NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Corner Post
Farm & Countryside Commentary
by Elbert van Donkersgoed
January 17, 2003

I'm no longer a fan of nutrient management plans. Well, that's not exactly true. I still think on-farm nutrient management plans are a great tool for balancing nutrients and farm crop needs in order to protect the environment. But, under the auspices of Ontario's new Nutrient Management Act and 250 pages of draft regulations and protocols, this basic farm management tool has become too complex.

The original concept of nutrient management plans, adopted five years ago by the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition, was good. The Farm Coalition (OFEC) proposed documented nutrient management plans based on the essentials of balancing on-farm nutrients and crop needs for farms expanding to more than 150 livestock units. Most municipal nutrient management bylaws are based on the Farm Coalition (OFEC) model.

The provincial approach is something else altogether. Enthusiastic regulators have piled on half a dozen agendas with the expectation that nutrient management will take care of almost any agricultural environmental issue that might arise. Provincially designed nutrient management is expected to deliver "the best clean water in the world" and implement all of the recommendations of the Walkerton Inquiry. The proposed rules will regulate farm odour, forbid municipalities from capping farm size, require all farmers to do nutrient management plans and enforce setbacks and buffers for streams, wells and a range of sensitive countryside uses.

Each additional agenda, each environmental issue, has added complexity to what began as a practical approach to the on-farm management of nutrients and crop needs. What do we have now? An act and draft regulations striving to become a comprehensive pollution prevention strategy for all of agriculture. The result? complexity heaped onto nutrient management planning, and an approach to pollution prevention that is seriously flawed.

Ontario farmers need to call a timeout to rethink this convoluted approach to pollution prevention.

Let's remember that basic on-farm nutrient management as a balance between nutrients and crop needs can have a positive impact on farm cash flow. Toploading nutrient management with all these additional agendas and issues will bury a great farm tool under escalating costs and missed opportunities.

Don't get me wrong. Many of those piled on agendas and issues need agriculture's attention. Proposed setbacks and buffers, for example, can contribute to enhancing our environment. But let's trigger their implementation with environmental payments not with regulation. Pollution prevention in agriculture needs two distinct acts. The first act should stick with the original agenda of requiring larger farms to maintain documented nutrient management plans. A second act should enable pollution prevention through environmental payments, for land-based activities that enhance our environment.

Ontario's Nutrient Management Act has devolved into a complex scheme that borders on a boondoggle. __________ The OFEC's original "Model By-law Requiring The Preparation Of A Nutrient Management Plan For Certain Livestock Operations" is posted at www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/environment/ofec/coalition.htm#7

Elbert van Donkersgoed is the Strategic Policy Advisor of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, Canada. Corner Post can be heard weekly on CFCO Radio, Chatham and CKNX Radio, Wingham, Ontario. Corner Post is archived on the website of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario: www.christianfarmers.org. CFFO is supported by 4,500 family farmers across the province of Ontario, Canada.