CHESTERVILLE -- Dundas County Federation of Agriculture
director Gordon Garlough agrees that the province’s Bill 81 is necessary
but there are four concerns that farmers are struggling with.
1. The term "nutrient unit" in the draft bill
81 is not well understood.
"Nutrient unit is being used only to categorize
the size of a farm," he said. "What people are confused with is
they think it carries over to the planning and the use of manure on the
land. Nutrient unit has nothing to do with that.
2. The first stage of talks focuses exclusively on
manure.
"When you talk about manure and not nutrients you
are not being scientific," he said. "It (Bill 81) has the
outward appearance of being nothing but a manure act."
He adds that farmers should be concerned if manure is
singled out and fertilizer and biosolids are not taken into account.
3. Farmers need an enormous amount of detail to
complete a nutrient management plan.
"It’s way beyond the details required by
municipalities. It borders on blueprints required to build a house. It has
just become an immense amount of paper work. You almost need blueprints
for each field, which is not practicable. It does nothing for nutrient
management."
The nutrient management plan requires maps drawn to
scale that show field slopes and buffer strips between fields and ditches,
he said.
4. The terms "nutrient management plan" and
"nutrient management strategy" are confused.
A farm is required to write a nutrient management plan.
An industrial plant like Parmalat or any other generator of nutrients and
with no land to spread on must have a nutrient management strategy. A farm
that owns land for spreading nutrients but does not have enough land would
still write a nutrient management plan.
