental Risks andNuisance Associated with HogProduction

2.1 Air Quality2.2 Odour2.3 Dust2.4 Gases2.5 Pesticides2.6 Pharmaceuticals2.7 Pathogens

2.8 Soil Erosion and Compaction2.9 Excess Nutrients2.10 Groundwater and

Pollution Concerns2.11 Nuisance2.12 References2.13 Appendix: Disease Risks to

Humans and Livestock fromHog Manure

3.0 Environmental Obligations andRegulatory Approvals for LivestockProducers

3.1 Environmental Law Relating toHog Production EnvironmentalProtection Standards

3.2 Regulatory Approvals for HogOperations

4.0 Preventing, Managing and ResolvingConflict

4.1 What is Conflict?4.2 Preventing Conflict4.3 Managing Conflict4.4 Resolving Conflict

4.5 References

5.0 Site Selection and Planning

5.1 Site Selection5.2 Site Planning5.3 Shutting Down Livestock

Operations5.4 References

6.0 Housing, Equipment and AnimalManagement

6.1 Manure Collection6.2 Liquid Manure Systems6.3 Pen Design and Management6.4 Solid Manure Systems6.5 Feeder Management6.6 Water Management6.7 Ventilation6.8 Dust Control6.9 Safety Precautions for Managing

Livestock Manure6.10 Feeds and Nutrition6.11 References

7.0 Manure Collection, Storage,Transportation and Treatment

7.1 Design Considerations7.2 Types of Storage7.3 Runoff Control from

Manure Storage7.4 Manure Storage Capacity7.5 Maintenance and Monitoring7.6 Manure Transportation7.7 Manure Treatment7.8 References

8.0 Land Application of Manure

8.1 Nutrient Value of Manure8.2 Manure and Soil Analyses8.3 Crop Nutrient Requirements8.4 Method of Manure Application8.5 Time of Application8.6 Calibration of Spreading

Equipment8.7 Record Keeping8.8 Other Beneficial Management

Practices8.9 Manure Management Planning

Case Study8.10 Appendix: Calibration of

Manure Applicator

9.0 Disposal of Farm Waste

9.1 Disposal of Dead Animals9.2 Disposal of Veterinary Waste9.3 Disposal of Chemical Farm Waste9.4 Leaks and Spills9.5 Options for Disposing of

Contaminated Soils

BENEFICIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: ENVIRONMENTAL

MANUAL FOR HOG PRODUCERS IN ALBERTA

INDEX


6/111


7/111

1.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 Client and Objective

1.1.1 Purpose1.1.2 Use of the guidelines

1.2 Background


8/111

1.06 Beneficial Management Practices: Environmental Manual for Hog Producers in Alberta

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document was prepared for Albertahog producers.

The objective is to use beneficial practicesand nutrient management planning to reducethe impact of livestock production on soil, airand water. As well, the practices outlined inthis manual will serve to reduce the nuisanceeffects of livestock production. Thispublication will provide informationon the following subject areas:

The potential risks of livestock productionon air, water and soil.

Legal requirements of livestock operations. Social obligations of livestock operations. Site planning and management. Nutrient management. Alternative methods of manure treatment. Safe and responsible storage and disposal

of agri-chemicals, petroleum products,medical waste and dead animals.

1.1 Client and Objective

The purpose of the Beneficial ManagementPractices: Environmental Manual for HogProducers in Alberta is to document, forproducers and society, management optionsthat are environmentally sound, comply withexisting regulations and are economicallyobtainable.

Due to local and regional conditions, notall of the practices herein pertain to any onespecific hog operation. Rather, one or a

combination of these, coupled with otheralternatives, may provide optimal results.

With the hog industrys commitment toadvancing management practices, asdemonstrated in the evolution of hogproduction over the past few decades, thismanual will be updated as new standardsare adopted.

These guidelines describe beneficialmanagement practices designed to protectthe environment and minimize nuisancessuch as odour, flies, and dust.

1.1.1 Purpose

Experienced pork producers may use theseguidelines to evaluate and improve theircurrent environmental management practices.

When seeking a solution to a particular issue,all aspects of environmentally acceptable farmmanagement should be taken into account. Itis not recommended that individuals extract

portions of this publication withoutconsidering the entire environmentalcontext of the operation. Individuals who

do not possess a strong knowledge of porkproduction should not assess an operationbased solely on this publication.

1.1.2 Use of the guidelines


9/111

1.07September 2002

In the past twenty years, Albertas hogindustry has undergone significant changes,both in size and production methods. Hogproduction is a specialized industry that ishighly integrated with crop production. Inmany cases, hog operations have becomemuch larger and more capital intensive.

At the same time, the character of Albertasrural residential population has also seensignificant changes. New rural housingrepresents a major personal investment andowners are sensitive to any activity that mayaffect enjoyment and/or property value.

The combined result of the changes in thehog industry and in rural residentialdevelopment has occasionally createdconflicts. In todays changing society, peoplein general are less tolerant of perceivedinfringements on their rights. This attitudeextends to both rural residents and otheragricultural producers. Hog producers must

be aware of this attitude shift and give it dueconsideration in the management of theiroperations.

Alberta Pork, along with its many partners,is leading efforts to maintain and develop anenvironmentally responsible, sustainable andprosperous pork industry. It is continually

developing practices, standards andguidelines to assist the pork industry tobe environmentally sustainable, globallycompetitive and publicly acceptable.

Furthermore, hog producers have a greaterunderstanding that, to remaincompetitive in world markets, those involvedin the production of pork need to usecommon sense approaches, reasonablemanagement skills appropriate for theiroperation, and accepted scientific knowledgeto avoid detrimental environmental impactsand undue environmental risk.

1.2 Background


10/111



11/111

2.1 Air Quality

2.2 Odour

2.3 Dust

2.4 Gases

2.5 Pesticides

2.6 Pharmaceuticals

2.7 Pathogens

2.7.1 Modes of disease transmission from manure

2.8 Soil Erosion and Compaction

2.9 Excess Nutrients2.9.1 Excess nutrients and water

2.10 Groundwater Pollution Concerns

2.11 Nuisance

2.12 References

2.13 Appendix: Disease Risks to Humans and Livestockfrom Hog Manure

2.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTALRISKS AND NUISANCE ASSOCIATEDWITH HOG PRODUCTION


12/111


2.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTALRISKS AND NUISANCEASSOCIATED WITH HOGPRODUCTION

The three primary sources of odour and aircontaminants from hog production are barns,manure storages and land application ofmanure. Dust and fumes from increasedtraffic associated with livestock productionsites can also reduce air quality. The presenceof contaminants does not equate to anenvironment or health risk unless minimumthreshold values are exceeded. Air contami-nants released from these sources may

include: micro-organisms, particulate matter(dust), endotoxins and gases. Gases include

ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, methane,sulphur and nitrogen compounds.

Gases and particulate matter are of thegreatest concern to the people working directlywith livestock, because these people areexposed to the highest concentrations ofcontaminated air. In general, neighbours areat a minimal risk from air contaminantsbecause these contaminants are well dilutedand dispersed in the air after travelling very

short distances from their source.

The primary complaint about livestockoperations is odour. The impact of odour onhuman health and well-being causes concern,especially when odours are disagreeable andpersistent. However, odour is generallyconsidered a nuisance rather than a health

risk to neighbours because of the degree ofdilution and dispersion that occurs withinshort distances from the odour source.

There is a difference between the psycho-logical and physiological health effects relatedto odour exposure. Psychological effects, suchas irritation, can result from exposure toodour and often occur at levels well belowthose that can directly harm human health.Physiological effects can occur throughexposure to specific compounds that makeup odour, for example, asphyxiation fromexposure to elevated levels of hydrogen

sulphide (H2S) in a confined space. Thehuman health effects of poultry and swinefacilities have been studied and more researchis underway in this area.

It is difficult to evaluate odour and itshealth effects for the following reasons:

Psychological and physical health effectsare not necessarily independent.

Odour from hogs is made up of about 160compounds. Humans have many andvaried responses to these compounds.

The proportion and characteristics of odour

contributed by each of the primary sources(barns, storages, and land application) isnot well understood. Research is underwayto characterize odours released from eachof these sources.

Odour intensity and odour offensivenessmay have different indicators.

Combining different odorants can havepositive and negative effects on intensityand offensiveness. These effects are noteasily predicted.Eliminating all odour from livestock

operations is not feasible. However, there are

management practices that can control odourimpact within reasonable limits. Odourmitigation practices should strive to reducethe nuisance to neighbours, by minimizingthe frequency, intensity, duration andoffensiveness (FIDO) of odours.

2.1 Air Quality

2.2 Odour


13/111

2.11September 2002

Gases emitted from livestock operationsmay have an impact on global warming, acidrain, nuisance odour and water quality. Gasescan be generated in the barn, and duringmanure storage and land application. Thesegases include ammonia, hydrogen sulphide,methane, sulphur, nitrogen compounds andseveral trace gases associated with odour.The properties and effects of these gases areshown in Figure 2.1.

Global warming refers to the increase in theearths atmospheric temperature, which manyscientists believe is a result of an increase inthe concentration of greenhouse gases.Water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane(CH4), halocarbons (used in refrigerants), and

nitrous oxide (N2O) are the main greenhousegases in the atmosphere. Increases in theconcentration of all of these gases exceptwater vapour, are believed to contribute toglobal warming.

The bulk of agricultural emissions are N2Oand CH4 and the majority of emissions fromhog production come from manure.

Although the intensity and offensiveness ofan odour may be high, it is not necessarily anindication of the presence of greenhousegases. Research is required to establish if thereis a relationship between greenhouse gasesand odours.

Dust is composed of fine aerosol particlesin suspension. These particles are variousshapes and sizes and are both inorganicand organic. Organic dust is biologically active and may

react in the respiratory tract of humans andhogs. Organic dust includes hog dandruff,

dried manure and urine, feed, mold, fungi,bacteria, and endotoxins produced bybacteria and viruses. Seventy to 90 percentof the dust in animal housing is organic.

Inorganic dust is composed of numerousaerosols from building materials and theenvironment (concrete, insulation, soil).Air quality in livestock facilities can affect

the health of humans and animals if they areexposed to high concentrations of contaminatedair. Occupational Health and SafetyAdministration (OHSA) recommends thattotal dust should not exceed 10 mg/m3 and

respirable dust should not exceed 5 mg/m3.

Total dust includes all airborne particles,while respirable dust is in the size category ofless than 10 microns. Exposure to fine particlesof dust, less than 10 microns, can cause eyeand throat irritation and can potentiallycontribute to respiratory conditions, such asasthma or chronic bronchitis. Organic air-

borne particles in hog barns generally have ahigh protein content and have been associatedwith allergic reactions. Dust masks are essentialto protect the health of barn workers.

Dust and particulate matter exhausted fromlivestock facilities does not represent a directhealth risk to neighbours, because thesurvival rates of airborne micro-organismsbetween the source and the neighbours isconsidered very low and the dilution factor ofthe air high. However, airborne particulatematter can contribute to odour and dust, andmay be a carrier of odour.

2.3 Dust

2.4 Gases


14/111


Gas

Ammonia(NH3)

Hydrogen sulphide(H2S)

Methane

(CH4)

Carbon dioxide(CO2)

Nitrogen oxides**(NOx)

Trace gases associated with odour

Source

manure decomposition,composting, commercialfertilizer handling, storageand manure application

bacterial decomposition of manurewithout oxygen(anaerobic)

decomposition of manure

without oxygen (anaerobic)

anaerobic and aerobic decomposi-tion of organic materials

plant and animal respirationcombustion of fossil fuelsmanure is not considered a major

source of CO2

NOx naturally generated bybacterial processes, decomposi-tion, and fires

humans contribute primarilythrough burning fossil fuels

hog manure emits more N2O thanother livestock in Alberta

anaerobic decomposition ofmanure

Properties

sharp, pungent odour (glass cleanerlighter than air

heavier than airaccumulates near the floor in

enclosed buildingsinitially a rotten egg smell

but lethal concentrations paralyzesense of smell

no smell

lighter than air

no smellheavier than air

NO and N2O are colourless; NO2 isreddish brown

NO2 is the most common of NOxNO

2is one of the main

components of smog

often have distinct smells

Properties and Effects of Gases Emitted From Pork Product

Pesticides include insecticides, herbicides,fungicides and rodenticides. Pesticides can bea risk to non-target organisms, applicatorsand workers, if these products are not handledand applied properly. During pesticideapplication, spray droplets, mists or vapoursmay form. These airborne particles can driftand contaminate adjoining properties and

water. Soil pollution can occur when pesticidesare applied using improper application methodsor rates, when disposal protocols are notfollowed and during spills. Storing largeamounts of pesticides increases the potentialfor a significant pesticide spill to occur.

Pesticide mismanagement can eliminatebeneficial insects, inhibit crop growth and

2.5 Pesticides

Figure 2.1


15/111

2.13September 2002

reduce viable crop varieties. Domestic animalsand wildlife may be harmed by eatingcontaminated crops or soil. Pesticides thataccumulate in plant and animal tissue canmake food unfit for human consumption.Pesticides have great potential to pollute bothsurface and groundwater. Water pollutionfrom pesticides can be the result of drift,

runoff, leaching, erosion of contaminated soil,spills and direct introduction. The severityof pesticide contamination depends on thepesticide toxicity and management.

Concentration

25 ppm...........................2 6 ppm.....................

20 30 ppm...................

40 200 ppm.................

3,000 ppm......................5,000 ppm......................

10 ppm...........................2 ppm.............................20 ppm...........................50 ppm...........................

>500 ppm.......................

50,000 ppm....................

500,000 ppm..................

5,000 ppm......................30,000 ppm....................40,000 ppm....................100,000 ppm..................300,000 ppm..................

Symptom

Acceptable TLV*detectable, but not considered a

risk to public health

burning eyes

headaches, nausea, respiratoryirritationasphyxiatingcould be fatal

Acceptable TLVdetectableparalyzes sense of smelldizziness, nausea, headache,

respiratory irritationdeath from respiratory paralysis in

seconds

explosive when mixed with air

can cause headaches and eventuallyasphyxiation when oxygen isdisplaced

Acceptable TLVincreased rate of breathingdrowsiness, headachedizziness, unconsciousnesscould be fatal in 30 min.

NOx are not very soluble sosymptoms may be delayed. Effectsinclude respiratory irritation,coughing, fever, and in extremesituations, respiratory failure.

soil and water acidificationcontributes to odourcontributes to formation of airborne

particulates

may react with other compounds potentiallyleading to acid rain and ozone depletion

may react with other compounds, potentiallyleading to acid rain

a greenhouse gas that may contribute to

global warming

removed from the air by photosynthesis andocean absorption

a greenhouse gas that may contribute toglobal warming

potentially toxic to plants, leading to reducedgrowth

NOx are the most potent greenhouse gasesemitted by agriculture

may deplete ozone

contributes to odourmay form airborne particulate matter

Health Effect

in low quantities, these compounds are not considered aserious threat to human health

* Threshold Limit Values (TLV) are exposure limits that serve as guidelines to control health hazards in work environments.These values are established by Occupational Health and Safety Association.

**Nitrogen oxides (NOx) include nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) (laughing gas).

Environmental Effect


16/111


A range of pharmaceutical products,including antibiotics, dewormers andreproductive hormones (for the breedingherd) are used in the swine industry. Most ofthese products are completely broken down inthe animals body and do not present a risk tothe environment. However, concern has sur-

faced that some of these products could findtheir way from livestock manure into theenvironment and have a negative impact onthe ecosystem. Two specific areas of concern are: Reproductive hormones that could act as

endocrine disruptors. Endocrine disruptersare chemicals that affect the function of thebodys endocrine system. They may causehealth problems, reproductive failure anddevelopmental abnormalities in bothhumans and wildlife. There are many othersources of endocrine disruptors in the

environment, including phytoestrogens(from plants), mycotoxins (from molds),and man-made chemicals that imitatecertain hormones, for example, birthcontrol pills.

Antimicrobial medications that may beexcreted into the environment in an activeform. This could potentially alter thepopulation of bacteria in the environmentor select for the development of drug-resistant bacteria.There is little evidence to confirm that

either of these concerns is a significant issueat this time. The risk to the environment frompharmaceuticals is low. Drug residues areexcreted at very low levels and are then dilutedwith water and manure from other untreatedanimals. Drug residues are further dilutedwhen the manure is spread on the land.Because the amount of drugs present isextremely small, the concentrations in hogmanure may not be high enough to have anyeffect on animals that come in contact withthe residue. Thus far, there has been no

evidence that residues from pharmaceuticalsused in hog production have created problemswith the health of humans, wildlife or theenvironment. Research is ongoing to evaluatethe potential environmental risk associatedwith certain antimicrobials and reproductivehormones.

In recent years, outbreaks of waterbornediseases have occurred in humans in NorthAmerica and, in many cases, the increase inintensive livestock production has beenblamed. While it is not yet known how muchof the problem can be attributed to agriculture,two things are certain. Poorly handledmanure can result in waterborne disease inhumans. Other sources of contamination,such as human sewage, are also responsible.It is critical that manure is handled

appropriately to minimize the risk ofdisease to both livestock and humans.

There are a wide range of micro-organismspresent in hog manure, including bacteria,viruses, protozoa and other parasites. Undercertain conditions, some of these can cause

disease in humans or other livestock. Many ofthese organisms are also present in humansewage and in the feces of other livestock,pets and wildlife.

Currently in Alberta, hog manure is notconsidered a major source of disease forhumans or other livestock. There are threemain reasons for this. First, many infectiousdiseases of hogs that occur in the rest of theworld are not found in Canada (See Section2.13 Appendix). Second, modern production

practices and drinking water supply systemsreduce the risk of disease transmission.Third, the hog density in Alberta is verylow compared to the major hog-producingprovinces and countries.

2.6 Pharmaceuticals

2.7 Pathogens


17/111

2.15September 2002

2.7.1 Modes of disease transmission from manure

Disease-causing micro-organisms arereferred to as pathogens. Diseases that can betransmitted from animals to humans, andcause disease in both, are referred to aszoonoses or zoonotic diseases.

Air. There are no diseases in Alberta thatcan be transmitted from hog manure through

the air to humans or other livestock that areoutside the hog barn. The odour of hogmanure alone cannot cause infectious disease.

Swine Influenza Virus (SIV) is the onlyzoonotic disease found in Alberta that canpotentially be transmitted through the air tohumans. Direct contact with infected hogs orworking inside barns infected with SIV isnecessary to contract the disease. Peopleoutside barns are not considered at risk,because the virus is highly diluted in the air.Airborne transmission of certain diseasesthat only affect hogs, such as TransmissibleGastroenteritis (TGE), does occur in Alberta.

Fecal-oral transmission. Manurepathogens are mainly transmitted throughthe fecal-oral route (i.e., ingestion of manureor manure-contaminated feed or water). Inlivestock, this can occur through consumptionof drinking water contaminated by livestockor wildlife manure, grazing on pasture recentlyspread with manure or by ingesting manure.

Humans can ingest manure pathogensthrough consumption of contaminated drinkingwater, swimming in contaminated surface

water and by failing to wash their handsafter handling infected livestock or manure.People most at risk of zoonotic disease arethose working in barns or handling manure.

The main public health concern related tomanure handling is contamination of surfacewater. In order for manure pathogens to

cause disease through water contamination,several steps need to occur. If any one ofthese steps is blocked, then transmission willnot occur. First, the pathogen has to be excreted by

the hog. Not all pathogens are found inevery herd and some can be reduced by

management or medication. Second, the pathogen has to reach a water

supply either by the animal defecating inthe water, or by manure entering surfaceor groundwater through runoff.

Third, the pathogen must remain aliveand capable of causing infection by thetime it is ingested. Heat, cold and drynesscan destroy many pathogens in a shortperiod of time.

Fourth, the pathogen must be ingestedin high enough numbers to cause aninfection. Some organisms, such asSalmonella, must be ingested in very highnumbers to cause disease, whereas only afew Cryptosporidium organisms may causedisease.Often it is difficult to determine the source

of a waterborne outbreak of disease. Many ofthe same disease-causing micro-organisms inlivestock are found in wildlife, pets andsewage. Therefore, identifying the source ofcontamination is difficult. Testing manysources and using new diagnostic techniquesto determine the strain of the organism are

usually necessary to pinpoint the source ofdisease, although they still are not definitive.Refer to Section 2.13 Appendix for a fulldescription of pathogens that may be presentin hog manure in Alberta.


18/111


Surface water. Elevated nutrients inwatercourses can be caused by manure orfertilizer entering a watercourse directly, byrunoff from fertilized fields or nutrient-richsoil eroding from croplands. Nutrients,primarily phosphorus and nitrogen,accelerate eutrophication of water bodies.Eutrophication is the nutrient enrichment ofsurface waters. The most visible effects ofeutrophication are massive blooms of algaeand other aquatic plants. When algae andaquatic plants die, oxygen can be depleted,reducing fish survivability. Bluegreen algaecan be toxic to domestic animals and humanswhen injested. These also can deplete oxygenlevels in surface waters.

Nitrates in drinking water. Nitrate isformed through the nitrification process fromthe mineralization of organic nitrogen toammonium and from ammonium to nitrite.Nitrate is a form of inorganic nitrogen that issoluble in water and is readily used by plants.

Nitrate is very soluble in water and tends tomove quickly down through the soil profile.Consequently, nitrate can concentrate inshallow groundwater.

Sources of nitrate in water include naturalsources (e.g. peat bogs), commercial fertilizers(e.g. anhydrous ammonia), domestic sewagesystems and manure. Studies in Albertahave shown that high levels of nitrate fromlivestock and land application of fertilizer ormanure can be transported to surface runoff.

The established drinking water quality,Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC),for nitrate is 45 mg/L measured as nitrate(10 mg/L measured as nitrate-nitrogen).Nitrate levels below 45 mg/L do not appearto cause health problems. Above this level,however, there may be health concerns,particularly for pregnant women and forinfants less than one year old, although thishas rarely been reported.

2.9.1 Excess nutrients and water

Spills, improper storage and over-application of fertilizers or manure maylead to excess nutrient concentrations in soil.Primary nutrients of concern are nitrogen,phosphorus, and potassium. Excess nitrogenand phosphorus can cause soil and waterquality problems. Excess potassium on

forages can result in reduced feed quality. Anoverabundance of these nutrients can resultin toxicity to plants and reduce crop yields.As well, nutrients that are not used byplants can leach out of the root zone andcontaminate groundwater or surface water.

2.9 Excess Nutrients

Soil erosion refers to the loss of soil due towind or water. Erosion potential depends onmanagement practices and the specifictopography, climate and soil type of a region.Water erosion can be the result ofsurface runoff from rainfall or irrigation.Wind erosion occurs when soil is not

adequately covered and when winds arestrong enough to move soil particles. Windand water erosion can cause environmentalproblems if soil nutrients or fine-grainedmaterial, such as silt and clay, enter waterbodies.

To avoid soil erosion when applying andincorporating manure, a balance must beachieved among incorporation techniques,

timing and tillage. Incorporating manureprevents nutrient losses and mixes organicmatter in manure with soil. Mixing organicmatter with soil increases the binding of soilparticles and can reduce the potential forerosion. However, excessive tillage leading tocompaction will decrease soil porosity and

destroy soil structure and aggregatecharacteristics. This reduces the movementof water, air, nutrients and soil microbesthrough the soil. Timing manure applicationto avoid applying manure on wet soil iscritical to reduce soil compaction. Farm traffic,especially on headlands, can cause soilcompaction, particularly when the soil is wet.

2.8 Soil Erosion and Compaction


19/111

2.17September 2002

Odour, noise, traffic and flies related toagricultural enterprises are a potentialnuisance to the surrounding community ifnot managed properly. Noise and traffic are

inevitable, but the beneficial managementpractices discussed throughout the followingchapters may minimize irritation to neighbours.

Groundwater. Groundwater is the waterthat occurs in the pore spaces of soil androcks. Aquifers are water-bearing layers thathold groundwater in usable amounts. Typicalaquifers are overlain by deposits such as clayor shale. Unconfined aquifers or water tableaquifers are close to the ground surface and

exposed directly to the atmosphere throughopenings in the soil. As a result, the risk ofcontamination to unconfined aquifers is great.Over-application of nutrients can result innutrient leaching directly into the groundwater.

A confined aquifer is trapped below anupper confining layer of rock, clay or shale.The risk of contamination for confinedaquifers is through direct movement ofcontaminants into the well from the wellheador improperly maintained well casing.Manure or chemical spills or seepage intothe well should be prevented.

Seepage from improperly constructed ormaintained manure storage structures and theassociated risk of groundwater contaminationis a serious concern in some areas, particularlywhere the subsoil underlying the storageconsists of sand, gravel or fractured bedrockthat allows movement of contaminants throughthe soil profile to shallow groundwater.

Over-application of manure on cropland orforage land can also present a risk of elevatednitrate levels in shallow groundwater. Studiesin Alberta have shown that continuous over-

application of manure can increase nitratelevels in shallow groundwater.

Salt. Salt levels, as shown by electricalconductivity measurements and sodiumadsorption ratios, can increase in soils aftersuccessive manure applications. Manure can

contain salts from the water used for livestockwatering or from salts and minerals in feed.In many cases, nutrients, such as nitrogen,phosphorus and trace elements are less likelyto limit manure applications on a field thansalt levels. Sodium, in particular, can causeproblems with the soil, since it can cause

structural changes in the soil and is toxic toplants at high levels.

Metals. Metals include nickel, manganese,lead, chromium, zinc, copper, iron andmercury. Trace quantities of some metals arenecessary for the growth of living things.However, even low metal concentrationscan have cumulative effects that are toxic tomost life forms. Metals are found in manure,waste oil and hydraulic fluids. Metals maycontaminate groundwater, move into surfacewater and accumulate in fish tissue, makingthem unsuitable for human consumption.

Petroleum products. Gasoline, antifreeze,paints, solvents, hydraulic fluids and otheroil-based substances can have direct andindirect harmful effects on groundwater andsurface water. Direct adverse effects includeimmediate toxic contamination of aquaticorganisms that ingest petroleum productsand respiratory interference in fish. Indirectnegative effects include the destruction offish food such as algae and other plankton,devastation of spawning areas, a reduction inthe rate of photosynthesis by aquatic plants

and poor stream aeration. Also, petroleumproducts can taint the flavour of fish, affectingits quality for human consumption.

2.10 Groundwater and Pollution Concerns

2.11 Nuisance


20/111


Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (LesHaley), 1999.Agriculture and ClimateChange. AESA Greenhouse Gases WorkshopProceedings.

Agriculture and Agri-Food CanadaGreenhouse Gas Team, 1999.Agriculture and

Agri-Food Industry Greenhouse Gas Emissions

in Alberta Summary Statement.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 1998.The Health of Our Air: Toward sustainableagriculture in Canada.

American Conference of GovernmentalIndustrial Hygienists, 1998. Documentationof the Threshold Limit Values and BiologicalExposure Indices. 6th Edition. AmericanConference of Government IndustrialHygenists. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Anderson, A.M., D.O. Trew, R.D. Neilson,N.D. MacAlpine, R. Borg, 1998. Impacts of

Agriculture on Surface Water Quality inAlberta. Part I: Haynes Creek Study. Preparedby Alberta Environmental Protection andAlberta Agriculture, Food and RuralDevelopment.

Basarab, J.A., E. K. Okine and D. Engstrom,1999. GHG Emissions from Livestock in

Alberta: Past, present and future. AlbertaAgriculture, Food and Rural Development.

Basarab, J.A., E. K. Okine and D. Engstrom,2000. Greenhouse Gas Emissions fromLivestock in Alberta. Alberta Agriculture,Food and Rural Development.

Boehm, M.M., 2001. What the Kyoto ProtocolMeans to the Pork Industry. Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada. Pg. 9-18 Banff PorkSeminar Proceedings, Advances in PorkProduction Vol.12.

Burton, David, L., 1999. The Role of ManureApplication in Maintaining Air, Water and SoilQuality. Banff Pork Seminar Proceedings,Advances in Pork Production. Vol.10,Pg. 63 73.

Canada Plan Service.Manure Gas Plan

M-8710, Farm Workers Health ProblemsRelated to Air Quality Inside Livestock BarnsM-9708, Protecting Workers in LivestockBuildings from Dust and Gases M-9707

Chang, C. and T. Entz, 1996. NitrateLeaching Losses Under Repeated Feedlot Cattle

Manure Applications in Southern Alberta.J. Environ. Qual. 25: 145-153.

Cooke, S.E. and E. E. Prepas, 1998. StreamPhosphorus and Nitrogen Export from

Agricultural and Forested Watersheds on theBoreal Plain. Canadian Journal of Fish andAquatic Sciences 55: 2292-2299.

Environment Canada, 1997. Global ClimateChange, The Science of Climate Change, Green

house Gases. Web site: www.ec.gc.ca/climate/fact/science.html.www.ec.gc.ca/climate/whatis/ghgs_eng.htm

McGinn, Sean, 2002. Personal Communication.Land Resource Sciences. Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada. Lethbridge ResearchCentre. Lethbridge [email protected]

Minnesota Environmental Quality Board,September 1999.A Summary of LiteratureRelated to Social, Environmental, Economicand Health Effects. Vol. 2., University ofMinnesota.

National Pork Producers Council.ManureStorage and Treatment Alternatives.

National Pork Producers Council. SwineOdour and Emissions from Pork Production.

Olson, B.M., R.H. McKenzie, T. Jensen,M.A. Arshad, P. Jedel, C. Izaurralde, D.W.McAndrew, A.M. Johnston, 1997. NitrateLeaching in Crop Rotation Studies in Alberta.Water Quality Program of the Canada-Alberta Environmental SustainableAgriculture (CAESA) Agreement.Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. 81 pp.

Paul, John. 1999. Nitrous Oxide EmissionResulting from Animal Manure Management.In Proceedings of the InternationalWorkshop on Reducing Nitrous OxideEmissions from Agroecosystems, March3-5, 1999. Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada and Alberta Agriculture, Food andRural Development.

Prairie Swine Centre Inc. EnvironmentalWeb site accessible through the PSC site.http://adminsrv.usask.ca/psci/

Schiffman, S. S., E. Sattely, M.S. Miller, B.G.Graham, 1994. The Effect of EnvironmentalOdours Emanating from Commercial SwineOperations on the Mood of Nearby Residents.Brain Res. Bulletin, Vol. 37(4) Pg. 369 375.

Thu, E., K. K. Donham, R. Ziegenhorn,S. Reynolds, P.S. Throne, P. Subramanian,P. Whitten, J. Stookesberry, 1997.A ControlStudy of the Physical and Mental Health ofResidents Living Near a Large-scale SwineOperation.Journal of Agric. Safety andHealth, 3(1): 13 26.

2.12 References


21/111

2.19September 2002

OverviewHog manure contains a wide range of

micro-organisms, including bacteria, viruses,protozoa, and parasites. Under certain

conditions, some of these can cause diseasein humans or other livestock. Many of theseorganisms are also present in the feces ofother livestock, pets, and wildlife and inhuman sewage.

Currently in Alberta, hog manure is notconsidered a major source of infectiousdisease for humans or other livestock. Thereare three main reasons for this. First, manyinfectious diseases of hogs that occur in therest of the world are not found in Canada.Second, modern production practices anddrinking water supply systems prevent many

diseases from being transmitted. Third, thedensity of hogs in Alberta is very lowcompared to the major hog-producingprovinces and countries.

In recent years, many large outbreaks ofwaterborne disease have occurred in humansin North America. The increase in intensivelivestock production has often been blamed.While it is not yet known how much of theproblem can be attributed to agriculture, twothings are certain: poorly handled manure canresult in waterborne disease in humans; other

sources of contamination (such as humansewage) are also responsible. It is critical thatmanure be handled appropriately to minimizethe risk of disease to both livestock andhumans.

How disease is transmittedfrom manure

Disease-causing mico-organisms arereferred to as pathogens. Diseases that can betransmitted from animals to humans arereferred to as zoonoses or zoonotic diseases.Manure pathogens are most often transmitted

by the fecal-oral route (i.e. ingestion ofmanure or manure-contaminated feed orwater). In livestock, this can occur throughconsumption of drinking water contaminatedby manure, grazing on pasture recentlyspread with manure, or when they have directaccess to manure. Humans can ingest manurepathogens through consumption ofcontaminated drinking water, swimmingin contaminated surface water, and notwashing hands after handling infected

livestock or manure. People most at risk ofzoonotic disease are those working in barns orhandling manure.

There are no diseases in Alberta that can be

transmitted from hog manure through the airto humans or other livestock that are outsidethe hog barn. The odour of hog manure alonecannot cause infectious disease. SwineInfluenza Virus (SIV) is the only zoonoticdisease in Alberta that can be transmittedthrough the air to humans. Direct contact withinfected hogs or working inside barns affectedwith SIV is necessary to contract the disease.Those working outside barns are not consideredat risk as the virus is diluted in the air.Airborne transmission of certain diseases thataffect only hogs does occur in Alberta.

Contamination of surface water is the mainpublic health concern when handling manure.In order for manure pathogens to causedisease through water contamination, severalsteps need to occur. If any one of these steps isblocked, then transmission will not occur. The pathogen has to be excreted by the hog

- not all pathogens are found in every unit,and some can be reduced by managementor medication.

The pathogens has to reach a water supplyeither by the animal defecating in thewater, or from surface runoff, or fromcontaminated groundwater flow.

The pathogen must remain alive andcapable of causing infection until the timeit is ingested. Heat, cold and dryness candestroy many pathogens in a short periodof time.

The pathogen must be ingested in highenough numbers to cause infection. Someorganisms, such as Salmonella, must beingested in very high numbers to causedisease, whereas only a few Cyrptosporidiumorganisms may cause disease.

It is frequently difficult to determine thesource of a waterborne outbreak of disease.Many of the same disease-causing micro-organisms are found in wildlife, pets orhuman sewage. Therefore, if testing finds thesuspect organism in one location, it cannot beautomatically assumed this was the source.Testing many sources and using new diagnostictechniques to determine the strain of theorganism are usually necessary to pinpointthe source of disease.

2.13 Appendix: Disease Risks to Humansand Livestock from Hog Manure


22/111


Pathogens in hog manure in Alberta

Several classes of pathogens may be presentin hog manure in Alberta: Viruses. Bacteria. Protozoan parasites. Helminth parasites (worms).

Viruses

Most hog viruses found in Alberta infectonly hogs and are not considered a risk tohumans or other livestock. Most viruses arealso easily destroyed once outside the bodyand do not survive long in manure. Therefore,viruses in hog manure are not considered asignificant disease risk at this time.

In Canada, the only virus that can betransmitted between hogs and humans is theSwine Influenza Virus (SIV). This virus occursin Alberta and is a risk for those working ininfected hog barns, or in direct contact with

infected hogs. SIV causes flu-like symptomsand respiratory disease that lasts several daysin humans. This virus does not survive welloutside the hog or the hog barn, especially inAlbertas dry, cold climate. SIV is, therefore, aminimal risk for those not entering hog barns.

Bacteria

Bacteria that may be present in hog manurein Canada that can cause disease in humansinclude: Escherichia coli (E. coli).

Salmonella species. Campylobacter coli. Yersinia enterocolitica. Leptospira sp.

These bacteria can be transmitted tohumans through contaminated drinkingwater, contaminated food, or from directcontact with manure or infected animals. Thefirst four pathogens can cause diarrhea, fever,cramps, vomiting and occasionally death inhumans. Infection from these organisms(except Leptospira sp.) is more often traced toconsumption of contaminated food products

than waterborne disease. Contamination offood can occur during processing or handlingby the consumer, and is not confined only tomeat or dairy products. Contaminated fruitsand vegetables have also been sources ofinfection.

Many of these organisms are found in otherlivestock and wildlife manures, as well ashuman sewage. Normal healthy livestock maycarry these bacteria without any signs ofillness. The number of bacteria in manuredeclines over time while in storage. Bacteria

can survive for varying lengths of time in thesoil after application, but are generallydestroyed by exposure to heat, cold, sunlightand drying. More research is needed to fullyunderstand the survival of bacteria in soilsand surrounding watersheds after manurespreading. Adequate manure storage andproper handling is necessary to preventsurface and groundwater contamination with

these organisms. Municipal water treatmentsystems are capable of removing thesebacteria from the water supply.

Producers should practice good hygienewhen handling manure and livestock (handwashing, etc.). Manure should be stored,handled and spread to prevent contaminationof waterways. The elderly and thoseindividuals with compromised immunesystems should avoid contact with livestockand manure.

Escherichia coli (E. coli). Many strains of

E. coli are beneficial to human health and livein the gut of all healthy animals. However,some strains, such as E. coli O157:H7, cancause severe disease and even death. Infectionwith O157:H7 causes bloody diarrhea and canprogress to a life-threatening complicationknown as hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).This infection is particularly dangerous forchildren and the elderly. Outbreaks haveoccurred from contaminated drinking water.E. coli O157:H7. has been found in hogmanure, but only rarely. Cattle feces are

acknowledged as the main source of thisorganism.

Salmonella species. There are a large numberof species of Salmonella. Some strains infectonly one animal species, while others are ableto infect humans and a wide variety ofdomestic and wild animals, birds and reptiles.Infected hogs can carry the bacteria withoutany signs of illness. Outbreaks of diarrhea anddeath can occur and are usually triggered bystresses such as overcrowding. Recently, newSalmonella strains have evolved that are

resistant to many antibiotics (multi-drug-resistant S. typhimurium DT 104). These are ofgreat concern, as they are difficult to treat.There is speculation that these strains areevolving in response to antibiotic use inlivestock.

Research has shown that about one-third toone half of hog farms in North America mayhave Salmonella. This varies by region. Onmost farms that test positive for Salmonella,only a few animals will shed the bacterium. Ona few farms, many positive samples from


23/111

2.21September 2002

hogs and the environment can be obtained.The barn environment, including dust,rodents or birds, can also harbour Salmonella.

The main concern with Salmonella in swineis food-borne disease rather than waterbornedisease. Research is underway to find methodsto control or eliminate Salmonella on hogfarms, especially those farms that are heavilyinfected. Denmark has a stringent testing and

control program in place to keep Salmonellalevels low. Current recommendations onreducing Salmonella in hog barns includemaintaining high standards of hygiene,reducing rodent and bird access and reducingmixing of hogs. The Canadian QualityAssurance (CQA) program for porkproducers contains specific recommendationson reducing Salmonella.

Campylobacter coli and Campylobacter jejuni.Campylobacter sp. occur in all livestock, but themajor animal sources of Campylobacter

infection in humans are poultry and cattle.Most infections are from food. The number ofhuman infections involving antimicrobial-resistant C. jejuni in North America is increasing.There is concern that the resistance is developingin livestock because of antibiotic use.

The importance of Campylobacter sp. in hogsis not clear. C. jejuni is rarely found in swinewhile C. coli appears to live in the normal hogintestinal tract. Water runoff from hogoperations is not considered a major sourceof Campylobacter infections in humans.

Yersinia enterocolitica. Swine and humans are

the major source of Yersinia. Most strains ofYersinia carried by hogs do not infect humans,but certain types can. Although uncommon inhumans, yersiniosis can be a serious infectionin children. It is most commonly associatedwith eating contaminated food, rather thanwith hog production.

Leptospirosa sp. Leptospira differs from theprevious four organisms in that it affects thekidneys rather than the digestive system.There are many species of Leptospira thataffect livestock, wildlife and humans.Leptospirosis occurs worldwide, but is notcommon in swine in Alberta, likely due to thecold, dry climate.

Infected swine may have a fever, or loss ofappetite, or show no signs at all. Infections insows cause abortions, stillbirths, weak pigletsand infertility. Kidney damage may be seen atslaughter in otherwise normal hogs.

Leptospira bacteria live in the kidneys andare excreted in the urine of infected animals.Contamination of drinking water by urine of

infected animals is one method of infection.Wildlife, especially skunks and rodents, areknown to carry the disease and can infectswine and other livestock. Introduction ofcarrier hogs into the herd is also a commonmethod of infection.

Leptospira can survive in standing water orin liquid manure for several months.Leptospira does not survive in composted

manure, dry soil or over winter. Dampclimates, marshy regions and close contactwith wildlife are typically associated withoutbreaks of disease in livestock. Humansoften contract the disease by swimming incontaminated water.

Prevention of leptospirosis depends onstopping transmission from infected wildlife,rodents or livestock. An effective rodentcontrol program, including removal ofvegetative cover near the barn is essential.Wildlife should not have access to watersources, such as dugouts, or to manure from

infected livestock. Outdoor swine and otherlivestock should not have access to standingwater in areas where the disease is known toexist. Breeding stock should be purchasedfrom a clean herd and be quarantined.

Vaccination in swine reduces the symptomsof the disease, but does not completelyprevent infection. Routine vaccination ofbreeding stock is recommended in mostareas of Canada. Medication may reducelosses in an infected herd, but will not preventinfection. Good sanitation is essential to

reduce spread in an infected herd.

Protozoan parasites

Protozoan parasites are microscopic single-celled parasites that are found in a wide rangeof animals. Today they are considered to besome of the most important causes of water-borne disease in humans. Water contaminatedwith these parasites is usually associated withanimals defecating directly into the water, orwith human sewage. It has been shown thatindoor-housed hogs managed with appropriate

manure handling practices are not a source ofcontamination for watersheds.

Giardia. Giardiasis, or beaver fever iscaused by a protozoan parasite called Giardiaduodenalis (also called Giardia lamblia). It isfound throughout the world and is the mostcommon disease-causing intestinal parasiteof humans. The parasite causes moderateto severe diarrhea; children and immunosup-pressed individuals are the most vulnerable.Between two and seven percent of humans in


24/111


Europe and North America are estimated to beinfected. As many as 40 percent of people indeveloping countries may be infected. Giardia istransmitted through the fecal-oral route (usuallybetween humans, e.g., day-care centres) butwaterborne transmission is also common.

Giardia occurs in livestock, pets and wildlife.It does not often cause disease in animals. It hasbeen found in pristine wilderness waterways

and is particularly common in the CanadianArctic. Outbreaks of giardiasis in humans havebeen linked to drinking water contaminatedwith human sewage, agricultural runoff, andwildlife feces. Giardiasis is the most frequentlydiagnosed waterborne disease in Alberta.

Giardia has been found in hogs in Canada, theUnited States and in Europe. A large Albertastudy showed that while it is found on manyfarms (70 percent), Giardia was seen only in afew animals on each farm (8.5 percent).

Some strains of Giardia are specific to certainanimals and are not easily transmitted to other

animals or humans. Other strains are easilytransmitted between animals and humans. It is onlythese strains that are a risk to human health. The fewhog strains studied, so far, are not likely to causehuman infections.

Giardia produce cysts that can survive formonths in water, resisting cold or freezingtemperatures. These cysts are resistant tochlorination, which is commonly used todestroy pathogens in drinking water. For thisreason, this parasite can be difficult to removefrom drinking water. Giardia cysts can be

removed from water through filtration or can beinactivated by boiling water or using powerfulchemical agents (e.g. ozone).

Giardia cysts in liquid hog manure storagefacilities deteriorate over time. It is consideredunlikely that they could survive to be a seriousrisk for contamination of surface water whenmanure is spread on the land.

Cryptosporidium parvum. Cryptosporidiumparvum, also known as crypto, is a smallprotozoan parasite that causes diarrhea.Humans, a wide variety of domestic animals

(e.g., cattle, hogs, horses, sheep, dogs, cats), andwildlife can be affected. Infections in animalsand humans may not result in any disease at all,or in mild diarrheal illness that resolves itself intwo weeks. There is no effective treatment.

Cryptosporidium was not considered animportant cause of disease in humans or animalsuntil recently. Over the last two decades, anincreasing number of people have developedweakened immune systems due to cancertherapy, organ transplantation, or infections(e.g. HIV human immunodeficiency virus). In

these people, cryptosporidiosis is severe, difficultto treat, and can cause death.

This parasite is also transmitted by the oral-fecal route, often through contaminated water.Poor hygiene leads to transmission betweenhumans and from animals to humans. Fecalcontamination of water by animals andhumans may lead to waterborne outbreaks ofcryptosporidiosis. Such an outbreak occurred in

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and led to the infectionof over 5,000 humans. The source was traced tohuman sewage.

Cryptosporidium has been found in hogsaround the world, but is not considered asignificant cause of swine disease. In a largeAlberta study, Cryptosporidium was found in32 percent of farms, but in only 2.8 percent ofmanure samples. Infection was mainly inweaners (10.4 percent). The parasite was foundin only one percent of hog liquid manuresamples in the same study, but not in soilsamples. This low prevalence indicates that

hogs are not likely an environmental sourceof this parasite in Alberta.

Cryptosporidium produces environmentallyresistant oocysts or eggs that are shed in manure.They are resistant to chlorination, and are sosmall that many water filtration systems cannotremove them. Therefore, contamination ofdrinking water with this parasite is of greatconcern.

Most human infections are acquired byperson-to-person transmission (day-care centres,hospitals) and through consumption of drinking

water contaminated by human sewage. Thereare several reports of veterinary students, farmworkers and researchers developing infectionsafter exposure to calves shedding large numbersof oocysts. There are no reports of humansbeing infected with Cryptosporidium from hogs.The strain of Cryptosporidium parvum carried byhogs is not likely infective to humans.

Helminth parasites

Roundworms or Ascarids. Roundworm orascarid infection in humans is usually caused by

the human ascarid,Ascaris lumbricoides. Thehuman ascarid is rare in Canada due to ourhigh standards of hygiene, and is usually seenonly in individuals that have travelled to orlived in developing countries.

Ascaris suum, the pig roundworm, canoccasionally infect humans. Infections areuncommon, even in producers that are inregular contact with hog manure. Cases aremost often reported in developing countries,and are related to poor hygiene and contact withheavily infected manure. In North America over


25/111

2.23September 2002

the past decade, there have been several cases ofAscaris suum reported in humans, usuallyassociated with ingestion of contaminatedmanure. Cases have often involved researchersstudying the parasite, children of hog farmersor small children playing in gardens fertilizedwith infected hog manure. Infection mayproduce no symptoms, and is only noticedwhen a worm is passed in the feces.

Pig ascarids are found worldwide. Approximately10-15 percent of Alberta market hogs have milkspots in the liver, evidence of previousA. suuminfection. Infection is self limiting in largerswine, with most harboring only one or twoadult worms. A Saskatchewan survey showedthat 17 percent of slaughter swine had adultworms in their intestinal tract, with an averageof 2.5 worms per animal. Ascarids in hogs canbe controlled with medication; indoor hog unitswith worm control programs have very lowinfection rates. Indoor production units thatpractice all-in-all-out hog flow will also have

minimal infection rates. Indoor units populatedwith worm-free stock can remain worm-freewithout medication. Since ascarids have anegative effect on growth and cost ofproduction, its to the producers advantageto control the parasite.

Ascarid eggs are hardy, sometimes survivingfour to seven years or more, under the rightenvironmental conditions. Eggs do not survivedryness and humidity levels of 30-60 percentwill destroy eggs within a week. While someeggs can survive for a year or more after

manure is spread on the land, most do notsurvive for extended periods of time.Temperatures over 32C will also kill eggs.Storage of manure in manure piles, through thenatural heat from bacterial composting activity,will effectively destroy ascarid eggs.

Producers should have a good worm controlprogram in place and use regular slaughterchecks to monitor the effectiveness of theprogram. Uncomposted hog manure should notbe used to fertilize gardens or root vegetablecrops. Good hygiene practices, such as handwashing, should be used, and children especially

should avoid contact with hog manure.

Other diseases of swine that maybe of concern to the public

Several other zoonotic diseases carried byswine have sometimes raised public concern.These are included for general information. Butnone can be transmitted in manure and are rarein Canada.

Trichinella spiralis. Trichinella spiralis is a smallworm that can occur in the muscle of the hog. Itcauses disease (trichinosis) in humans who eatinfected pork that is not adequately cooked. Hogsbecome infected when they eat infected rodents oreat carcasses of other hogs. Humans cannot contractthe disease from hog manure or contact with hogs.This parasite does not exist in the Alberta hogindustry.

Toxoplasma gondii. This tiny coccidian parasiteis also found in the muscle of the hog. It causesillness (toxoplasmosis) in humans who eatinfected pork that is not adequately cooked.Hogs become infected by eating infected fecesfrom cats or other wildlife. Toxoplasma cannotbe transmitted to humans through hog manure.To reduce the incidence, producers should keepcats and kittens out of the barn, keep cat fecesout of hog feed, and neuter the farms cats.

Taenia solium. This human tapeworm is almostunknown in Canada, except in those who have

travelled to developing countries. Hogs pick upthe parasite by ingesting feces from infectedhumans. Humans become infected by eatinginadequately cooked pork. Infection is preventedby good sanitation and not allowing hogs tocome in contact with human feces.

Alberta advantageHog manure in Alberta is not currently

considered a major source of infectious diseasefor humans or other livestock. Modernproduction practices, low hog density, and acool, dry climate prevent many disease problems.However, several micro-organisms present inhog manure can cause disease if manure isallowed to contaminate waterways. Producersshould take strict precautions to prevent anycontamination of surface or groundwater withmanure during the storage, handling orspreading procedures.

Producers should also follow good productionpractices inside their barns to keep the levels ofcertain organisms at a minimum. Practicinggood hygiene, good sanitation, keeping diseasesunder control, using an effective worm control

program, and controlling the access of cats,rodents and birds to the barn are essential tominimize zoonotic disease risks.

Consult a veterinarian to develop a biosecurityprogram, and contact Alberta Quality Pork toparticipate in the On-Farm Food SafetyProgram.


26/111



27/111

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OBLIGATIONSAND REGULATORY APPROVALSFOR LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS

3.1 Environmental Law Relating to Hog Production

Environmental Protection StandardsA. ALBERTA LEGISLATION

3.1.1 Agricultural Operation Practices Act

3.1.1.1 Environmental Protection Standards

3.1.1.2 Design and Operating Standards

3.1.2 Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

3.1.2.1 Prohibited releases

3.1.2.2 Duty to report

3.1.2.3Liability of directors and officers

3.1.2.4 Strict liability offences

3.1.2.5 Fines

3.1.3 Public Health Act

3.1.4 Livestock Diseases Act

B. FEDERAL LEGISLATION3.1.5 Fisheries Act

3.1.5.1 Deleterious Substance

3.1.5.2 Liability of directors and officers

3.1.5.3 Strict liability offences

3.1.5.4 Fines

3.1.6 Due diligence and environmental management systems

3.1.6.1 Due diligence

3.1.6.2 Environmental management systems

3.1.7 Common law of nuisance and the Agricultural Operation Practices Act

3.1.8 Common law of negligence

3.2 Regulatory Approvals for Hog Operations3.2.1 Provincial approvals

3.2.1.1 NRCB approval process

3.2.2 Water Act approvals

3.2.2.1 Process

3.2.2.2 Environmental appeal board appeals

3.2.3 Transportation approvals


28/111


3.0 ENVIRONMENTALOBLIGATIONS ANDREGULATORY APPROVALS FORLIVESTOCK PRODUCERS

Meeting environmental obligations requiresan awareness of environmental law. Theenvironmental obligations of a livestockproducer are set out in statutes enacted by theprovincial and federal legislatures, andthrough the common law, which is the bodyof law and rules established by the courts.The statutes that producers should be awareof include theAgricultural Operation Practices

Act (AOPA), theAlberta EnvironmentalProtection and Enhancement Act, the PublicHealth Act, the Livestock Diseases Act, the Water

Act, and the federal Fisheries Act. Livestock

producers should also be informed of thecommon law rules of nuisance and how theserules are affected by the AOPA.

The approval and siting process for thedevelopment and expansion of hog operationscan be time consuming and complicated. Anincreased awareness of this process can assist

producers in planning for the development orexpansion of their operations. Prior toJanuary 1, 2002, the approval process for hogoperations was governed by theMunicipalGovernment Act, municipal developmentplans, land-use bylaws and AlbertaAgriculture, Food and Rural DevelopmentsCode of Practice for Safe and Economic Handlingof Animal Manures (Code of Practice), the Water

Act, and potentially the Public HighwaysDevelopment Act. Since January 1, 2002,primary responsibility for hog operationapprovals has been transferred from

municipalities to the provincial NaturalResources Conservation Board (NRCB) underthe AOPA. (Additional information on the siteselection and planning approval processdescribed in Section 5.0.)

3.1

Environmental Law Relating to HogProduction EnvironmentalProtection Standards

A. ALBERTA LEGISLATION

3.1.1 Agricultural Operation Practices Act

3.1.1.1 Environmental Protection Standards

The AOPA establishes specific environmentalprotection standards for new and existinghog operations.

TheAct and the Standards Regulationdescribe the specific standards that producersshould understand.

The Act authorizes the NRCB to issue anenforcement order against a producer if the

NRCB is of the opinion the producer is: Creating a risk to the environment. Causing an inappropriate disturbance. Contravening the Act or regulation.


29/111

3.27September 2002

3.1.1.2 Design and operating standards

The Regulations describe the design andoperating standards for livestock operations.Some of the standards apply to new andexpanding operations, while others apply toall operations, including existing operations.

Manure management. The regulatoryrequirements for manure management apply

to both existing and new operations.Producers are required to have sufficient landbase to safely utilize the manure and theregulation contains tables for determination ofland base. It is an offence to exceed thenitrate/nitrogen limits of the regulations andthe soil must be tested prior to application ofmanure if more than 300 annual tonnes isbeing applied.

Manure must be incorporated into the soilwithin 48 hours of being applied to the land.The regulation allows exemptions where the

manure is being used on a forage or direct-seeded crop. It also allows for restrictedmanure application on frozen ground wherethe land is flat and additional setbacks aremaintained.

General setbacks for manure spreadingare as follows: No manure is to be applied within 30

metres of a water well. A minimum of 10 metres separation must

be maintained from a body of water wheremanure is being applied by subsurfaceinjection and 30 metres where manure is

applied by incorporation.Manure storage. The regulation contains

requirements for the design and location ofearthen storage and catch basins for thestorage of liquid manure for new and expandingoperations. The regulation states that if aproducer uses earthen storage for liquidmanure, the earthen storage must be able tohold nine months of storage and must beconstructed with such compaction to achieve ahydraulic conductivity of not more than1 x 10-6cm/sec. In addition, the regulationrequires the construction of side slopesappropriate for the stability of the soil andcontains details regarding specific slopestandards.

With respect to the suggested locationof earthen storage and catch basins, theregulation requires a producer to: Avoid areas with shallow water tables. Maintain a minimum of 100 metres setback

from a spring or water well and 30 metresfrom a body of water.

Prevent surface water from entering thelagoon or catchment pond.

Install a leakage detection system tomonitor for potential contaminants.

Implement fly control measures. Design for the bottom filling of the lagoon. Control access to the area and place

warning signs.Minimum Distance Separation. A

minimum distance separation is requiredbetween new or expanding operations andtheir neighbours. The setback distances

depend on the size of the new or expandingoperation and the type of neighbour. Thesetback distances are measured from theportion of the operation closest to theneighbouring residence. For the purpose ofmeasurement, the facilitys manure storage isconsidered part of the operation.

The minimum distance separation does notapply to residences owned or controlled bythe producer. It also does not apply where theneighbours themselves operate livestockoperations and waive, in writing, theminimum distance separation.

Records. The regulation requires producersto record any documents that were used toobtain approvals. In addition, producers arerequired to keep the following records ifthey apply more than 300 tonnes of manureper year: Volume or weight of manure produced. Legal description of the land to which the

manure was applied. Date and volume of manure applied to

land. Application rates and incorporation

methods used. Information on any person the producer

gave manure to, if more than 300 tonneswas given.Producers are required to keep copies of

these records for five years.


30/111


3.1.2.1 Prohibited releasesThe Environmental Protection and

Enhancement Act (EPEA) prohibits producers

from releasing into the environment asubstance in an amount, concentration orlevel, or at a rate of release, that causes or maycause a significant adverse effect on theenvironment. While significant is notdefined in EPEA, adverse effect is broadlydefined to mean the impairment of, ordamage to, the environment, human health orsafety or property. This means that aproducer cannot release or spread manure ifthe release or spreading of manure may causea significant adverse effect to the environment.That is, if a producer spreads manure on land

at a rate which will overload the nutrientvalue of the land, or if a producer releasesmanure on land where the manure will run

into a watercourse, the producer will be inviolation of EPEA.

EPEA also gives the government the powerto issue an environmental protection order toan individual responsible for the release of anoffensive odour, to order that individual to,among other things, prevent, minimize orremedy the offensive odour or destroy thecause of the odour. However, these powers donot apply to offensive odours which resultfrom an agricultural operation that is carriedon in accordance with generally acceptedpractices for that operation. There is nodefinition of generally accepted practices forsimilar agricultural operations. Whether a

producer is following generally acceptedpractices will be decided by theEnvironmental Appeal Board or a judge.

3.1.2.2 Duty to report

EPEA requires producers to report toAlberta Environment any releases that maycause an adverse effect on the environment.Failure to report a release can result insignificant fines.

Typically, when a producer reports a release,Alberta Environment will require the producerto identify the steps that the producer is takingto prevent harm to the environment and toprevent the release from re-occurring.

3.1.2.3 Liability of directors and officers

If a corporation violates EPEA, any officer,director or agent of the corporation who wasinvolved with the incident, even in a minorway, could face prosecution under EPEA. Thisapplies whether or not the corporation itself isprosecuted for the violation and regardless ofwhether the officer, director or agent works

for a large corporation or simply a smallincorporated family farm. This means thatan officer, director or agent of a corporateproducer is held personally responsible forviolations of EPEA, if the officer, director oragent directed or participated in the violationin any way.

3.1.2.4 Strict liability offencesOffences under EPEA are strict liability

offences. Unlike criminal offences, with strictliability offences, the courts are onlyconcerned with whether the producercommitted the offence, and not whether theproducer intended to commit the offence.If a producer caused impairment to theenvironment by releasing manure into a

watercourse, the courts will not examinewhether the producer meant to cause theimpairment; the courts will only determinewhether the producer caused the impairment.

If the producer did cause the impairment,the courts will convict the producer unless theproducer can show that the action was inaccordance with due diligence in running

3.1.2 Environmental Protection andEnhancement Act


31/111

3.29September 2002

the operation and in carrying out the activityat issue. That is, if the producer can show thatall reasonable steps were taken to prevent thecontravention of the EPEA, the producer will

not be found guilty under the EPEA. Duediligence will be discussed in further detail inSection 3.1.6.1.

3.1.2.5 Fines

An individual is liable for a fine of not

more than $50,000 for each offence underEPEA and a corporation is liable for a fine ofnot more than $500,000 for each offence underEPEA. Each day that a release or impairment

occurs is treated as a separate offence. For

example, a release from a lagoon occurringover two days would be treated as twooffences and would expose the corporation toa maximum fine of $1,000,000.

3.1.3 Public Health Act

It is important for producers to be aware ofthe responsibilities regional health authoritieshave under the Public Health Act (PHA). ThePHA gives health authorities significant

powers to protect the public health. The PHAhas priority over all provincial statutes, excepttheAlberta Bill of Rights.

The PHA allows a regional health authority,if it has reasonable and probable grounds tobelieve that a nuisance exists, to enter ontoproperty to inspect the property, take samplesof any substance or equipment being usedand perform tests at the property. The PHAdefines nuisance as:

a condition that is or that mightbecome injurious or dangerous to thepublic health, or that might hinder in

any manner the prevention orsuppression of disease.

In order for the regional health authority toenter the private place to perform theseinspections and tests, the regional healthauthority requires either the consent of theowner, or a court order, allowing theseactivities to occur. If the owner does not give

consent to the regional health authority andthe regional health authority applies to thecourts to obtain an order, the PHAprovides the judge with the authority to grant

such an order without requiring the owner tohave prior notice of the court application.Once the inspection, testing or taking ofsamples have occurred, if the regional healthauthority has reasonable and probablegrounds to believe that a nuisance exists,the regional health authority can order theproperty to be vacated, declared unfit forhabitation, closed or destroyed. In addition,the regional health authority has the authorityto prohibit or regulate the selling of anylivestock from the property.

As a result, should a regional health authority

become aware of a public health hazard at ahog operation, the regional health authoritycan take steps to protect the public healthand have the health hazard eliminated. Inaddition, if an operator contravenes theregional health authoritys orders, thatoperator is liable to a fine of not more than$100 for each day the contravention continues.

3.1.4 Livestock Diseases Act

The Livestock Diseases Act, through itsregulations, requires that the owner of adead animal dispose of the dead animalwithin 48 hours of death, by: Burying it with a covering of at least four

feet of earth, according to conditions intheAct.

Burning it. Transporting it to a rendering plant. Scavenging, under very restricted

circumstances.

If a producer fails to properly dispose of thedead animal, the producer is in violation ofthe Livestock Diseases Act and liable to a fine ofnot more than $10,000 or to imprisonment fora term of not more than one year or to both afine and imprisonment. Producers shouldreview Destruction and Disposal of Dead

Animals Regulations for specific disposalstandards.


32/111


B. FEDERAL LEGISLATION

3.1.5 Fisheries Act

3.1.5.1 Deleterious substanceUnder the Canadian Constitution, the

federal government has jurisdiction over theprotection of fish habitat. To protect fish

habitat, the federal government has enactedthe Fisheries Act. The Fisheries Act prohibitsanyone from depositing or permitting thedeposit of anything into any type of waterfrequented by fish, which can have adeleterious or harmful effect on the fish.Further, the Fisheries Act prohibits anyonefrom depositing a deleterious or harmfulsubstance in any place under any conditionwhere the deleterious or harmful substancemay enter any water frequented by fish. TheFisheries Act defines the phrase, waterfrequented by fish very broadly to include

all internal waters of Canada. Therefore, thisdefinition includes any creek, river, stream,lake or slough which is frequented by fish,including any creek which contains minnowsin the spring, but dries later in the summer.

As a result, a producer commits an offenceunder the Fisheries Act when he spreadsmanure on land located near a stream

frequented by fish, which then migrates intothe stream. The offence results even if thedeposit of the manure does not actually cause

harm to the fish. The mere fact that themanure migrated into water frequented byfish causes a violation of the Fisheries Act andmay result in charges under this Act, unlessthe producer can prove that at all materialtimes, the water is not, has not been, and isnot likely to be frequented by fish.

In addition, a producer commits an offenceunder the Fisheries Act if he spreads manureon land which has a stream frequented byfish, even if the deposit of the manure doesnot in fact enter the water, but had a reasonablechance of entering the water. The mere fact

that the manure had a reasonable chance toenter water frequented by fish violates theFisheries Act and may result in charges underthis Act. However, again, if the producer canprove that at all material times, the water isnot, has not been and is not likely to befrequented by fish, then the producer hasnot committed an offence under the Act.

3.1.5.2 Liability of directors and officersIf a corporation violates the Fisheries Act,

any officer, director or agent of the corporationwho was involved with the incident, evenin a minor way, is liable on conviction topunishment under the Fisheries Act, whetheror not the corporation itself has been charged.This is true regardless of whether theofficer, director or agent works for a large

corporation, or a small incorporated familyfarm. This means that, as with the AlbertaEnvironmental Protection and Enhancement Act,an officer, director, agent or a corporateproducer can be held personally responsiblefor violations of the Fisheries Act, if theofficer or director directed or participatedin the violation in any way.

3.1.5.3 Strict liability offencesAs with theAlberta Environmental Protection

and Enhancement Act, offences under theFisheries Act regarding the deposit of deleterious

substances or harmful substances into waterfrequented by fish are strict liabilityoffences. That is, the courts are not concernedas to whether the deposit of deleterious orharmful substances was intentional. Thecourts are only concerned with whether aproducer deposited a substance into any typeof water frequented by fish where thesubstance could have a deleterious or harmfuleffect on the fish. In addition, the courts areonly concerned with whether a producerdeposited a deleterious substance in any placeunder any condition where the deleterious

substance may enter any water frequented byfish. If a producer has performed either ofthese activities, the courts will convict the

producer, unless the producer can show that:(1) at all material times, the water is not, has

not been and is not likely to be frequentedby fish;

(2) the producer acted with due diligence toprevent the commission of the activity atissue; or

(3) the producer reasonably and honestlybelieved in the existence of the facts that, iftrue, the producers conduct would berendered innocent.


33/111

3.31September 2002

3.1.5.4 Fines

An individual or corporate producer isliable to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 for theproducers first deleterious substance offenceand to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 or to

imprisonment for a term of not exceedingthree years or to both, for any subsequentdeleterious substance offence.

3.1.6 Due diligence and environmentalmanagement systems

3.1.6.1 Due diligenceIn order to avoid a conviction under the

Alberta Environmental Protection andEnhancement Act and the federal Fisheries Act,a producer must have acted with duediligence in running the operation and incarrying out the activity at issue.

Whether a producer acted with duediligence in any particular circumstance will

be determined by the courts on a case-by-casebasis. Generally, the courts have indicated,that to act with due diligence, one must takeall reasonable steps to avoid harm. However,that does not mean [one] must take allconceivable steps.1 In addition, the courtshave established that, reasonable care anddue diligence do not mean superhumanefforts. They mean a high standard ofawareness and decisive, prompt andcontinuing action.2 In considering whetheran accused acted with due diligence, thecourts, ...examine what was done, whatcontrols were in place, what was the state oftechnology that existed through the evidenceof lay and expert witnesses to determineif the accused acted reasonably in thecircumstances. 3

A court may examine the following pointsto determine whether environmental duediligence has been exercised: Did the livestock operation establish and

monitor a pollution prevention system?For example, is there a reasonable nutrientmanagement plan for the operation?

Did the livestock operation ensure that itinstructed employees to:i Set up a pollution prevention system so

that the operation complied with theindustry practices and environmentallaws; i.e. the AOPA and the permitconditions.

ii Report to the manager if the livestockoperation was not complying with thesystem? For example, if soil-testinganalysis indicated high nitrate levels,making it dangerous to apply moremanure, was management told?

Did the livestock operation review theenvironmental compliance reports provided

by the operations officers? (Is there anannual review of the report and system?)

Did the livestock operation ensure that itsofficers and employees promptly addressedenvironmental concerns brought to itsattention by government agencies or otherconcerned parties? (Was the problemfixed?)

Was the livestock operation aware ofthe industry standards regardingenvironmental pollutants and risks?

Did the livestock operation addressproblems immediately?4

In addition, a court may examine whether acorporation has an environmental managementsystem, what the environmental managementsystem contains, how detailed it is, andwhether it is followed by the company, todetermine whether the company acted withdue diligence in carrying out the activity inquestion.

1. R. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority [1997] B.C.J. No. 1744, paragraph 55.2. R. v. Courtaulds Fibres Canada (1992), 9 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 304 at 313 (Ont. Prov. Ct.).3. R v. Northwood Pulp and Paper (1992) 9, C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 289 at p. 293.4. R v. Bata Industries Ltd. [1992] O.J. No. 236 at page 24 - 25 (Ont. Prov. Div.) online: QL (O.J.), rev'd in part on other

grounds 14 O.R. (3d) 354, rev'd in part on other grounds 127 D.L.R. (4th) 438.


34/111


3.1.6.2 Environmental management systems

Environmental management systems areused by corporations to establish andimplement policies and procedures foroperating an environmentally sustainablebusiness. An environmental managementsystem will examine the corporationsoperations to determine the following:

How these operations impact theenvironment.

Which policies and procedures can beimplemented to lessen or eliminate theoperations environmental impacts.

Which environmental standards and lawsthe corporation must follow.

Whether the corporation is following thesestandards and laws.

The environmental management systemwill then put into place the policies andprocedures to reduce the livestock operationsenvironmental impacts and to

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	liliput2582
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Lili - Cerdos 2009bmp_hog

Documents