Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 14 - Evidence - Meeting of March 29, 2012
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 29, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:04 a.m. to examine and report on research and innovation efforts in the agricultural sector (topic: the managing of agricultural waste — agriculture life cycle analysis).
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, good morning. I declare the meeting in session and would like to welcome you this morning to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Ms. Kari Dunfield from the University of Guelph, do you hear us?
Kari Dunfield, Assistant Professor, Department of Land Resource Science, University of Guelph: Yes, I do. Good morning.
The Chair: My name is Senator Percy Mockler from New Brunswick, and I am chair of the committee. At this time I would ask all senators to introduce themselves, please.
Senator Merchant: Hello, I am Pana Merchant and I am a senator from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: I am Fernand Robichaud, from Saint-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: Frank Mahovlich from Ontario.
Senator Plett: I am Don Plett from Manitoba.
Senator Buth: JoAnne Buth from Manitoba.
Senator Eaton: I am Senator Eaton from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais, Quebec City.
Senator Rivard: Michel Rivard, the Laurentides, Quebec.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for accepting our invitation to share your views, vision and recommendations with the committee so that we can table a report that will reflect the industry.
Today we are focusing on research and innovation in Canada's agricultural waste management industry. To share with you, witnesses, the committee has an order to do a study looking at developing new markets domestically and internationally, to enhance agricultural sustainability.
[Translation]
The reason is also to improve food diversity and security across the country.
This morning, we have the honour to welcome Ms. Kari Dunfield.
[English]
She is the Assistant Professor, Department of Land Resource Science, University of Guelph, here by video conference. We were supposed to be in Guelph today and tomorrow but have postponed that trip.
You can be assured, Ms. Dunfield, that we will be visiting you later, after April or May.
[Translation]
We also welcome, from Bio-Terre Systems Inc., Élise Villeneuve, who is Chief Operation Officer. Thank you for accepting our invitation.
[English]
We will start presentations and Ms. Dunfield will be first, followed by Ms. Villeneuve, and then there will be a period of questions from the senators.
Ms. Dunfield, please make your presentation.
Ms. Dunfield: Thank you for inviting me to participate today. I apologize if I am coughing. This is the end of semester for university professors. It is the home stretch and we are challenged with tying up lectures, marking exams and trying to get graduate students defending. My immunity has been challenged and I have come down with a cold, so I am happy to be joining with by video conference so I will not spread my germs.
I will provide a general overview of my expertise and research focus. Then I will speak more specifically about the research I have conducted that is relevant to the question we are addressing today, which is the management of agricultural wastes. I feel that my research particularly fits into the committee's mandate of improving agricultural sustainability and also protecting food security.
I am an associate professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph. OAC was established in 1874 and has a long history of agricultural research. My personal research interest is looking at the environmental effects of agricultural land use and the mitigation of these effects.
The OAC has been an excellent supporting organization for my research simply to the breath of research expertise that we have here, and clear connections with supporting organizations such as our partnership with Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
My academic unit is the School of Environmental Sciences. We are a multidisciplinary unit established in 2009. We are looking to tackle important environmental problems.
Personally, my area of research is soil microbial ecology. I have an undergraduate degree from the University of Calgary in microbiology and molecular biology, followed by degrees from the College of Agriculture at the University of Saskatchewan where I did a master's degree in plant sciences and PhD in soil science. My research uses cutting edge techniques — DNA-based molecular techniques — to look at soil micro-organisms in the environment. Soil micro- organisms play a vital role in many important ecosystem functions that influence both soil and crop productivity.
There is ample evidence that the diversity of soil microbial communities can change in response to plant genotypes and that management practices — such as growing genetically modified crops, using conventional versus no tillage practices, applying manure as a soil amendment or harvesting agricultural residues for biofuel crops — can affect the abundance and activity of micro-organisms. Any practice that changes the microbial community is a bit of a concern because micro-organisms are at the base of soil food web and are involved in a lot of important crucial soil processes, such as greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient transformations, organic carbon decomposition, carbon sequestration, soil structure and aggregation and soil erosion.
What I am interested in, and what my research lab focuses on, is assessing how agricultural management practices affect these important soil ecosystems, sustainability and soil health. We do this by looking at the microbial communities.
My research into the environmental impact of agricultural waste follows two streams. I have worked with agrometeorologist Claudia Wagner-Riddle in order to link emissions of nitrous oxide from soils to changes in the composition of microbial communities in the soil. This question is really critical for a good understanding of a life cycle analysis of manure. We understand there are multiple points in a livestock operation that greenhouse gas emissions can occur. Animals can emit methane and the stored manure can release methane, nitrous oxide and ammonia. Also, when manure is land applied it can actually be a sink for greenhouse gases in the form of CO2, but we must remember that soil can be a source of greenhouse gases in the form of nitrous oxide and ammonia. Since these are microbial driven processes, we can improve our understanding of the soil and environmental factors that affect the micro-organisms. This is critical for better modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from these systems.
The complementary approach my research lab is taking and is involved in is the movement and survival of pathogens transported from manure into the soil with the goal of source water protection. We know that land applied manure is a significant source of human pathogens into the water and the soil. Furthermore, contamination of irrigation water through manure spills into the environment has been indicated to be the source of some fecal contamination in several key food-borne illness outbreaks in fresh produce and cut vegetables. It is important to understand survival of pathogens in the soil and their movement.
I would like to finally emphasize that as a soil scientist I feel that the use of agricultural wastes or manure is an important soil amendment that can be used by farmers to maintain soil carbon and nutrient levels and ensure sustainability. Build up in the carbon in the soil is not only important for carbon sequestration, but it is possibly more important for maintaining soil structure and protecting against erosion. In livestock farms where it is common practice for crop residues to be used for silage and feed, manure represents a key point where we can return nutrients back to the soil system.
Fundamental questions are really still unanswered about best management practices for land application of manure. There are often contradictory practices that exist for nutrient loss versus pathogen loss versus greenhouse gas emissions. For example, land applied manure should be incorporated or applied to pre-tilled land or soil in order to prevent preferential flow of nutrients. However, the incorporation of the soil is what actually helps minimize off- gassing of ammonia. On the flip side for pathogens, the best management practice is to surface apply manure to the land so the UV can help die off the pathogens.
We need to be able to form a policy that helps guide farmers for these choices. The Nutrient Management Act is in place to ensure minimal nitrogen and phosphorous movement in soil, but does not tackle the question of pathogens or greenhouse gases. The priority for farmers might be nutrients, simply because it is financial consequence for them to lose nutrients from soil if they have to replace it with commercial fertilizer. It is important to study and understand the other key environmental issues to provide guidance in these areas if we feel that farmers need to prioritize something else, such as source water protection or greenhouse gas emission.
I will leave it there.
The Chair: Thank you Ms. Dunfield.
[Translation]
Élise Villeneuve, Chief Operations Officer, Bio-Terre Systems Inc.: Mr. Chair, my name is Élise Villeneuve. I am an engineer and Chief Operations Officer at Bio-Terre Systems Inc., a business in Sherbrooke, Quebec.
Bio-Terre markets anaerobic digestion technology that was developed and patented by Agriculture Canada and the University of Ottawa in the early 1990s.
[English]
The objective of this development was to offer Canadian farms a stable and reliable digestion technology that would operate at a lower temperature than what was out there already.
I want to stop here and ask if you need to have an explanation of anaerobic digestion or a biogas system. Would that be useful?
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Villeneuve: What Ms. Dunfield was presenting was interesting because she focused a lot on the problems of pathogens in the manure that is being spread. Anaerobic digestion is a process that digests the manure before it is being spread. It creates methane, a renewable energy, while doing it.
It has a lot of benefits in terms of reducing pathogens, I would say almost in some cases eliminating pathogens in the manure. It transforms the nitrogen in the manure to a form that is interesting for the plant — Ms. Dunfield could talk more about this — which helps the crop grow better. Also, as I said, it creates methane.
Basically, when the manure is created by the animals, it goes into a vessel that is closed. It is a treatment that is anaerobic, so no oxygen. It is a simple natural bacteria that degrades. If you have a place in the country, you probably have anaerobic digestion that occurs to treat the wastewater from your house in your septic field. That is basically what anaerobic digestion is.
The lab and pilot testing done by Agriculture Canada proved the success of the approach earlier on. The next step was to find a private partner to test the full-scale system on real applications, which they did with our company Bio- Terre. Bio-Terre was incorporated in 1998 by three engineering firms in Manitoba and Quebec. They spent the first five to six years demonstrating full-scale the technology by building three demonstration sites, one in Manitoba, two in Quebec, to prove that it was working well in a real application, full-scale. In this case, it was pig farms.
[Translation]
Bio-Terre began marketing efforts in 2003, mainly in Quebec, but without success. In the years that followed, it further developed the technology, conducted more research and developed new applications of that same technology. All this was done in cooperation with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the Lennoxville research centre and the invaluable assistance of governments through research and development grants and credits.
It was not until around 2009 that Bio-Terre won a major contract with an American promoter in the United States. Through our innovative technology and the fact that we had tested the approach on large-scale sites, we were able to demonstrate that it worked well, and the promoter selected our Canadian technology from a dozen American and European technologies on the market at that time.
[English]
Today we have two sites in operation in Oregon, two in construction and ten more in the pipeline, all in the U.S. We are very proud of this export success. On the other hand, in Canada, we have still not been able to deploy our technology yet.
Anaerobic digestion is definitely a great opportunity for the agriculture industry. If you are aware of this, you probably know all about the benefits, some of them I presented earlier on this approach. You also probably know that it is a success elsewhere in the world, and it is growing fast in many countries. Unfortunately, in Canada, we have not picked up the pace yet for this.
[Translation]
I would like to make three recommendations to the committee. The first two concern innovation generally and the third anaerobic digestion in an agricultural context more specifically.
First, we recommend that the government continue offering development support programs for promising innovative technologies through, for example, research and development credits.
Second, we recommend that the government offer businesses a marketing support program early in the development stage. The sales cycles for innovative technologies are very long and markets in Canada are small. It is more difficult for Canadian technologies to move from R&D mode to marketing mode than for American technologies. Support for that phase is very important and currently lacking.
It is also important to offer this pre-marketing support early in the process while R&D is still under way and headed toward completion. We often run on empty between the R&D and pre-marketing phases, which is where many businesses die and are incapable of introducing our very promising Canadians technologies into the market.
For example, just as we have the R&D credits program, why would there not be a pre-marketing credits program? It could be possible and effective to offer it while R&D credits are still being granted so that there is a combination of the two and a more gradual shift from one to the other.
[English]
My third recommendation concerns farm digesters specifically. A proper context to deploy this innovation is required. For example, countries with a successful farm AD industry rely on energy buy-back programs and policies to encourage and simplify the deployment of the systems on all accounts. Farmers need to be encouraged and supported financially and administratively. For this industry to become a success, several key factors need to come together, and these key factors come from different governments in different instances. It is a little bit complicated to put everything together to make it work. In order to secure the future of our industry and of AD anaerobic digestion in the agriculture industry, I recommend that a Canada-wide task force be put in place to ensure that the main key factors be considered by the different departments and levels of governments. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you so much, Ms. Villeneuve. We will now go to questions, starting with Senator Plett.
Senator Plett: Thank you for your presentations. I really have only one question that I want to focus on at this point, and that is the area of some of our fertilizer and manure getting into the waterways. I think Ms. Dunfield spoke about that. One of the issues we have is that our manure is getting into the waterways.
Before I delve into it a bit, is the problem mostly in it getting into our waterways over land by getting into ditches and then flowing down into rivers and so on, or is it getting down and getting into the water streams?
Ms. Dunfield: I can speak to Ontario more specifically. In Ontario, because we have quite high groundwater levels and often our agricultural lands are tile drained, there is actually quite a bit of downward preferential flow of pathogens and nutrients through those tile drains or into shallow ground water. It is both. There can be runoff and also sub-surface contamination. It depends obviously on the soil type and how high your groundwater levels are at the time. Manure has been proven to flow quickly, depending on what the soil state is and whether it is saturated. If it is saturated or raining on a day that you apply manure, you can get rapid flow into tile drain waters and surface ground waters.
Senator Plett: Our farmers have become tremendously efficient in their work. One of the things that farmers are always struggling with and have worked on improving is drainage off of their land. The better their drainage gets, the quicker some of this stuff will flow off of the land, as opposed to 20 or 30 years ago when it would sit there and go down.
I have been involved in the construction industry most of my life. Ms. Villeneuve spoke briefly about septic fields. We have regulations that allow me to have a two-acre lot in Manitoba, at least, and most of these are national regulations, but I know in Manitoba. I can have a lot that is just under two acres in size, and I can put a disposal field on it. That disposal field has to be, I think, 35 feet away from my house and 50 feet away from a well. This is an over- ground disposal system. We do not have a problem with that. I do not believe it is creating a problem — high water tables, Ms. Dunfield, notwithstanding. However, we do not have those everywhere. Yet, it seems that we have the same fears in my province that we are getting that manure into our water streams. However, overall, people seem to be healthy longer than they used to 20 or 30 years ago. Our life expectancy is longer, and I think it is as a result of all of the work that we are doing, including the work that you are talking about.
I am not sure that I share the same sentiments that we have issues with this in light of the fact that with disposal fields we are allowed to do this. We can have a row of residences on two-acre lots. In my province, we have large developments where we will have 30, 40 or 50 two-acre lots. Farmers have subdivided their properties into these two- acre lots and are building these disposal fields. We do not have a concern with that. I am not advocating that we have a problem with it and that we start clamping down on those people, but I am wondering whether there is not an inconsistency here when we are worrying about the farmer and we are not worrying about these developments.
Either one of you, please help me with that.
Ms. Dunfield: I think there have been some key instances, such as Walkerton, where there has been movement of pathogens off a farm field into groundwater, which has caused illness. That has flagged the issue.
I think we maybe should be concerned about septic fields. I think there are definitely maybe not new ones but septic contamination of water. I am speaking about agricultural waste today, but my research looks at all faecal contaminations, definitely not just agricultural ones.
I would never suggest that we should not be applying manure to agricultural land, but that we should be aware of the timing of application and issues such as shallow soils, high groundwater and areas that maybe should not be getting a manure application.
I do not think that really answers everything you are concerned about.
Senator Plett: I would like Ms. Villeneuve to also give me her opinion. However, before she does, Ms. Dunfield, you raised Walkerton. Was Walkerton not a problem of overland flooding as opposed to it getting into the waterway? If I am wrong, correct me in that.
Ms. Dunfield: Over-land flooding?
Senator Plett: "Over-land flooding," meaning that it was overland drainage that created the problem, not flooding. I should not have used that word.
Ms. Dunfield: My understanding is that it was manure into a groundwater, but I think it happened through a well system. You are correct, over-land into a well.
Senator Plett: Right.
Ms. Dunfield: The more important problem there was that the source water protection was not in place to protect the municipal water.
I think there are issues not just for the initial contamination but the treatment of the water before it got to human consumption.
Senator Plett: Ms. Villeneuve?
Ms. Villeneuve: To answer a comparison with wastewater — what do you call that in English?
Senator Plett: A septic field/disposal field; either one.
Ms. Villeneuve: The main difference is that for a septic field you insert not the manure but our waste inside the soil, not on top, so you do not have a potential runoff that you would have with manure spreading.
This being said, I agree with Ms. Dunfield. We are not questioning the idea of spreading manure. It is the best thing we can do. It is nutrients; it is recycling. If we do not spread manure, what are we going to do with it? Put it in landfill sites? That would be terrible.
It is the way to go. I think what she was saying is the way it is being done and the timing of when it is done. That is more the interest here to look into making sure that the events of Walkerton do not reappear. Yes, the distance, which is more 100 metres than 50 metres from the well, is also important. These types of elements must be put in place when you manage spreading manure on land.
Senator Plett: If I could just make this observation, then, I think it is important that we do stress, and I certainly advocate having responsible disposal of our manures, absolutely. However, we need to emphasize, I believe, that our problem is more overland, as in the case of Walkerton. I am not on expert on that, so I also do not want to make comments that could get us into trouble with that.
There is a distinct difference between "overland" and it going down into the land. Your comment about disposal fields being in the ground is not entirely correct. Disposal fields are, in fact, being built above ground and then they are mounded.
Ms. Villeneuve: The Ecoflo of this world, yes, but there is no runoff, no rain.
Senator Plett: There is not supposed to be, exactly. That is my point: Our farmers have become so efficient that that may be a bit of a problem because they want the water off of their land in a hurry so that they can get on there and do their work. That may be one of the issues. Thank you very much for your answers and thank you, chair.
Senator Mahovlich: You mentioned Walkerton. Is there a policy in place right now where they do not have a problem?
Ms. Dunfield: Pardon me? You said a policy in place?
Senator Mahovlich: Is there a policy about polluted water? Do they have a concern that the water will be polluted again? Is there a policy in place for the spreading of manure, or whatever the cause was in Walkerton?
Ms. Dunfield: In Walkerton specifically? There is a Nutrient Management Act in place in Ontario that regulates how manure is applied and the timing of it being applied. It is more directed towards nutrient movement rather than pathogen movement.
OMAFRA definitely has best management practices suggestions for pathogen movement. Sometimes the nutrients best management practices do not mesh with the pathogen best management practices, and then it is up to the farmers to sort of decide what is best for them.
Senator Mahovlich: I lived on a farm many years ago and the manure went from the barn out to the field. Is that still a practice?
Ms. Dunfield: Yes.
Senator Mahovlich: We are still practising that?
Ms. Dunfield: No, I do not know what the days are. I am pretty sure that there has to be a period of storage.
Ms. Villeneuve: It is 250 days for storage.
Ms. Dunfield: Someone else should speak to that.
The Chair: Ms. Dunfield, Ms. Villeneuve would like to comment on that. Would you please restate that?
Ms. Villeneuve: It is 250 days of storage. For sure in Quebec that is the way it is, but I think it is like that everywhere.
[Translation]
It is 250 days in a storage pit before spreading.
[English]
Senator Mahovlich: You were saying that the farmers need support. Do farmers say in France get more support than a farmer here in Canada?
Ms. Villeneuve: Specifically for anaerobic digestion, yes, they do; also in the U.S.A., absolutely.
Senator Mahovlich: The U.S.A. must have more waste than we do.
Ms. Villeneuve: For sure; they have many more farms.
Senator Mahovlich: Do they have more expertise than we have? Their universities must study it.
Ms. Villeneuve: Yes. There are more systems installed as we speak, obviously. It is in the thousands, and here we are under a hundred. They have a bit more, but Europe is the leader. Germany has 6,000 anaerobic digestions on their farms today. They are the leader in terms of understanding, supporting their farmers, having grants, and feed in tariffs.
Senator Mahovlich: India must have a terrible problem. I went over to India a year or two ago. They had cows running in the streets.
Ms. Villeneuve: In India, cows are sacred.
Senator Mahovlich: Does the manure not get in their water systems?
Ms. Villeneuve: For sure. The practices that we have in Canada are not exactly the same everywhere. The problems we are talking about today are much worse elsewhere, for sure.
Senator Mahovlich: We are not as bad off.
Ms. Villeneuve: No, we are not. I do not think we are saying that. I do not think anyone is saying today that we are bad. We are doing a great job with the way we are recycling the nutrients on our farms. It is a great job we are doing, and we have to continue this way. However, improvements can be made in understanding how it works, where the dangers are and how to better practice.
Senator Mahovlich: We need a task force.
Ms. Villeneuve: Also, we need to improve innovation technology, not on all farms but on maybe 20 per cent — the bigger farms, of this type of an anaerobic digestion that will reduce pathogens and create methane and all that. We are saying that this improvement could be seen today in our industry. Yes, a task force is needed.
Senator Eaton: To get back to anaerobic digestion, you said that there are X number of processing plants. Could you start from the beginning? If I am a farmer, do I take my manure to the nearby plant, where they put it through anaerobic digestion, which is like a large compost pile, I would imagine.
Ms. Villeneuve: It is in a closed vessel and is more liquid than solid.
Senator Eaton: The farmer picks it up afterward and spreads it on the fields.
Ms. Villeneuve: That is right.
Senator Eaton: Is this something that a large farm would have on site?
Ms. Villeneuve: Typically, it would be an "in-the-fence" approach, which means one farm has its own digester. The model of having a few farms putting together their efforts and having a centralized anaerobic digestion also exists in Europe. Both can be done.
Senator Eaton: This is something that Canadian farm cooperatives could pick up and establish all across the country, if they wanted to do so, basically.
Ms. Villeneuve: Yes.
Senator Eaton: A question to you both: We know what Germany has done to anything with genetically modified seeds. Is Europe likely to come across with regulations saying that food produced on fields where the fertilizer has not gone through an anaerobic digestion process will not be allowed? Do you see that affecting our agricultural trade?
Ms. Villeneuve: That is an interesting point you raise. We know that an operation where the manure has been anaerobically digested is prone to becoming recognized as biologically organic.
Senator Eaton: It is recognized as organic.
Ms. Villeneuve: It can be. It is well seen because of the removal of pathogens and manure. This would not include off-farm material. Definitely it could become an advantage for such farms.
Senator Eaton: It could promote our Canadian food brand.
Ms. Villeneuve: For sure.
Senator Eaton: I am always interested in GM seeds because Canada is very strong in that area. You talked about the soil structure and what GM seeds could do to it. If we go through Ms. Villeneuve's process of removing the pathogens and spread clean fertilizer, can we grow GM crops without destroying the soil structure? Does it depend on which GM seed is planted? In other words, canola might be fine, but corn or wheat might be a different matter?
Ms. Dunfield: Some effects of genetically modified crops on soil microbial communities have been shown, but it is pretty transient. I do not think that any long-term effects have been seen on the soil structure or its function.
Senator Eaton: What if you did crop rotation?
Ms. Dunfield: The bigger issue is having one type of management system in place that is continuous without crop rotation; that is more important than just growing a genetically modified crop.
Senator Eaton: At Guelph, are young agricultural students interested in soil structure, crop management, and planting hedge rows to prevent wind erosion? Is this becoming sexier to the agriculture community? We are so rich in Canada, but we tend to take these things for granted.
Ms. Dunfield: Well, we are trying to make soil sexy, but it has not been working very well. Especially at Guelph, our agricultural students have a school of environmental science. They are very knowledgeable about the environmental impacts of farming and about trying to make choices that are good, sustainable agricultural practices. I currently teach soil biology, and the students are very knowledgeable about soil and soil health. They are thinking about agriculture and how it will affect soil and the soil system.
Senator Eaton: Are they aware of things like anaerobic digestion?
Ms. Dunfield: Oh, I think they are aware of anaerobic digestion. They definitely learn about greenhouse gas emissions and pathogens, and I think they know about the available cutting edge techniques.
Senator Eaton: Is it cost or lack of knowledge that discourages most Canadian farmers from practicing anaerobic digestion?
Ms. Villeneuve: Well, in answer to the question, I will give you an example of where it is being deployed and working well. In Germany, it is supported financially in terms of the infrastructure to implement the system. Grants are available. More importantly, the methane produced is purchased back on the grid at a high price. This is an incentive for farmers, otherwise they will not do it because they can continue spreading their manure without doing anything. They are allowed to do it, and if they do it very well according to all good practices, they will be fine.
To go ahead and do this extra step that brings renewable energy and fewer pathogens and greenhouse gas emissions, they need an incentive. There are not enough incentives in Canada to make these projects work. There is one good incentive in Ontario and I believe in New Brunswick for feed and tariff: to buy back at a certain price the electricity from biogas.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: It has to be admitted that if there is one field in which the federal government must get involved in research and innovation, it is in pig and cattle breeding. I do not believe that hog producers alone can afford to handle manure and viscera processing.
Do you have an approximate idea of the percentage of the per-pound price of pork that manure processing represents? Does manure processing represent, for example, 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the selling price?
Ms. Villeneuve: Of the selling price of pork?
Senator Rivard: Of the per-pound selling price of pork, for example?
Ms. Villeneuve: In its economic life, a hog produces approximately one cubic metre or one tonne of manure. The price per cubic metre is highly variable. Our company has developed a very economic approach. In our case, the price would therefore be slightly lower. In other cases, certain European technologies, for example, are so complex that the cost is very high. So the cost is highly variable. I would prefer to check before suggesting a figure, but the cost associated with this processing is definitely greater than $10 per cubic metre, and it can run to as much as $20 or $25 a cubic metre.
Senator Rivard: Can we transpose that figure for the people listening to us?
Ms. Villeneuve: The amount represents $10 to $20 per hog.
Senator Rivard: Do we have a percentage of the cost per pound, because pork is sold by the pound, or by a metric unit?
Does manure processing represent 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the selling price?
Ms. Villeneuve: That is an excellent question. We should have that figure and we will provide it to you.
Senator Rivard: We export a lot more pork than we consume. Consequently, what is the situation regarding the regulations of our competitors, American or European, concerning the cost of manure processing? Are the competitor countries on roughly the same footing as us in the way they process manure, or are we at an advantage or disadvantage?
Ms. Villeneuve: I believe we are at a disadvantage in two respects. We have regulations for the introduction of new systems in Canada that, out of fear or excessive caution, are quite strict. Sometimes they require precautions that go beyond what is necessary. As a result, the cost of the system will be higher than in many places where the system is allowed to be built at lower cost.
We are also at a disadvantage with regard to anaerobic digestion revenue. We receive less revenue and subsidies than elsewhere in this area. These two reasons explain why we see fewer of these systems in practice in Canada.
Senator Rivard: You, who are a Quebecer, should remember that manure was not processed until the late 1970s. It was spread. A number of producers released their untreated water into the waterways.
Ms. Villeneuve: Yes.
Senator Rivard: Things have changed considerably since that time.
Ms. Villeneuve: Yes.
Senator Rivard: In the 1970s, they simply released it into the waterways.
Ms. Villeneuve: Just like the wastewater from the municipalities.
Senator Rivard: Exactly. We did not begin treating our wastewater until about 20 years ago.
Ms. Villeneuve: However, there are still some delinquents.
Senator Rivard: Do you think the fines that governments impose for accidental or deliberate spillage are an incentive for companies to act as good citizens, or could those minor fines be an incentive to be negligent?
Ms. Villeneuve: I cannot answer that question. I am not aware of the fines currently in effect. Anaerobic digestion is more my field than spreading. I do not hear a lot about spill incidents. We remember the tragic incident that occurred in North Carolina in 2001 to 2002. However, have any major spills occurred in Canada in the past 10 years? Perhaps Ms. Dunfield would have some information on that point?
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Dunfield, do you have any comments on that question?
Ms. Dunfield: No, I am sorry, I do not. I cannot think of any examples at the moment.
Senator Merchant: On anaerobic digestion, I think it was last summer or the summer before there was a scare in Europe with vegetables.
Ms. Villeneuve: Cucumbers?
Senator Merchant: Yes, I think it was finally thought to be cucumbers. Was that the kind of thing that can be prevented by treating the manure in the matter that you are describing?
Ms. Villeneuve: I am not sure we are talking about the same event.
Senator Merchant: What was the problem with the cucumber event? There was a panic then, if I remember.
Ms. Villeneuve: I heard about it briefly, but I do not have enough information to get back to you on this specific event. Treating anaerobic digestion will remove up to 99 per cent of pathogens, if it is done well. If this event was caused by pathogens, this would certainly reduce the risks of this occurring, definitely.
Senator Merchant: Have we had any incidents similar to that with food in Canada, that you can recall, and particularly vegetables?
Ms. Villeneuve: I am not aware.
Senator Merchant: Ms. Dunfield?
Ms. Dunfield: I am not sure about Canada. In North America, though, there has been some suggestion. It is very difficult to actually find the smoking gun of these food illness outbreaks. It is hard to track them back to exactly the source. However, one of the concerns is the movement of human pathogens in the environment, so the spreading of manure onto land and then flowing into irrigation water that is then used on vegetables or the direct contamination of vegetables. It is particularly critical in these fresh-cut produce vegetables where they are not going through other processing before consumers are eating them.
Senator Merchant: Does just washing them well remove the pathogens, or do you need to do more than that to fresh vegetables?
Ms. Dunfield: I am working with a food scientist right now, and we are looking at wash water. For the most part, if you have a vegetable in your house that you have picked out of the field, then you will wash it, but a lot of the times the issue is the fresh, prewashed, bagged vegetables where consumers think they can eat them without washing. That can be an areas where, if contamination gets into the sources, there sometimes there is an issue.
Senator Merchant: I have another question about water. We had an incident a few years ago in Saskatchewan, in North Battleford, but also have we incidents in our First Nations reserves. Is that because the treatment plants for drinking water are not adequate, or do you have some other insights?
Ms. Dunfield: I think that one of the big issues is having proper water treatment, and that is one of the issues in First Nations communities. You can have contaminated source water, but your treatment facilities should be able to clean the water to a level that is still safe for consumption. In a lot of areas in Ontario close to me, the source water is contaminated, but the treatment plants are in place. This is where First Nation communities do not have the technology, so it makes it more of a concern. I do not think we will ever be able to remove all contaminants from source water, so we do need to have proper treatment for drinking water.
Senator Merchant: With greenhouse gases, the minute we hear greenhouse gas, we get very concerned. I am not sure if there is a scale of different enterprises that produce greenhouse gas, but what scale of greenhouse gas in Canada are we talking about being produced by the farming methods that we use? Is it something to be really concerned about?
Ms. Dunfield: Agriculture is a major emitter of greenhouse gases in Canada, one of the key emitters of greenhouse gases in Canada, and I think it is also an area that we can study and look at best management practices, because we have the potential to actually mitigate greenhouse gases from agriculture through management practices. We know that there are different practices that can be put into place that will mitigate some emissions. I think it is a major contributor. I do not have the numbers off the top of my head.
Senator Merchant: I think I will stop there for now.
Ms. Villeneuve: On greenhouse gas, I do not know why I remember something around 15 per cent coming from the agriculture industry. I am not sure.
Right now there is the Western Climate Initiative for recognizing the greenhouse gas credits, and there is a problem right now in being able to calculate it on farms. When you calculate the credits, obviously you need a baseline to be able to compare to what you were doing before, so you can say if you do this, in this case in anaerobic digestion, how much would you save in greenhouse gas? We are having problems with the baseline. The agriculture industry seems to not be able to come to an agreement on how they are producing right now. That is a problem. If we cannot establish a baseline, we will never be able to profit from the credits of GES.
Senator Buth: Thank you for your presentations; they are very informative. I want to follow up on a couple of things that Senator Merchant said and then I have questions on commercialization. The first is for Professor Dunfield.
It is my understanding that most of the food recalls that we have seen that have pathogens on them are from organic production. Can you comment on that, for example, the spinach recalls, and so on?
Ms. Dunfield: I am not sure about the ratio of organic to inorganic, but if organic producers are using manure as a source then definitely that is the entry path for pathogens versus commercial fertilizer, which is not, in our view. I am not sure of the numbers that have come from organic farms, although there have been incidents of that.
Senator Buth: It is important to the number of key emitters of greenhouse gas emissions so that we are aware of where agriculture fits in. When you look at vehicles and manufacturing, et cetera, there are a lot of other sources of greenhouse gases. Ms. Dunfield, do you have any information on that to provide to the committee?
Ms. Dunfield: It is in my laptop and I do not have it in front of me right now, but I will be happy to send it to you.
Senator Buth: I want to come back to Ms. Villeneuve on the anaerobic bio-digestive technique because you made a comment about commercialization and acceptance by farmers. If they cannot sell into the grid, what are the benefits to farmers in terms of agricultural practices to use this technique?
Ms. Villeneuve: There are benefits even if they are not selling to the grid, but I do not think it is worth it.
When you look at countries where this is successful, they have financial benefits in addition to environmental benefits. I have been in the environment business for all my career and I am sorry to say that we still do not want to do environmental just to do it and pay for it unless there is a strict regulation that forces you to do it. The farmers will not go ahead and do digestion just for the environmental aspects. There are environmental aspects that are beneficial. There is also the nutrient improvement of the manure that they will be spreading. Compared to raw manure, it will create a better crop. It will grow better and there will be no odours. Odour is a problem for some farmers because of their neighbours. Once they start spreading odourless manure, it is a huge benefit. Would they install a digester just for that benefit? No, but it is a benefit. The benefits are reselling the methane and potentially reselling the dryer part of the digestate, a nutrient that can be bagged and sold, and the GES credits. The real benefit is creating another revenue stream for the farm.
Senator Buth: That is based on credits, though.
Ms. Villeneuve: Credits, revenue of energy, and economy of spreading, if they need to spread less. I will not get into that, but there is a way of removing the phosphorus and needing less land to spread. There is a cost economy there. They will also be able to replace all the fossil fuel that they are using at their farm or an adjacent building, so economies and revenues together. It will bring them an extra revenue stream. For some of the farms, that is very important.
I will give an example in the U.S. because we do not have a lot in Canada. There is a farm and their revenue is basically $70,000 per year. They will now do digestion and resell their energy to the grid and they will make $270,000 per year. That is very interesting for them.
Senator Buth: Are the sales to the grid subsidized in some way? I have heard of programs where the sales to the grid are not competitive with other energy sources. How do we balance something that will provide benefits to the grower, where they would actually pay for it; versus the country paying for it or all of the taxpayers paying for it? If you want to do something like that, someone has to pay for it.
Ms. Villeneuve: It is the decision of a nation. Why did Germany decide to do it and why is the U.S. doing it in many states? It is the decision to go ahead with renewable energy, decentralized energy and all the other advantages. Yes, someone has to pay for it. In the U.S., in Vermont, they have the Cow Power program. People want to pay more because they are encouraging this practice. They are paying more on their bill, a small amount, but because of that there are 100 farms that have digesters now and they sell to the grid.
Senator Buth: This has been developed in Canada. Clearly, other countries and other researchers are developing bio- digesters and you have been able to sell into the U.S. Do you have a competitive advantage or a better product? Can you comment on that?
Ms. Villeneuve: It was a very innovative process that was developed. There are competitive advantages for sure. There is a patent attached to it. This is why we are able to differentiate ourselves from the competitors and won this big contract in the U.S.
Senator Buth: I have a question to Professor Dunfield. You have been talking about soil microbes, the changes in the microbes and the relationships between them as well and the different practices. Are you or is anyone else looking at using soil microbes in certain practices, for example, identifying them, increasing them and then using them in areas where they might be of a benefit?
Ms. Dunfield: There are specific cell micro-organisms that are plant growth bacteria that people will isolate from soil and use commercially to enhance plant growth because soil is so diverse and soil tends to be metabolically redundant, which means that many organisms can do the same practice. It is difficult to say that you need to have this organism in this place. Multiple organisms will do carbon conversion or nitrogen conversion. The best thing is to promote a diverse population of micro-organisms in the soil so that your soil can be sustainable and healthy in the long run.
It is not so much trying to increase the soil population because the number of micro-organisms in the soil is so high that it is very competitive. It is not so much increasing it but making sure that it is a very diverse population so that it can handle any pressures put on to it.
Senator Buth: Are you developing best management practices in order to increase soil microbial activity?
Ms. Dunfield: We are trying to look at best management practices. No one will put it to a best management practice simply to increase microbial activity. My argument is that micro-organisms are really the drivers of some key processes in the soil. They are really key for getting good yields out of plants, for nutrient transformation and greenhouse gases. Best management practices are in place for higher level processes. Really what you are doing to protect those processes is ensuring that the soil community is healthy and diverse. It is hard to argue protecting your microbial communities, but they are the drivers of best management practices, I think.
Senator Robichaud: When you look at soil, do you come across the use of antibiotics being used in livestock? Do they have an effect on the soil? Are they somehow eliminated in the process before it hits the ground? Do you find antibiotics in the soil and do they have an effect?
Ms. Dunfield: Actually, it is an area of increasing research on entry points through manure and through human waste biosolid products. For biosolids, both antibiotics and pharmaceutical products are found in the product and can transfer to the soil. Many antibiotics are found naturally in soil because they are produced by micro-organisms. The concern is that you will develop specific antibiotic resistance in the microbial community in the soil to some of these antibiotics used highly in livestock or in humans and that can be transferred into the natural soil population. There is some research looking at that, for sure.
Senator Robichaud: Is there no great concern about that?
Ms. Dunfield: It is definitely on the radar. I do not know how much evidence there has been one way or the other but it is definitely something that people are thinking about. We understand that micro-organisms are very good at picking up genes and protecting themselves by way of plasma that protects them from resistance. They are very good at transferring that. If it gives them a benefit in the community that lets them outcompete, they are good at transferring those genes through the system. There is a concern that we should be starting to monitor to ensure that some of this is not happening.
Senator Robichaud: Eventually, the transfer could be made up through the plant and back to humans, could it not?
Ms. Dunfield: That could be a possible source of entry. We do not know why we have an increase in multiple resistant antibiotic bacteria. One of the ideas is that the environment may be contributing more.
[Translation]
Senator Robichaud: Ms. Villeneuve, you said you have been much more successful with the system you sell in the United States, and even in Europe, because we support the people who buy the system. Is that financial support considerable? What percentage must the farmer or the individual who installs your system receive for it to be profitable? Apart from the gases or what can subsequently be sold, is it considerable?
Ms. Villeneuve: You have to talk about recurring revenues in order to talk about profitability, but from the standpoint of infrastructure assistance, the programs in the United States vary between 25 per cent and 50 per cent. They come in all kinds of forms. They may provide tax credits, which we do not have here, or subsidies. Between 25 per cent and 50 per cent of the equipment acquisition cost will be subsidized, and there will be the energy buy-back subsidy. They also have what they call renewable energy credits. A few pennies per kilowatt/hour are granted because they are replacing fossil energy.
There is also an agricultural manure processing credit in the United States. The government grants a credit of $1 or $2 per cubic metre processed to encourage farmers to process their manure so that there are fewer pathogens.
Senator Robichaud: I have no problem with people contributing through their taxes. The benefits of this entire operation are not just for the individual who carries out the operation, but also for the environment and ultimately for us.
Ms. Villeneuve: That's correct.
Senator Robichaud: Have we not yet managed to sell the public on the benefits of these operations?
Ms. Villeneuve: In a way, yes. In Quebec, for example, a $650-million program was put in place two years ago to fund anaerobic digestion. We are not talking about agriculture, but rather about the municipal sector. The goal is to process organic matter, which means human rather than animal waste. The idea is also to process organic matter from, for example, abattoirs and the food production chain. This program is very popular. The public agrees with the practice. Federal and provincial money has been put in place.
I do not believe the problem is one of public perception as to whether our money should go there or not.
Senator Robichaud: There is nevertheless a problem. Do we have the technology?
Ms. Villeneuve: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: Here we are talking about research and innovation and how they can be applied or used. In our forestry study, we discovered that, in research, they reached a dead point that they called "death valley," where they could not move from the research stage to implementation; everything stopped there. And I believe you said you had the same "valley" in your case as well?
Ms. Villeneuve: That principle applies not only to agriculture, but to every industry, in all sectors.
Senator Robichaud: It is a serious problem.
Ms. Villeneuve: It is what you call "death valley."
Senator Robichaud: We have been told about "death valley." The principle is an important one. People had a number of good ideas that could be put into practice, but everything was stuck at the experimental stage because they could not get through that valley.
Ms. Villeneuve: That is correct.
Senator Robichaud: So there is a lot to do in that area.
Ms. Villeneuve: That is one of my main recommendations.
Senator Robichaud: You mentioned a task force.
Ms. Villeneuve: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: That would include both the industry and the government people, and researchers like Ms. Dunfield, who would work together to try to find ways to resolve the issues you identified. That would require a major effort, would it not?
Ms. Villeneuve: In making that recommendation today, I know that it is something that will not be easy to put in place. However, I cannot think of anything else.
In my case, I was specifically talking about anaerobic digestion. This is one of the rare solutions that concerns both departments and sectors. This concerns the energy, environmental, agricultural and economic sectors. All those sectors have to get involved so that the key ingredients are in place.
We have a problem in Quebec. A single department is responsible for $650 million for biomethanation, another term of anaerobic digestion. It is a single department and they do not really talk to each other. Some associations are trying to bring the Department of Natural Resources and other departments to the table. When you have a single objective in anaerobic management, you forget all the others. So we have to get everyone together for this approach to work.
That is the beauty of anaerobic management; it generates so many varied benefits, but most of them have to be there.
Senator Robichaud: There is a lot of work to do.
Ms. Villeneuve: In Germany, they have a different way of operating; they have managed to put everything in place across the country; that has worked and they are off to a start.
What do we do in Canada? We leave things alone; we do not put everything in place for it to work, where we will all talk to each other, together, and try to do that across Canada. Some programs put in place will facilitate matters for each of the provinces so that they can go down the same road.
Senator Robichaud: That could be one of our recommendations, could it not? Thank you, Ms. Villeneuve.
Senator Maltais: Thank you for being here today, ladies. Other witnesses have come representing other organizations.
We were told that, by the 2050s, we would have to double animal production around the world in order to feed the Asian and emerging countries, in particular, which are increasingly consuming meat.
So the hog and chicken producers came here, and they want to follow in step because that is potentially a highly lucrative market. There are a lot of new meat conservation technologies.
I asked them one simple question and they answered me without any problem. I was still quite concerned. I asked them: if we double current production, whether it be hog or chicken production, can Canadian soil bear that without any danger? I have been told that is not a problem.
However, if I look at current production, the research you are conducting to achieve stable production from our soil, to provide productive, clean and non-contagious soil for the population, how will we safely support all that if we double current production levels? Something is escaping me somewhere. Do you have any comment on that?
Ms. Villeneuve: Perhaps Ms. Dunfield, first.
[English]
The Chair: Ms. Dunfield, can you answer the question? Have you heard it?
Ms. Dunfield: Yes. There is definitely a concern because there are limits to the amount of manure that you can put back on to land before you get an overload of nutrients. You then get run off into waters that cause eutrophication issues, phosphorus issues, nitrogen issues and also pathogen issues. It is not that we do not have a land base; it is just that you would have to start trucking manure down the road to apply on to a different field. You have to start considering fuel costs and greenhouse gas emissions in that case; when you look at the life cycle analysis of these things that is when you have to worry about doing stuff like that.
In that case, maybe that is where an anaerobic digester would be a useful thing to have on a large farm. Then you can start minimizing gas emissions coming off the stored manure and minimizing pathogens, so you have a better ability and safer product to be applying back into the soil.
[Translation]
Ms. Villeneuve: I have no comment to make on that. I am not enough of a specialist to respond.
Senator Maltais: If production doubles, I imagine problems will double as well. If we have problems now, it's a mathematical equation in which we multiply by two or three.
Ms. Villeneuve: Is that a problem?
Senator Maltais: Do we have a problem now?
Ms. Villeneuve: When we balance manure use with what the land needs, it is not a problem. If we do it properly, in accordance with all the rules and respecting the right distances and so on, we worry a bit about pathogens and so on; we agree. Is there in fact enough land if that doubles? Ms. Dunfield seems to be saying that, yes, logistics can effectively create surplus areas. Farms will all be established in the same area; that is practical and suppliers are not far away. That can create areas of surplus.
There have been areas of surplus in Quebec, and there still are, where there was too much phosphorus. Farmers had to go and spread their manure over 50 kilometres; that can cause problems. You have to manage that; you cannot disregard that. Will that really double meat consumption?
Senator Maltais: They have markets that currently do not consume a lot of meat but that are starting to do so in the emerging countries.
Ms. Villeneuve: Will it double in Canada?
Senator Maltais: It's the seller's appetite versus the buyer's. Prices have to stay competitive.
Ms. Villeneuve: We will stay in the more specialized markets in Canada. We will have trouble competing with China and Brazil in meat production. I am not sure it will affect us if production doubles in Canada.
Senator Maltais: It is precisely in China and the Asian countries that there is sharply increasing demand for Canadian pork exports, among other things.
Ms. Villeneuve: Of good quality.
Senator Maltais: That's obvious, because they will send poor-quality pork elsewhere.
Ms. Villeneuve: They do that back home.
Senator Maltais: They will eat it. When we visited the agricultural centre in Sainte-Hyacinthe, there is a specialized centre for food processing, packaging and all that, at the university veterinary medicine centre next door; a lot of research is being done in that area. We saw something very rare, a mechanical human stomach. There are one or two, a maximum of three of them in the world, if I remember correctly.
The Chair: Do we have one?
Senator Maltais: Yes, we have one. Is human waste treated in the same as animal waste?
Ms. Villeneuve: Absolutely. You mean for spreading and how that works?
Senator Maltais: Yes.
Ms. Villeneuve: Human waste, all our wastewater will go into the sewers at a wastewater treatment plant. Most wastewater treatment plants will separate solids from liquids and set aside the solids, which they call biosolids. The wastewater will be treated through a general biological process and released once properly treated.
The biosolids are often digested, through anaerobic digestion, although sometimes they are not and are simply treated with lime to remove odours in an attempt to stabilize them a little and sent to be spread on the land.
There are some other approaches as well, incinerators, as in Montreal.
Senator Maltais: In Quebec City as well.
Ms. Villeneuve: Most biosolids are spread on farm lands. However, they are not spread only there, where there is food for human consumption.
Senator Maltais: All right. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Eaton: Professor Dunfield, can poor soil — and there are lots of places in this country where we have poor soil — be amended to become good soil?
Ms. Dunfield: If it is poor soil due to low organic matter then you can definitely get a build up of organic matter. Other poor soils occur because of salinity issues or waterlogging issues. It is more difficult to make them into good soils.
Senator Eaton: Do hydroponically grown vegetables have the same nutrients for people as soil-grown vegetables have?
Ms. Dunfield: We are sort of out of my area there but, in order to grow the vegetables, they would need to be fertilized, so it just depends. Soil has a mixture of macronutrients and micronutrients. It is difficult to know precisely what nutrients are in the soil, but vegetables pick up all the nutrients there. In a hydroponics, the grower is choosing what nutrients to add.
Senator Eaton: They are more chemically based.
In your introduction, you talked about protecting food security. Did you not say something about protecting food security?
Ms. Dunfield: Yes.
Senator Eaton: Could you elaborate a bit on that? As we go into a more global world where we are eating each other's food, I would imagine that food security will become a greater issue when we go into trade negotiations and agreements trade with areas of the world that have different agricultural practices.
Ms. Dunfield: I was looking at food security as a microbiologist so that we have clean healthy food products, where we are not concerned about food-borne illnesses or pathogens, and the way that relates to spreading agricultural waste. Especially in recent years with more and more packaging of fresh produce, we know that instances of the transport of pathogens from soil, possibly through manure, into irrigation water or directly onto vegetables have caused food- borne illness. That is where it sort of relates to food security. We want to be able to understand how to minimize the survival of the pathogens in the soil so that we do not have contamination. We want to ensure that we have wash water through proper techniques to ensure clean irrigation water so that vegetables can be cleaned enough before they are sold to the consumer.
Senator Eaton: I do not expect my question to be in your areas of interest but in case it is, I will ask it. Do you think that soil management or agricultural practices will be part of ongoing trade negotiations with the EU, Japan and Korea? No? Okay. I just thought it was worth asking.
Ms. Dunfield: I am not sure. I think that soil is the one area where we have a chance to sequester carbon. In some cases there are still carbon sinks. We still do not know a lot about that, but it has potential for research for this kind of thing, although I am not sure about global trade.
Senator Plett: Senator Buth talked about recalls of organic foods versus other foods, and we did not get an answer. I am not asking for one today, but it is very interesting that Senator Eaton just talked about food security. If either of our witnesses could get the information on that for the committee, I would appreciate it. If not, perhaps we will ask other witnesses because it is an important thing to know when we talk about food security. It has been raised here whether there is a difference in organically grown foods versus others. If one of the witnesses could get us the information through the clerk, I would appreciate it.
Although I may have misunderstood, Ms. Villeneuve talked about a farm in Quebec, but she did not have the exact farm, that had increased revenues from $70,000 to $200,000.
Ms. Villeneuve: It is in Vermont.
Senator Plett: Through the clerk, again, could we have some specifics on that farm? I would appreciate that as well.
Most of my questions have been covered, so some of this will be observation only. Certainly, I am not here as a witness so I want to be careful that I do not make too many observations.
We have been talking a great deal about the best management practices of Europe and the United States versus Canada. I come from a province where we have, percentage-wise, more arable land than Ontario and Quebec have. Certainly, there is not more land, but percentage-wise it is more arable. Maybe the issues are not the same, but I believe that in Canada we may not have quite the same problem as they have in the United States and/or Europe for the reason that we have more spread acres available to us than they have. Subsequently, it is much more important that we do something in that area because we will have more runoff and more residences close to farms and so on.
I believe that the farmers in our country are good farmers and want to do the best that they can for society. However, they are business people and, as such, they need an incentive if they are supposed to spend more money. Ms. Villeneuve, you spoke about the incentive being to create a better environment. However, at the end of the day, there is the pocketbook. If a farmer is going to spend money in order to create electricity but cannot sell it to the grid, then he obviously will not do that. Our witnesses have come up with some recommendations, but I think the issue goes beyond simply saying what we need government to do. We need to find the reasons for doing it.
In my province of Manitoba, and Senator Buth will attest to this, the answer from our government, which I did not support, to our problems with manure is moratoriums. We just do not allow any more hog farms. I do not think that is the answer to our problem — let us not have any more hog farms. There is a demand in the world and we need and want to export.
What is the answer other than moratoriums? We talked about penalties and fines. The fact is that far too often the penalties and fines are so low that it is easier for a farmer simply to break the laws quickly and pay the fine if he or she gets caught, rather than to implement what they need. Fortunately, there are not many of them but it does happen. I would like an idea as to how we do this. Is it simply done by raising the fines?
We spend a lot of time, as we have today, talking about farmers and best management practices. Ms. Villeneuve, I think you raised the issue that we need to concern ourselves with municipalities as well. The largest city in Manitoba is Winnipeg. We hear over and over again, and I have not seen it personally but have it from good sources, that in spring when we have some water issues, which we quite regularly have in Manitoba, the easiest thing for the City of Winnipeg to do is open some taps and drain some of their sewage into the Red River and on into our lakes. How do we deal with that?
I think farmers get a lot of bad knocks and municipalities maybe do not. I would at least like you to explain this to me, if you could. I know it involves a wide explanation, but there must be more than just simply saying to the farmer that you have got to do this. You suggested, Ms. Villeneuve, that the government should get involved. It also involves an education system because I do not want my taxes to go to that unless I really feel threatened. If I really feel threatened, then I guess I would want my tax dollars to go to that.
I would like to know how we educate the public, possibly. I will stop there, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Witnesses, if you have any comments on that matter. Senator Robichaud, do you have a comment?
Senator Robichaud: This is just a comment on Senator Plett's statement. He said only if I feel threatened, would I be ready to use my taxes. I do not want to wait that late. I do not want to get to that stage. I want to ensure that we do the right things so that we do not get there. This is where I would not mind using my tax dollars to prevent us from going there.
Senator Plett: I guess that is why I would like the question answered about how we educate so that we agree with that.
The Chair: The public would certainly like to have comments on that. Ms. Villeneuve, do you have a comment?
Ms. Villeneuve: That was a large pseudo question.
First, I did not think that I was coming here today —
Senator Eaton: To enter into a political discussion?
Ms. Villeneuve: No, but that you needed to be convinced of the interest of doing anaerobic digestion.
Senator Plett: I do. I need to be convinced.
Ms. Villeneuve: That is fine. I did not think so, because I thought perhaps you were already looking into a policy to put in place and you just wanted to know how we can best do that. I had that in mind.
That being said, if you need to be convinced —
Senator Eaton: Some of us are not.
Ms. Villeneuve: Okay; that is fine.
Senator Robichaud: He is the exception.
Senator Plett: I think Senator Eaton is with me.
Ms. Villeneuve: There are a lot of advantages to doing this type of best practice. I wrote a paper recently on this, namely, is there a future in Canada for anaerobic digestion. One of the things I talked about is that each province has different motivations to go towards that. In Ontario, Walkerton was first. It was OMAFRA that wanted to bring extra revenues to their farmers. That was second. Also, they have a lot of fossil fuel coal plants. With all of this together, it made a lot of sense to go that route. The provincial government was convinced and then they put everything together to put it in place. In Quebec, they wanted to ensure that no more organics are going into the landfill. There are a lot of reasons why you would want to go towards that.
I do not know if it is my place to convince you. It has to be something that is perceived as a need. As for the public, though, I think a lot of education needs to be done for them to understand.
Senator Plett: Whose responsibility is educating, Ms. Dunfield?
Ms. Villeneuve: She is involved in research, I think. I do not know, maybe she can answer that.
The Chair: Ms. Dunfield?
Ms. Dunfield: I am just jumping in here on the responsibility for educating. I am happy to take some of that responsibility, but I do not have a huge audience.
Personally, the farmers that I know and interact with are good environmental stewards for the most part. They are very aware of protecting their soil resources for the long-term productivity of their farms. The question is, however, is it really their responsibility to protect source waters? Is it their responsibility to minimize greenhouse gases? I think that is where you are right, the education of the public to say that we want to prioritize these issues is important.
We need to do something to clarify to farmers that this is something that we feel is important. I am not sure how to do that. Obviously, they are running a business and they need to make decisions based on an economic model.
Senator Plett: I will accept that, chair.
Ms. Dunfield: I forget what the rest of the question was.
Senator Mahovlich: Quite a few years ago, in Toronto — and this is prior to Senator Eaton being in Toronto — we used to have a river there and a tributary called the "Dirty Don" was right on the golf course. The water was so dirty that when you hit a golf ball in there, they told you to leave it alone, so I never collected any golf balls out of that particular river. However, today I live on the tributary of the Don. I look out there, and some days I see deer drinking that water, so it is much better. However, I still do not see people swimming in the Don River. I am pretty sure that the city has taken care of us, or our tax dollar has, and they have water plants throughout the city.
Senator Plett: Are you still hitting golf balls into the river, though?
Senator Mahovlich: No; I have perfected that.
The Chair: Ms. Dunfield, as a researcher and a professor, would you mind to comment on that?
Ms. Dunfield: One thing that you just said — and we maybe we will not want to get into in this — is true: wildlife is actually a huge contributor to contaminant of water. Sometimes we put best management practices in place such as buffer strips to protect manure runoff into source waters from agricultural fields, which allows muskrats and deer to move right in. They are also carriers of these organisms. I have a friend that has done studies at the city of Toronto beaches. The major source of contaminants there are geese populations.
It is a difficult question to answer because there are multiple sources, definitely not just agriculture for water.
Senator Mahovlich: The geese are difficult on golf courses, too.
The Chair: Anything else, Senator Mahovlich?
Senator Mahovlich: Yes, I have one little question.
Regarding the research that you have done on anaerobics, the U.S. is quite satisfied with your research and is using your system now. In Canada, did you say it is the government that is holding you up on this with your rules?
Ms. Villeneuve: Excuse me, that Canada is what?
Senator Mahovlich: Canada is not using the research that you have done on anaerobics?
Ms. Villeneuve: The government or the market in Canada?
Senator Mahovlich: Yes, the market in Canada. Do we have different rules?
Ms. Villeneuve: No, it is not because of that. It is not because the technology is not interesting for our rules or for the application here. It is just the market is not there. There are a few systems out there. We have a few, but we have not been able to secure sales like we did in the U.S. There is no market yet. It is very slow.
Senator Mahovlich: Thank you.
The Chair: Before we conclude, according to the statistics of 2006, Canadians in agriculture have produced a little over 180 million tonnes of manure. What percentage of that manure is treated with the facilities that we have out there with your technology, Ms. Villeneuve?
Professor and Ms. Villeneuve, could you then compare manure treatment? Would you have that information to compare manure treatment in Canada versus the G8 countries and/or the G20 countries? The researcher will be sending you a few other questions vis-à-vis the cost of treatment and if it does impact on best management. In addition, please share your opinions on if it impacts also the product in the supermarkets, for example, organic and/or traditional.
Ms. Villeneuve: When you are asking on the 180 million tonnes per year being spread, the number is too small to see how much is treated. It is negligible. It is not even 1 per cent. It is 000 something per cent. There are maybe not even 50 digesters in Canada on farms.
The Chair: Could we say less than 1 per cent? Would that be fair, Ms. Villeneuve?
Ms. Villeneuve: Much less.
The Chair: Much less than 1 per cent. Professor Dunfield, do you have any comment on that?
Ms. Dunfield: I would agree with that — about the best management practices with anaerobically digested manure — because it has been in such small amounts. I am not sure how many of those studies are taking place. I am involved in one research study right now funded by the Agricultural Greenhouse Gases Program led by Agriculture Canada that started last year. We have a field trial comparing anaerobically digested to undigested manure. However, I can look and see if there is any literature before that trial to see if there have been specific best management practices.
The Chair: Witnesses, on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, and on behalf of all the senators present, there is no doubt that your presentations have been informative, educational and quite accurate. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)