New NRCB rules?

[cowman]

My hog farmer neighbor told me the new NRCB rules for a "Nutrient Management plan" are going to be based on Nitrogen content in your soil? Now is this dumb or what?
All manure including hog manure has a lot more P in it than N? But yet P is not going to be a limiting factor in how much manure you can put on! Phosphorus is the main problem...not the N!
The bottom line is by the time you get up to the N limits you are going to be way over the limit for P! But the NRCB doesn't require you to limit P!
In other words this whole "Nutrient Mangement Plan" is in fact another goofy government program that is designed to look good but actually accomplishes nothing other than giving more idiots jobs!

[cswilson]

here we go again cowman, you have been given some half accurate information. The legislation administered by the NRCB is provincial legislation NOT NRCB rules.
The legislation only deals with nitrogen, phosphorus loading is not included in the nutrient management plans at this time. This is NOT an NRCB rule, the NRCB only is mandated to administer what the province passes for legislation.
There are numerous studies now being undertaken on the phosphorus issue, and as we all know agriculture would need a whole whack more land if phosphorus guidelines were implemented in addition to nitrogen. I would suggest that you contact Alberta Agriculture and ask why phosphorus is not currently included in the AOPA legislation. You could also contact the NRCB office nearest you, and ask for a copy of the legislation .

If your hog farmer neighbour is calling it NRCB rules then he obviously needs ot become more informed as well. The legislation came into effect in January of 2002 after public consultations were held for several years.At the time the public consultation was taking place I was a municipal counicillor and was very involved in preparing presentations which were given to the two committees that went around the province. The Livestock Regulations Stakeholders Advisory Committee and the Klapstein Committee. Once those two committees had filed their reports and recommendations a committee made up of representatives from the Alberta Association of Municipalities and Counties, Alberta Health, Alberta Agriculture as well as ag engineers, legal counsel, etc. developed and drafted the legislation . After it was developed the NRCB was appointed by government to administer it......

[cowman]

Well sorry if I got my groups mixed up, but the fact is this: Whoever made the rules, I believe they have blundered?
If the purpose of a "manure management plan" is to manage nutrients, what is the sense of managing the lesser problem(nitrogen) and not the more serious problem of phospherus?
The argument that the "authorities" can't limit P because it would take a lot more land, tells it like it really is? A basically meaningless piece of government bafflegab that really has little to do with environmental protection? What was the point of the legislation?

[cowman]

I can assure you that Agricultural Fieldmen across the province would agree with you on the phosphorus issue,as would many other folks.
However, the legislation is here and until the decision is made to include phosphorus,it is my understanding that nutrient management plans will focus on nitrogen.
I feel that we are better to have the legislation as it stands than no legislation at all.
It doesn't just deal with manure spreading. Ongoing monitoring of existing operations was something that the Minister assured municipalities would take place, and the NRCB does have folks who do routine inspections to ensure that operations do not pose a risk to the environment.
This isn't limited to manure spreading, but can also include taking steps to ensure that lagoons aren't leaking, installing monitoring wells for leak detection, ensuring that lagoon contents to not exceed the levels and a freeboard is maintained etc. so there is no risk of lagoons overflowing.

In one instance that I am aware of an enforcement order was issued to an operator for hooking up his irrigation system to his lagoon and pumping out the lagoon contents into a lake !

[cowman]

emerald: I do appreciate your comments! If I come across as a cranky old SOB it is because sometimes I do get very frustrated with the Alberta government and it's "rules and regulations"...but no teeth! If you have ever tried to get a straight answer out of a lot of these guys you might know what I mean?
I sypathize with the NRCB boys as they get these "rules" but have neither funding or direction on how to apply them. There are some good people working for them without a doubt...Jim McKinley out of Red Deer comes to mind?
I am in constant contact with him as I am involved in a little "bio adventure"!

[cowman]

cowman, the NRCB can go to court to have fines levied against operators if the situation is serious enough, but the NRCB does not have the power to levy fines on their own.

I think that the NRCB has some excellent staff and they do their best to interpret and administer the legislation.

[cowman]

just another comment cowman. You commented that the NRCB did not have 'direction ' on how to apply the rules.
The NRCB is a regulator and must interpret the legislation not have someone direct them on how it is to be administered.
As with any regulator there will be those who agree with the way they carry out their work and those that don't. It is a new process and new regulations.

[cowman]

hey cowman, I don't mean to hog the postings on this site but I came across a report compiled by AAFRD on some research into phosphorus loading.
The research project was funded by the Beef Industry Development Fund, and the info can be found on the ABP website.
Sorry I am not smart enough to cut and past it onto this site.

[cowman]

I will check out the ABP site emerald. Phosphorus: I know how that darned phospherus can just make the weeds grow in a water body...from personal experience!
I have said on here before about the flowing springs I have? The cattle can not get out to them in the summer as basically they are in a muskeg(grassed over but basically on a sea of slop). In winter everything freezes up hard except the springs and they can get out there for water. Well naturally it tends to get a little "manurey"? Don't know if that is the right term but sounds more polite than the alternative???
Anyway come spring, there is a big run off river that flows through there and washes the whole works down into a big dam! Not a big deal as this dam flushes itself through the springs...it has a spillway out the other end and runs all summer.
However the darned sea weed and some algae do have a tendency to build up pretty bad near the entrance of the springs. Now this wouldn't really be a problem except we have trout in there and so we have to control the weeds. My Dad used to use bluestone but we haven't used that for years. Reglone works well but is costly and time consuming, because you can only do a small portion at a time. Hopefully when we fence the cows out this will eventually clear up this problem.

[Deb]

emrald, I have a question. How come the Alberta government says to apply manure by the N when we all know, and the scientists must have told them, that P is what we should be measuring application by. Why would they carry on as usual, seemingly pretending that they don't know about teh Phosphorous problem.

You mentioned that they'd need more land if we measured by phosphorous. Is that a good enough excuse to not do it right? Shouldn't the gov't just be saying sorry, this is your land base, here are the numbers according to P and don't go over it? They just seem to say, carry on doing it wrong, we'll worry about the P overload later.

Is there nobody out there to say STOP?

[Deb]

there are currently studies underway with regard to phophorus, however the AOPA legislation does not include it, only nitrogen. The legislation is Provincial Legislation and the NRCB administers it, they did not write it.

[Deb]

I should qualify my comments by saying that phosphorus loading limits is certainly something that to my knowlege is an issue that is being discussed . The land base required would be significantly more by the current loading standards. I am sure that any of our readers with expertise in soil analysis can add much more than I on this topic.

[Deb]

I understand who has made the rules and who administers. My question is, why aren't the farmers demanding that the rule-makers change the rules to reflect the need to apply manure by the phosphorous. Why is there not more info in the news media? Why aren't soil scientists stamping their feet. Are they lobbying the gov't rule-makers on the side? Who provides the impetus for change in this regard?

[Deb]

My response would be that as with any other issue that needs attention, it is up to the grassroots to take the initiative. I don't know how many farmers are going to get involved in the phosphorus issue if it means they will need to have more land available for spreading purposes. Nutrient management plans are required now for operations producing more than 500T of manure per year, and those plans as you know deal with N only.

[cowman]

Deb: why would any farmer in his right mind ask for the government to require P levels? Don't you know that they are even having trouble with N levels? The average farmers, perception, in Alberta, is this is just a bunch of government BS, anyway?
You really need to understand the mindset of the average Alberta farmer?