Proposed changes to Tables 1 and 2 of the Nutrient Management Protocol incorporated by reference into O. Reg 267/03 made under the Nutrient Management Act, 2002

Introduction

In Ontario, the Nutrient Management Act, 2002, (NMA) provides for the management of materials containing nutrients in ways that will enhance protection of the natural environment and provide a sustainable future for agricultural operations and rural development. The responsibility for the NMA is shared jointly between the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP).

The General Regulation (O. Reg. 267/03) regulates the management of nutrients, including agricultural source material (e.g. manure) and non-agricultural source material (e.g., sewage biosolids). This regulation establishes rules for the management of prescribed materials as part of an agricultural operation, including their storage and application. This regulation requires the development of a farm-based nutrient management strategy (NMS) and/or nutrient management plan (NMP) for an agricultural operation in specified circumstances.

The Nutrient Management Tables were incorporated by reference under O. Reg. 267/03 made under the NMA. These tables are intended to provide technical data for use by producers that fall under the NMA to assist in the development of their NMS and NMP.

• Table 1 (Nutrient Unit Livestock Information) is used for planning purposes to determine manure production based on several factors, such as livestock type, animal weight and housing system.
• Table 2 (Manure Databank) is used for planning purposes to determine the nutrient value of manure based on livestock type and dry matter percentage.

The data in these tables is also used by OMAFRA software called AgriSuite that provides producers with free agricultural and environmental decision support tools related to crop management, nutrient management and minimum distance separation. AgriSuite uses these tables to calculate the recommended size of manure storages and to determine land application rates.

Information from Table 2 regarding total nutrient content (TKN, NH4-N, TP, TK) and total solids/dry matter can be used to comply with requirements in subsections 81(5) and 91(3) of the Regulation and sections 7.3 and 10.3 of the Nutrient Management Protocol. Other information found in Table 2 may be useful for other purposes.

Proposed Updates

Tables 1 and 2 are intended to be updated periodically to ensure they remain up-to-date. The proposed updates to these tables are intended to ensure that the information found in these tables reflect current livestock production practices and needs.

Proposed changes to Table 1 include:

• Changes to sub-types for broiler chickens
• Consolidation of sow sub-types
• Increases to some animal weights
• A decrease in livestock housing capacity for grain-fed veal
• Updates to footnotes

Proposed changes to Table 2 would update nutrient content values based on current nutrient value data, as well as updates to the introduction and footnotes.

Detailed information on Table 1 and 2 updates can be found below in sections “Table 1 Updates” and “Table 2 Updates”.

Table 1 Updates

Increase in Average Finished Weight of “Beef – Feeders” (7-16 months), and “Beef – Short Keep” (12.5 – 17.5 months)

The beef feeder and short keep finished weights in AgriSuite, and Table 1, have remained unchanged since its initial release in 2003. In contrast to this, the industry has shown a gradual, and steady, increase in finished cattle weights since that time.

• The proposed change would increase the average animal finished weight for all sub-types of beef feeders (7-16 months) and beef short keeps (12.5 – 17.5 months). Consequently, this change will increase the average animal finished weight shown in Table 1 for calculating manure production from growing beef animals (beef feeders and beef short keep). The original average finished weight value of 362 kilograms for all beef feeders housing types would change to 394 kilograms which would result in an increase in the calculation of manure production by approximately 8 percent. The original average finished weight value of 469 kilograms for all beef short keeps housing types would change to 492 kilograms which would result in an increase in the calculation of manure production by approximately 4.8 percent. The proposed changes will align with finished cattle weights published by Beef Farmers of Ontario.

Revision to Sub-Types, Average Weight of Animal and Volume of Solid Manure Produced per day per metric tonne for “Chickens – Broilers”

• The proposed change would revise the sub-type titles for Broiler Chickens to reflect the size of birds grown as opposed to the production cycle duration of the bird. In 2018, Chicken Farmers of Ontario revised their production cycles available to their growers to include a new 7-week production cycle and remove the 12-week production cycle from their options. Improved growth rate and feed conversion rates of modern broiler chicken has resulted in fewer days in barn to reach market weight and more down time between flocks when the barns are empty. By shortening the production cycles growers are able to reduce the amount of time their barns are empty during the year.
• The average weight value for broilers, less than 2 kilograms shipping weight is proposed as 0.67 kilograms per animal. The average weight value for broilers between 2.01 - 2.5 kilograms shipping weight is proposed as 0.74 kilograms per animal. The average weight value for broilers between 2.51 – 3.0 kilograms shipping weight is proposed as 0.92 kilograms per animal. The average weight value for broilers greater than 3.01 kilograms shipping weight is proposed as 1.17 kilograms per animal.
• For all sub-types of broiler chickens, the volume of solid manure produced per metric tonne of animal per day would decrease by 12% from 0.1249 to 0.1104 cubic metre/1000 kilograms/day to reflect the improvement in feed conversion values for modern broiler genetics over the past 14 years. This reflects that it takes less feed to produce the same kilogram of meat than it did in 2003 and as a result, less manure is being generated from these operations. This change is based on two-years’ worth of manure sampling data from sixteen broiler barns.

Increase in Average Weight of “Milking Age Cows Large Frame”, “Milking Age Cows Medium Frame (Guernsey Size)” and “Milking Age Cows Small Frame (Jersey Size)”

• Dairy manure production calculations correlate to the weight of the animal and similarly, to the volume of milk production. The size of dairy cows is increasing with the continued drive for increased milk production. Studies have validated increased milk production over the last several years as documented by the Canadian Dairy Information Centre based on information provided by Provincial Milk Boards and Agencies.
• Recent literature, including Guernsey Canada website and Jersey Canada website, document average weights that are greater than those previously used in support of the nutrient management program. An increase in the average cow weights for large, medium, and small frame milking age cows are required to ensure that dairy cow manure production estimates used in nutrient management calculations remain accurate.
• The average weight of a large frame (e.g., Holstein) milking age cow, for all housing types, is proposed to be increased by 6.4 percent from 658 kilograms to 700 kilograms. The average weight of a medium frame (e.g., Guernsey) milking age cow, for all housing types, is proposed to be increased by 10.2 percent from 499 kilograms to 550 kilograms. The average weight of a small frame (e.g., Jersey) milking age cow, for all housing types, is proposed to be increased by 5.3 percent from 431 kilograms to 454 kilograms.

Harmonization of manure values for “Swine – Sows (dry) and Boars” and “Swine – Sows with Litters” by elimination of Segregated Early Wean (SEW) and Non-Segregated Early Wean (non-SEW) subtypes

• The proposed change will eliminate the sub-type categories “Non-SEW”, and “SEW” for sows and replace these sub-types with a single set of values for each of “Sows (dry) and Boars” and “Sows with Litters”. Daily manure production volumes per sow used in the current Table 1 are identical for both the SEW and non-SEW sow categories, however the two sub-categories are assigned two different nutrient unit values for an equal number of sows. This proposed change will also ensure that nutrient unit values for sows producing an equal volume of manure are the same.

Revise naming of “Turkeys - Turkey Pullet (0 to 6 weeks)” to “Turkeys - Turkey Starter Barn (0 to 6 weeks)”

• There is a typographical error in the turkey sub-type column in the 2015 version of Table 1. Currently the sub-type states “Turkey Pullet” while the correct terminology “Turkey Poult” represents the brooder barn where many turkeys are started after hatch for the first 4-6 weeks of production before being transferred to grow-out barns. To avoid confusion, it is proposed to change the title from “Turkeys – Turkey Pullet (0 to 6 weeks)” to “Turkeys – Turkey Starter Barn (0 to 6 weeks)”.

Increase in Average Weight and Decrease in Livestock Housing Capacity of “Veal – Grain Fed”

• Grain fed veal producers are growing calves to a heavier shipping weight of 725 pounds (329.5 kilograms) versus the weight shown in the 2015 Table 1 of 690 pounds (313.6 kilograms). Revising the shipping weight will have the effect of raising the average weight used in Table 1. The proposed change would increase the average weight of grain fed veal animals from 134 kilograms per animal to 140 kilograms. This will result in an increase to the calculation of manure production by approximately 3.5 percent.
• The proposed change would also decrease the housing capacity area allocated per animal for grain fed veal. The original value of 6.97 square meters per animal would change to 5.85 square meters per animal which would align with the current Canadian Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Veal Cattle. Most grain fed veal raised in Ontario are large frame Holstein cattle or beef/dairy crosses and the majority are raised in bedded pack style barn at a slightly higher density than dairy heifer facilities. The 2015 Table 1 uses the housing capacity area value for dairy heifer facilities for determining Grain fed veal area which does not accurately reflect the sector.

Table 2 Updates

Table 2 is the manure databank used to estimate nutrient content of animal manure for nutrient management planning where manure analysis is not available. This in turn influences the application rate and the total amount of manure that can be land applied. As the Ministry receives new manure sample results, the manure databank is updated to provide more accurate nutrient value averages for all livestock types.

Farms have manure tested and the labs provide aggregated results of manure analyses done by livestock type. Rations change over time and the number of samples per category increases therefore making the manure analysis information more accurate. The updated tables reflect that changing rations are slowly reducing the phosphorus and nitrogen in many species of manure. The updated tables also reflect more accurate data for some of the subcategories because there are more samples.

Environmental Impacts

This proposal will support the protection of ecological systems by ensuring that agricultural operations are using up-to-date values that reflect current industry standards in the sizing of manure storages resulting in more accurate capacity calculations which will result in better planning for the spreading of manure. Accurate nutrient values for manure helps farmers to better meet crop needs, leading to a decreased risk of over application of nutrients and nutrient loss to the environment. We do not anticipate any significant environmental impacts as a result of these changes.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

The proposed updates to Tables 1 and 2 would not introduce new compliance or administrative costs. Updated information will ensure adequate sizing of proposed nutrient storages. Once the storages are built, the farmer must continue to ensure nutrients are managed appropriately in conjunction with the requirements of the NMS and associated regulations based on individual circumstances.