The Rural Voice, 2001-02, Page 40News
one of the problems is that the
building code, which comes under
Municipal Affairs, needs to be
updated. Currently earthen storages
are not covered as a "building" and
that is likely to be addressed.
The legislation will also likely set
standards for those creating nutrient
management plans, MacMillan said.
There is a strong argument that
farmers should be able to do it so the
legislation might be designed to let
this happen but there will likely be
some liability attached to making a
NMP.
Custom manure operators will
probably be licenced, he said, and the
legislation might cover new manure
treatment technologies.
The legislation will almost
certainly require better record
keeping to show a farmer lived up to
the NMP, he said.
There may also be rules for where
manure can be spread, setting
distances for buildings, manure
storages and application from
streams, wetlands and open bodies of
water. The Ministry of Environment
thinks it already has jurisdiction over
these areas, MacMillan said and
that's part of the delay in the
introduction of the legislation.
Access by cattle to open water
bodies and streams will likely be
eliminated. Winter feeding areas that
are adjacent to open water may be
regulated. There's also a need to
manage pasture properly, MacMillan
said. In British Columbia, for
instance, there's a limit to how long
cattle can be kept on a pasture area
close to streams, to prevent build-up
of manure.
One of the key elements identified
in the Galt -Barrett Report on manure
management was a need for clear
authority in enforcement of NMPs,
MacMillan said. The new legislation
could detail how those who ignored
their NMP will be dealt with and the
level of penalties, though he couldn't
say which level of government would
be delegated the enforcement
authority.
Will existing farm operators be
safe under the act? MacMillan said
some management practices will be
grandfathered (allowed to continue
36 THE RURAL VOICE
by current operators) as long as they
don't have a negative impact. Some
management aspects will be
retroactive but many of the farms
affected will already have done a
NMP in order to get a building
permit for an enlarged barn.
Will there be financial support to
help farmers cope with the new
regulations? MacMillan admitted he
didn't know.
There was harsh criticism from
the cattlemen for some of the likely
changes. Chris Frieberger of the
Bruce County Cattlemen's
Association had started the nutrient
management session by outlining the
paper his group had presented to the
Galt -Barrett hearings, saying surface
water pollution is a problem for all of
society, not just farmers. He
criticized the hearings for
concentrating on agriculture and
ignoring bypasses of municipal
treatment plants which put untreated
sewage into streams.
Another questioner felt the
farmers are treated unfairly compared
to municipalities while another said it
seemed farmers were being asked to
build to higher standards than
municipalities. But MacMillan
warned farmers not to fall into the
trap of asking for the same standards
as municipalities. Towns and cities
must have approvals which require
much higher engineering costs than
farmers could bear, he said. Even
when they have bypasses during
exceptional rainfalls, those are part of
a municipality's management plan
that has been prepared at great
expense.
He urged farmers not to be
blaming everyone else. "This
industry is under the microscope
today and if you point fingers at
everyone else it's not going to stop
pointing fingers back at you."'
In the end, said MacMillan, the
increasing cost of commercial
chemical fertilizers may take care of
the manure management issue. If
manure becomes more valuable
farmers will want to get the best use
of the fertility it provides and not
waste anything, he said.0 •
Advice
No -till works after
winter wheat
By Doug Young,
Ridgetown College
Three years of zone -till research
conducted by Ridgetown College on a
Brookston clay loam soil have shown
that corn yields after winter wheat on
no -tilled and fall moldboard plowed
land, were the same.
Ten different tillage systems were
compared in the study. After three
years, deep zone tillage in the fall to a
depth of 12" gave an average corn
yield of 129.7 bu/ac. Fall moldboard
plowing with spring cultivating had
an average corn yield of 124.0 bu/ac
and no -till using a single coulter +
trash whippers had the same average
corn yield of 124.0 bu/ac. Zone -till,
using three coulters on the planter
yielded 122.1 bu/ac of corn. Fall zone
tillage treatments, 6" deep yielded
121.4 of corn, while 3" deep fall zone
tillage yielded 119.3 bu/ac of corn.
Spring zone tillage 6" and 3" deep
yielded 115.2 bu/ac and 117.8 bu/ac
of corn. Fall tandem disking, with no
other tillage in the spring, fell
between the fall zone tillage and
spring zone tillage treatments, giving
corn yields of 118.3 bu/ac. Spring
tandem disking alone was not as
effective as the other treatments,
yielding only an average of 104.6
bu/ac of corn over the three year
study.
In this study the fall deep tillage
treatment required about twice the
horsepower per foot of width than the
next most power intensive treatment.
Fall conditions were quite dry all
three years for this treatment,
resulting in ideal conditions for deep
tillage. In years with wetter soil
conditions in the fall, it is possible
that the deep zone tillage would not
work as well. There was not a corn
yield benefit to zone tillage
treatments in either the spring or the
fall at the 6" or 3" depth in this study
compared to no -till and zone tillage
with the planter. Fall zone tillage
treatments gave higher corn yields
than spring zone -till treatments,
however, both no -till treatments and
fall moldboard plowing were as good
or better.0