Environment: What Ontario pork producers get for their research dollars

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

From manure storage construction and application to anaerobic digestion, research supported by Ontario Pork is helping producers to operate their business in a more environmentally sustainable manner

by SAM BRADSHAW

Ontario's pork producers have invested over $3.9 million dollars in environmental research in the last 10 years. So what do we get for it?

Most will remember the early 1990s, when it seemed like every application for a building permit was being challenged. Research served to prove to regulators and others that we were operating our businesses in an environmentally sustainable manner.

When the Nutrient Management Act was in its early stages, research helped us to soften some of the more onerous regulations and eliminate others.

Now we are faced with the potential consequences of the Clean Water Act. Agricultural researchers are demonstrating that nutrients, if applied properly, will not cause water quality problems. Good research will help us challenge some of the potential impacts it will have on our bottom lines.

The following outlines only five of many valuable research projects that Ontario Pork has supported.

1. Manure storage construction. University of Waterloo researcher David Rudolph is studying the impact hog production might have on water quality. Some of his early research has shown that manure storages in Ontario were quite sound.

This research had a beneficial effect in easing the regulations for manure storage construction in the Nutrient Management Act and helped influence the way the Ministry of the Environment looks at manure storages.

2. Manure application methods. Researchers from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) have been working on better methods of applying manure for many years.

Bonnie Ball Coelho, an AAFC researcher who has completed a lot of work on manure injection and side dressing, says that improvements in the timing, methods and rates of application will allow producers to derive greater economic benefit from the nutrients applied, and also reduce possible contamination of ground and surface waters.

Research such as this has tempered the desire to create onerous manure application regulations. For example, when the Nutrient Management Act was first contemplated regulations were very restrictive and complicated. Regulations became much easier to follow after regulators were introduced to some of our research results.

3. Continuous-flow composter. Ontario Pork supported Ag Canada researchers George Lazarovits, Ken Conn and Ed Topp in designing a continuous-flow composter for digestion of liquid swine manure. The composter maintained a manure temperature of 55-63 C for three months with manure continuously passing through it.

The technology is inexpensive and the equipment is simple to maintain. The material coming out of the tank had no detectable E. coli or salmonella and it retained all of the starting nutrients. The liquid coming out of the composter should be considered as a liquid fertilizer/compost. The researchers believe this compost is a safe and effective fertilizer.

4. Storage of manure to control pathogens. Other preliminary research is indicating that a relatively simple management practice which involves storing manure for several months without adding new material reduces the pathogen concentration in stored manure quite dramatically. The capital cost would increase, however, as two storage tanks would be required for this to be successful.

5. Anaerobic digestion. Ron Fleming and Malcolm MacAlpine from the University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, have completed a project involving the use of two pilot anaerobic digesters to measure biogas production from liquid swine manure, liquid swine manure mixed with corn silage and liquid swine manure mixed with shredded sugar beets.

The mix of swine manure and corn silage yielded 581 litres methane per kilograms of volatile solids. This value likely could have been exceeded if the temperature in the digester could have been kept on target during the latter portion of the test. Methane represented 55.8 per cent of the total biogas production.

Liquid swine manure at 4.4 per cent dry matter yielded 552 litres of methane per kilogram of volatile solids. Methane represented 68 per cent of the total biogas production.

The mix of swine manure and sugar beets produced only 224 litres methane per kilogram of volatile solids. Almost certainly, this value underestimates the true potential, as there were problems in maintaining digester temperature during the winter trials.
Methane represented 56.7 per cent of the total biogas production. BP

Sam Bradshaw is environmental specialist with Ontario Pork.