manitoba clean environment commission … clean environment commission hog production industry...

Volume 1 CEC HOG REVIEW- Winnipeg March 5, 2007

Winnipeg, Manitoba(204)947-9774 REID REPORTING SERVICES

MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION

HOG PRODUCTION INDUSTRY REVIEW

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Held at the Delta Hotel

Winnipeg, Manitoba

MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2007

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



----------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Clean Environment Commission:

Mr. Terry Sargeant Chairman

Mr. Edwin Yee Member

Mr. Wayne Motheral Member

Ms. Cathy Johnson Commission Secretary

Mr. Doug Smith Report Writer

Presentations: PAGE

MANITOBA PORK COUNCIL

KARL KYNOCH 9

ANDREW DICKSON 11

PETER MAH 40

ANDREW DICKSON 45

TRACEY BRYKSA

BEYOND FACTORY FARMING

GLEN KOROLUK 119

BILL HARRISON 140

RUTH PRYZNER 155

F. TAIT 177

VICKI BURNS 192

ATD WASTE SYSTEMS

VICTOR VAN SLYKE 203

MANITOBA LIVESTOCK MANURE MANAGEMENT

BRANDY STREET 252



INDEX OF EXHIBITS

NO EXHIBITS MARKED



1 Monday, March 5, 2007

2 Upon commencing at 1:02 p.m.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, ladies

4 and gentlemen. I'd like to call these proceedings

5 to order. My name is Terry Sargeant. I'm the

6 Chair of the Clean Environment Commission. I'm

7 also the Chair of this panel. With me on the

8 panel for these hearings are Edwin Yee and Wayne

9 Motheral.

10 I have a few opening comments to make.

11 The Clean Environment Commission has been

12 requested by the Minister of Conservation to

13 conduct an investigation into the environmental

14 sustainability of the hog industry in Manitoba.

15 The Terms of Reference from the Minister direct us

16 to review the current environmental protection

17 measures in place relating to hog production in

18 Manitoba in order to determine their effectiveness

19 for the purpose of managing the industry in an

20 environmentally sustainable manner.

21 Our investigation is to include a

22 public component to gain advice and feedback from

23 Manitobans. This will be by means of public

24 meetings in the various regions of Manitoba to

25 ensure broad participation from the general public



1 and affected stakeholders.

2 We have been asked to take into

3 account efforts under way in other jurisdictions

4 to manage hog production in a sustainable manner.

5 Further, we are to review the contents of the

6 report prepared by Manitoba Conservation entitled

7 "An Examination of the Environmental

8 Sustainability of the Hog Industry in Manitoba."

9 And at the end of our investigation, we will

10 consider various options and make recommendations

11 in a report to the Minister on any improvements

12 that may be necessary to provide for the

13 environmental sustainability of this industry.

14 To ensure that our review includes

15 issues of importance to all Manitobans, the panel

16 has undertaken to hold 17 days of meetings in 14

17 communities throughout agri-Manitoba. These

18 meetings are commencing today and will continue

19 through March and April with the final public

20 meeting currently scheduled for Winnipeg on

21 April 27th. It is open to any groups or

22 individuals to make a presentation to this panel

23 on issues related to hog production in the

24 province.

25 For the most part, presentations are



1 to be limited to 15 minutes. Exceptions may be

2 made in cases where a presenter needs more time

3 but this must be arranged with the Commission

4 secretary prior to the presentation.

5 Those making presentations to the

6 panel will be required to take an oath promising

7 to tell the truth to the panel. Presentations

8 should be relevant to the mandate given the

9 Commission by the Minister and to the issues

10 described in the Guide to Public Participation in

11 this review which is posted on our website. If a

12 presentation is clearly not relevant, I will rule

13 it out of order. It is also open to me to rule

14 out of order presentations that are clearly

15 repetitive.

16 Members of this panel may ask

17 questions of any presenter during or after the

18 presentation. There will be no opportunity for

19 other presenters to question or cross-examine

20 presenters.

21 Today will differ from the norm. Both

22 the Manitoba Pork Council and the Coalition of

23 Environmental Groups will make opening

24 presentations of approximately two hours each. At

25 the final hearing, both of these parties will be



1 given an extended period, likely about one hour,

2 to make closing comments.

3 In addition to the public meetings,

4 the CEC is engaging consultants to assist us in

5 this review. The results of these research

6 endeavours will be posted on our website upon

7 receipt. For the most part, that will be in late

8 June. Parties will be invited to provide written

9 comment on any of these reports if they so wish.

10 A reasonable, albeit brief, period of time will be

11 allowed for this. Written submissions will also

12 be accepted. Information as to how to submit

13 written suggestions is available on our website.

14 The deadline for receipt of such written

15 submissions is May 7th.

16 We also realize that many people are

17 reluctant to make presentations in public for a

18 variety of reasons. To that end, we have engaged

19 a graduate student from the University of Manitoba

20 to meet with or talk on the phone with people who

21 would rather not speak at public meetings. These

22 meetings will be kept in confidence. Information

23 as to how to contact this person is available on

24 our website as well as at the table at the back of

25 the room.



1 Some administrative matters. If you

2 wish to make a presentation today or at any of our

3 other meetings over the next six or seven weeks,

4 you may register today at the table at the back of

5 the room.

6 As is our normal practice, we are

7 recording these sessions. Verbatim transcripts

8 will be available on line in a day or so. You can

9 link to these transcripts from our website.

10 And finally, in respect of cell

11 phones, I would ask that they be turned off or the

12 ring tone turned off. And if you must take a

13 call, please leave the room. I am not terribly

14 tolerant about cell phones going off in the middle

15 of hearings. It's discourteous to the presenters.

16 We have a special shredding machine for cell

17 phones and I will confiscate them and throw them

18 in, if any of them go off.

19 That's all I have to say by way of

20 opening. I would now invite the Manitoba Pork

21 Council. First, before we proceed, I would like

22 each of you to introduce yourselves for the record

23 and then I'll ask our secretary, Cathy Johnson, to

24 administer the oath to tell the truth.

25 MR. MAH: For the record, Peter Mah,



1 Manitoba Pork Council.

2 MR. KYNOCH: I am Karl Kynoch, the

3 Chairman of the Manitoba Pork Council.

4 MR. DICKSON: I'm Andrew Dickson. I'm

5 the General Manager for the Manitoba Pork Council.

6 MS. BRYKSA: And I'm Tracey Bryksa,

7 Manager Public Affairs and Marketing for the Pork

8 Council.

9

10 PETER MAH: Sworn

11 KARL KYNOCH: Sworn

12 ANDREW DICKSON: Sworn

13 TRACEY BRYKSA: Sworn

14 KARL KYNOCH, Chairman of Manitoba Pork Council:

15 MR. KYNOCH: Thank you. I will just

16 give a brief overview who we are and then we'll

17 get into some of the technical stuff.

18 Manitoba Pork Council is a membership

19 association of all the hog producers of Manitoba.

20 We represent approximately 1,400 hog producers in

21 the province. We were created by government and

22 are funded by a mandatory check off. That in

23 itself points out that we speak on behalf of all

24 the producers in this province.

25 Our mission is to foster the



1 sustainability and prosperity of the pork industry

2 for the good of all hog farmers and all

3 Manitobans. I feel we've done a very good job of

4 that in the past and we will continue to do so in

5 the future. Our Board of Directors is made up

6 from 14 elected members. We have eight

7 geographical districts across the province and we

8 also have five production districts and one

9 weanling district. As you can see, we have a good

10 cross-representation on our board.

11 We have subcommittees that oversee the

12 activities, an Executive, Research & Environment

13 Committee, Public Affairs Committee, Quality

14 Assurance and Food Safety, and a Traceability

15 Committee. Manitoba hog farmers have invested

16 over $20 million in new technology and independent

17 environmental research over the past years. Over

18 the next eight weeks, we will show what we already

19 know to date is that we are good stewards of the

20 land in the past and we will continue to be in the

21 future, and that the hog industry is sustainable

22 for Manitoba.

23 With that, I would like to introduce

24 Andrew Dickson, my General Manager, Peter Mah who

25 is the Director of Community Relations and



1 Sustainable Development. Tracey is our General

2 Manager of Public Affairs. She's here to help

3 with technical support. Peter and Andrew will be

4 giving the overview of the technical information

5 of the hog industry. So with that, I will hand it

6 over to Andrew.

7 ANDREW DICKSON, General Manager of Manitoba Pork

8 Council:

9 MR. DICKSON: Thank you,

10 Commissioners. I'm going to work our way through

11 the ring binder that we gave to you and there's

12 various sections in it and I'm going to highlight

13 some of the various points in the section. And to

14 aid this, we're also having a Power Point

15 presentation of some of the highlights as well to

16 reinforce the points we're going to try and make.

17 What we tried to do here is respond to

18 the issues that you asked the public to respond to

19 as a result of your scoping hearings. And there's

20 about 15 sections that we'd like to try and cover

21 quickly in the next hour and a half or so and then

22 hear questions. Now, I don't know how you want to

23 handle questions. Do you want to do it as we go

24 along or do you want to do it towards the end?

25 THE CHAIRMAN: I think we'll probably



1 do it both. If you raise issues that clearly we

2 need further information on, we'll interrupt you,

3 if you don't mind, otherwise we'll save questions

4 until the end.

5 MR. DICKSON: Some of the responses

6 are interwoven into the different sections. We'll

7 deal with something on soil quality as

8 implications for nutrient management and so forth.

9 Now as an opening, I was encouraged to

10 provide a description of the industry as it

11 currently stands so people who aren't familiar

12 with hog production have some idea of the

13 terminology and the words that are used within the

14 industry.

15 So the opening section is called The

16 Production System. And essentially here what I'm

17 trying to describe is modern hog barns are complex

18 systems. They require a high level of husbandry

19 and management skills. And combining that with

20 the latest in technology and good genetics, hog

21 producers in Manitoba rank amongst the top

22 producers in the world for productivity and

23 quality of finished animals. We copy a lot of

24 stuff from across the world and have improved upon

25 it and we are a model of production for many



1 places.

2 Back in the 1950's, a lot of farms

3 were mixed farms. They grew a little bit of

4 everything. That's changed over the years. When

5 you raise pigs outdoors, we had a few pigs per

6 farm, productivity was low. Sows would crush

7 their piglets. It wasn't a comfortable life for

8 the bigger pigs. There was frostbite, hairless

9 ears, insect bites, sunburn and so on.

10 Over the years, we adopted some new

11 technologies, one is the controlled environment

12 house. And in the last 20 years, hog farming has

13 become more specialized. The average farm now has

14 about 500 sows. These pigs are now raised through

15 different stages in different barns according to

16 where they are at. So in other words, for a

17 pregnant sow, you keep them in a gestation barn or

18 part of a barn called the gestation area. That

19 sow will then deliver piglets in a farrowing room.

20 That room will have supplemental heat and a floor

21 surface and so on. And the piglets are then

22 raised in the nursery barn. And then once they

23 reach a certain weight, which is around about

24 27 kilos, they are moved to a feeder barn where

25 they are raised to a market weight of about 113



1 kilograms or 248 pounds. So there's the various

2 types of barns.

3 And some operations, they are called

4 "farrow to finish" where they have all these

5 different barns all on one site.

6 These pigs today are raised with fewer

7 diseases than years ago. They have biosecurity

8 programs in place. The barns are sheltered. The

9 environment is computer controlled. Water is

10 treated and tested and so forth. These are

11 high-health farms.

12 In the next sections, I put in a long

13 description in here about the breeding barn, like

14 gilts, how they give birth, how they are looked

15 after, the various management techniques.

16 Then we move over to gestation barns.

17 In those, you'll have two types of systems.

18 You'll have these individual stall systems which

19 have been developed based on recommendations from

20 30 years ago from the veterinarians as to how to

21 look after these animals. And there's been some

22 improvements in the new system called Loose

23 Housing Systems. And some of the industry is

24 looking at adopting those for gestation barns.

25 And then we move over from gestation



1 over into farrowing barns where the animals

2 actually give birth. And these are quite complex

3 systems in terms of how the sow is looked after,

4 the piglets are protected and fed and so on.

5 I put in some discussion about piglet

6 care and the various husbandry procedures that

7 they go through with them.

8 And then when we move over to the

9 grower-finisher barn, these are feeder pigs.

10 These are well-ventilated. The pigs are kept

11 clean. They have a dry area to lie in so they can

12 rest and eat. And the manure is removed from the

13 production system. And then after they reach

14 their finished weight, they are then transported

15 at roundabout 248 pounds or 113 kilograms in

16 specially designed trucks to ensure they safely

17 arrive at the packing plants.

18 In terms of the hog industry, in terms

19 of some statistics, I have provided a whole

20 variety of stats here. And the numbers have

21 increased considerably in the last 20, 30 years.

22 And I've got a chart I've put up here to show the

23 complexity of the hog industry. I'm not going to

24 go through each of the different sections. But

25 just to illustrate the significance of the



1 industry in terms of capital costs, they spend

2 $450 million a year, for example, on feed. We use

3 1 million metric tonnes of barley each year for

4 feeding the animals plus other parts of their

5 ration. We import breeding stock and so forth.

6 Total pig production, you know, this

7 is in 2005, it's about almost 9 million head worth

8 a billion dollars in production. And then we show

9 how it's sold. Export to the United States, go

10 through the slaughtering plants, the capacity and

11 so forth.

12 A key change occurred in 1995 with the

13 change in the Crow's Nest Pass grain subsidy.

14 That was a series of changes under way and that

15 added to the pressure to change in the hog

16 industry. And we move to an open market system

17 and new hog slaughtering facilities were built to

18 meet both the demand for -- in the United States,

19 we saw an increased demand for feeder pigs and

20 weanlings out of the U.S. Corn Belt. In this

21 period, from the mid 1990s to the early 2000s,

22 growth approximately was about 12.6 per cent per

23 year. That contrasted with the previous decade of

24 about 4.6. And since about 2004, 2003, it's

25 actually slowed down. We're running now about 2



1 per cent as an annual growth rate for the

2 industry. That's a key point we want to make.

3 This word exponential keeps getting used all the

4 time.

5 I provided some information here on

6 the number of pig farms, the type and location,

7 how many commercial operations we have and the

8 percentage that produce weanling pigs and so

9 forth. And some of these are based on census

10 figures and some are from information that we

11 gathered because of our ability to collect a levy.

12 Just a key point I want to make is

13 that 51 per cent of the total number of operations

14 has sows. In other words, half the operations had

15 sows, the other half are feeder barns. And these

16 operations are of various sizes but about 27

17 barns -- sorry, I should take that back, 75

18 production units have more than a thousand sows

19 per unit. And when you go over to the finisher

20 side, the barns are smaller but they account for

21 half the barns in the province.

22 And in terms of farm location, we have

23 a graph here that shows the various numbers

24 located by agricultural region in the province.

25 And as you can see, like region 9, for example,



1 has more than most of the other regions in the

2 province. And we have a map that we'll put up to

3 show distribution. And you can see a significant

4 proportion of the industry is located in the

5 eastern part of the province.

6 One of the questions that comes back

7 all the time is about pig densities, and we

8 provided some information here.

9 Manitoba pig producers export 43 per

10 cent of all their pigs, but these are the little

11 pigs that we export. We ship a lot of little

12 pigs. When you take those into size and the

13 amount of land that we have, Manitoba's pig

14 density is about 40 per cent less if you use

15 these, rather than just looking at numbers. You

16 look at actual weight, it's a different matter

17 altogether.

18 In terms of pig inventory, one of the

19 issues that keeps coming up from the media is that

20 we have 9 million pigs on the farm. Well, we

21 don't. At any one time, we might have in the

22 province, according to statistics here,

23 2.96 million head as of January 1, 2007. Our core

24 herd is the sows. It's about 378,000 sows on the

25 farm. And from those, that forms the basis by



1 which we produce weanlings or finisher pigs.

2 At any one time, one million of these

3 are newborn or weanling pigs weighing less than 20

4 kilograms. This is a significant number to use

5 because of the potential impact on the

6 environment.

7 Another three-quarters of a million of

8 these pigs at any one time weigh between 20 and

9 60-kilograms. And then of course in the finisher

10 category, we have about three-quarters of a

11 million.

12 Moving on pretty quickly here. I have

13 provided some graphs on pig production and how we

14 compare with the rest of Canada. I took the value

15 of production and compared to various other crops

16 and so on. As you can see, hogs are a major

17 sector in terms of the whole total value of farm

18 production in the province.

19 In terms of pig marketings, in 1967,

20 Manitoba hog producers were organized into a Hog

21 Marketing Board. And then July 1, 1996, the

22 marketing authority was taken away and producers

23 had the option of marketing in an open market

24 either to brokers or directly to processing

25 plants.



1 I put in some statistics here on the

2 exports and various sale types and so on. And you

3 can see that most of our production gets sold down

4 to the United States. 3.8 million hogs are killed

5 in Manitoba provincial plants. But we ship

6 3.8 million weanlings directly into the United

7 States. And we actually ship 1.3 million

8 slaughter animals into the United States into

9 their smaller plants.

10 In terms of farm cash receipts, the

11 swine industry is the largest source of cash

12 receipts in terms of providing some information

13 here on feed use. And you can see that we buy

14 $450 million worth of feed in 2005. And that's

15 total feed in terms of grain and the various

16 protein supplements and so on.

17 If we were ever to increase our

18 numbers by finishing all the weanlings in the

19 province instead of exporting them, then our

20 consumption would move to 3.3 million tonnes.

21 In terms of hog slaughtering in the

22 pork processing industry, I provided some

23 information here in terms of the context and in

24 terms of the food and beverage processing

25 industry, that sector is worth $3.3 billion to the



1 provincial economy. And in that, $1.1 billion is

2 meat and meat products, and it is mostly hogs.

3 It's 90 per cent mostly hogs. And as you can see,

4 we export to Japan, the United States, Mexico,

5 Australia, and 28 other countries.

6 I put in some description here about

7 the history of our meat processing plants.

8 Essentially, we have a plant in Brandon, we still

9 have slaughtering and processing plants here in

10 Winnipeg, and a slaughter and processing plant in

11 Neepawa. And there's various numbers here. It

12 should be noted that the Brandon plant is in a

13 period of expansion and they hope to get up to 4,

14 4.5 million pigs after their expansion in terms of

15 handling slaughter. Some rationalization of their

16 plants in Winnipeg.

17 In terms of background here in terms

18 of the hog slaughter until the early 2000s.

19 Essentially, Manitoba pig operations can produce

20 more than enough pigs for slaughter in the

21 province if all our plants were at full capacity,

22 but 58 per cent of these pigs are being shipped to

23 the United States and other provinces.

24 I put in a section in here on trade.

25 A little bit of a description in terms of how



1 Manitoba fits into the Canadian situation. The

2 key thing here is we're very dependent upon

3 exchange rates, and you'll see this when we get

4 into other parts of the presentation. The

5 Canadian dollar plays a major factor, the value

6 compared to the United States dollar in terms of

7 how our industry performs. And I put some

8 information in there on that.

9 We've actually dropped down in terms

10 of being an exporter of pork. The larger

11 provinces are Quebec, Ontario and Alberta by

12 percentages.

13 I put a section in here on prices and

14 returns to give you an idea of what the

15 sustainability of this industry is from an

16 economic perspective. That's why a lot of these

17 statistics are in here because of the three parts

18 to developing a sustainable industry.

19 Weanling pigs are a challenge. And

20 currently, it's very attractive to send them into

21 the United States and it's been a good market for

22 our hog producers here. In the long run, we would

23 like to see more of these finished here in

24 Manitoba if we can get the right combination of

25 prices and exchange rates.



1 Feeding costs will also be a major

2 determinant on how much feeding we do in the

3 province. And the imposition of government

4 regulations and so on, if they are not handled

5 right, we'll have a significant impact in terms of

6 our net returns as well.

7 In terms of change and stuff like

8 this, as we see with changes in feeder prices and

9 Canadian dollar and so on, the sector that will

10 probably be able to weather it better than most

11 will actually be the weanling producers simply

12 because they don't have to incur all the feed

13 costs.

14 Now to move on, move into the section

15 of -- sorry.

16 MR. MOTHERAL: Just going back to the

17 start, and you may have said it, this check off

18 for Manitoba Pork Council, is that mandatory?

19 MR. DICKSON: Yes.

20 MR. MOTHERAL: Is there any

21 possibility, can somebody volunteer to go out and

22 not be part of it?

23 MR. DICKSON: No. Under the marketing

24 regulations, pigs are regulated product. You have

25 to be registered with us to be a hog producer in



1 Manitoba.

2 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you.

3 MR. DICKSON: The first section is on

4 nutrient management and there's an executive

5 summary provided for you. I will leave that. The

6 key point I want to make here is nutrient

7 management, that's management of nitrogen and

8 phosphorus, in the animal-plant-soil system was

9 examined using the pathway of flow of nutrients in

10 the animal system and the pathway of the flow of

11 nutrients in the plant-soil system using nutrient

12 cycles. So that will give you the model by which

13 we'll go take a look at this.

14 And I will turn to the section on

15 management of nitrogen and phosphorus in the

16 animal system. We provided a little diagram there

17 to show you how this flows. Most of the nitrogen

18 is in the diet of the pig as a protein. And these

19 are made of amino acids. These amino acids'

20 composition don't precisely match the animal

21 requirements. And as a result, the animal

22 excretes the excess nitrogen. And 40 to 75 per

23 cent of the nitrogen ingested is actually

24 excreted. And this is typical of the mammalian

25 systems.



1 Moving on. Some of that nitrogen

2 that's excreted is in the form of ammonia and that

3 can account for 30 to 40 per cent of the excreted

4 nitrogen. That will be present either in the barn

5 or from the storage structure.

6 I'm outlining here a series of

7 strategies to how we've been trying to reduce that

8 nitrogen excretion and the volatilization of the

9 ammonia. And we have a variety of strategies that

10 have come forward or are continuing to be adopted

11 throughout the industry. One is, in terms of the

12 actual nitrogen excretion, but trying to reduce

13 the dietary protein content. We're trying to

14 increase the dietary energy so that with less

15 feed, they actually get the energy they need.

16 Trying to use different types of non-starches to

17 reduce -- to increase that energy component. And

18 the big one of course is phase feeding where you

19 match the protein requirements of the animal

20 according to its growth curve. As you get older,

21 you need less protein to put tissue on.

22 In terms of ammonia emission from the

23 actual storage facility during handling. Exposure

24 to air is a key item. And here we need to take a

25 look at how we can combine things like frequent



1 barn cleaning covers and so forth. Covers have

2 definitely been shown to reduce the volatilization

3 of ammonia and you could have straw covers or

4 plastic covers and the range is from 60 to 84 per

5 cent in terms of reductions. About 15 to 20 per

6 cent of the hog applied to land in Manitoba is

7 protected by straw and plastic covers during

8 storage.

9 In terms of phosphorus. Most of the

10 phosphorus fed to hogs is in the form of phytate

11 which is actually in the grain. This is not

12 easily digestible and therefore we've had to add

13 inorganic or more bioavailable source of phosphate

14 to the diet. Pig rations normally contain between

15 .6 and .8 per cent of total phosphorus as phytate

16 and we've had to supplement with inorganic

17 phosphorus. 50 to 60 per cent of the phosphorus

18 in the ration may be excreted in urine or in fecal

19 material.

20 And then we have some strategies to

21 reduce phosphorus excretion. And a core point

22 here you'll probably run into is when we try to

23 apply manure as a fertilizer based on the nitrogen

24 standard, we run into an imbalance with the amount

25 of phosphorus that's in the manure. And so the



1 issue now is how to bring that phosphorus back

2 into balance so that we can meet crop nutrient

3 requirements.

4 By adding phytase, which is an enzyme

5 to the ration, you can actually reduce the

6 requirement for phosphorus in the diet. We can

7 actually -- the content of the feed can be reduced

8 to about .4 of the total phosphorus in the ration.

9 Phase feeding has played a key role

10 and I have provided some information on that.

11 And by using these strategies, a 50

12 per cent reduction in dietary phosphorus

13 requirement is achievable. And the industry is in

14 the process of doing that right now.

15 60 per cent of all hogs produced in

16 Manitoba are fed diets with the phytase in the

17 ration. One of our blocks, and I point this out

18 in the paragraph, is that the regulations under

19 the federal regulations on feed require a certain

20 addition of phosphorus to meet the federal

21 standards. And Canadian Pork Council some years

22 ago asked the federal government to take a look at

23 changing that regulation to account for the fact

24 that we now use phytase in a ration.

25 In terms of management of nitrogen and



1 phosphorus, we want to point out the application

2 of manures to crop land is one of the best methods

3 of recycling plant nutrients. Plant nutrients

4 removed from the soil in the harvested portion of

5 crops is fed to the animals and then returned to

6 the soil as manure.

7 And I put in the various calculations

8 and charts here about the amount of nitrogen and

9 phosphorus that are produced from manure from the

10 hog industry. And our calculations are total

11 nitrogen excreted, and that's excretion, is about

12 30,000 metric tonnes of nitrogen. We have about

13 4.7 million hectares of land in the province. And

14 if you include tame hay, it's 5.36 million

15 hectares. If you put on a moderate application of

16 nitrogen, we would use 9 per cent of the land in

17 crops and hay. Now this is based on excretion.

18 About 30 per cent of the nitrogen is volatilized

19 and therefore you can reduce the land requirement

20 to about 6 per cent of the land in annual crops.

21 And to give you some perspective on

22 this thing. Sales of commercial nitrogen

23 fertilizer in the province are 300,000 to 350,000

24 metric tonnes. The total amount of nitrogen

25 excreted by hogs in Manitoba is approximately 11



1 per cent of the amounts of nitrogen added to

2 commercial fertilizer in 2005.

3 The amounts of phosphorus added as a

4 fertilizer in 2005 was approximately 46,000

5 tonnes, according to the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship

6 Board. And this is phosphorus, not phosphate.

7 You have to use a multiplier to get the phosphate.

8 The hog industry, according to this report,

9 excreted 11,000 tonnes of phosphorus. The land

10 area required for recycling of phosphorus at crop

11 removal rates of 15 kilograms per hectare per year

12 is 733,000 hectares or approximately 15 per cent

13 of the land in crops. The nutrients excreted in

14 manure are used and should be used to replace

15 nutrients purchased or imported as fertilizer.

16 The problem is not too many nutrients in soil, the

17 problem is lack of adequate distribution from

18 areas of high livestock density to areas of mainly

19 crop.

20 And then we put in a series of charts

21 here about the content of manure. The key thing

22 here too is we'll talk later about the regulations

23 and so on, but we provided some charts here

24 showing the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorus cycle.

25 The key thing here, most of the added phosphorus,



1 but it undergoes reactions with the soil and is

2 thus held in relatively insoluble and immobile

3 forms. And clay soils have a high phosphorus

4 retention capacity.

5 And then we put a chart in here

6 showing if you allow the level of these nutrients

7 to build up in the soil like phosphorus, you can

8 actually start to see movement or increased levels

9 of soluble phosphorus entering into the

10 environment.

11 This issue has been identified a

12 number of years ago. And through much discussion,

13 the province has introduced an amendment to the

14 manure regulations dealing with phosphorus and

15 also with commercial fertilizers and so on. And

16 these limits are all described here in the report.

17 And my understanding is you had met with Manitoba

18 Conservation and they've gone through these

19 regulations with you.

20 In terms of transfers of nitrogen to

21 the atmosphere, one is through volatilization and

22 also from denitrification of the manure in the

23 soil in the form of nitrous oxide. We also

24 outline here various strategies to reduce

25 transfers of nitrogen from the soil to the



1 atmosphere. Pointing out like 70 to 80 per cent

2 of the liquid hog manure in Manitoba is injected

3 directly into the soil which reduces

4 volatilization. As long as it's applied at the

5 correct rates, they can avoid groundwater

6 leaching. It's very unlikely that environmentally

7 significant amounts of phosphorus, unless large

8 amounts are added over a long period of time, that

9 we're going to see any leaching. It's maybe of

10 concern in high soil test phosphorus levels in

11 certain soils, especially those with tile

12 drainage. But if extractable phosphorus levels

13 are maintained at levels suitable for crop

14 production and at levels at which risk of

15 phosphorus transfer via run-off is low, leaching

16 of significant amounts of phosphorus is very

17 unlikely.

18 We talk in here about clay soils and

19 how they contrast with sandy soils and so forth

20 and some of the uses of things like forage crops

21 and so on. And we talk about how recharge occurs.

22 We'll touch on that later on when we talk about

23 groundwater supply.

24 I move on to a section called

25 strategies to reduce transfer to groundwater. The



1 key here is the best strategy to minimize leaching

2 of nitrate is to maintain as low a level of

3 nitrate in the soil as feasible and to treat

4 sensitive areas with due diligence. We talk a

5 little bit here about forages and the key role

6 that they can play in some areas where the nitrate

7 seen in sandy soil has moved down through the

8 profile and they can be recovered.

9 In terms of transfers of nutrients to

10 the surface water, run-off and erosion are the

11 major pathways. Soil type greatly affects run-off

12 and erosion. And slope, steepness, proximity of

13 fields to ditches and so on, perennial forages

14 will increase the infiltration rates, which means

15 they can reduce the potential for run-off.

16 Reducing tillage systems can reduce surface water

17 contamination when nutrient transfer is mainly by

18 erosion but it may be ineffective in reducing

19 nutrient transfer when it's in a soluble form.

20 Different soils have different capacities to hold

21 nutrients. And there's various descriptions in

22 here about this transfer process and point sources

23 of phosphorus and so on in the environment.

24 We'll keep moving. Strategies to

25 reduce transfers to surface waters. The thing we



1 want to say here is that these are difficult and

2 we need more work done in terms of research. The

3 trick here is to maintain soil nutrient levels

4 below threshold environment levels. And on that,

5 we have the regulations in place that can provide

6 some guidance on that.

7 And then I repeat here some of the

8 techniques in reducing and then improving this

9 ratio from nitrogen to phosphorus for crop

10 nutrient balance.

11 In the next section, we provide stuff

12 on crop growth and nutrient uptake. Just a point

13 here. Injection of liquid hog manure has

14 consistently resulted in greater crop nutrient

15 recovery and yield compared to broadcast and

16 incorporated methods. Phosphorus in hog manure is

17 a good source of phosphorus for crops.

18 Now, the key part of the presentation

19 here is on nutrient budgets and balances.

20 Johnston and Roberts have provide a very detailed

21 analysis of the agricultural regions of the

22 province and we will see that on table 9. And if

23 you look through that, you can see the different

24 regions as to what balance they are in terms of

25 phosphorus in those particular regions. And you



1 can see, for example, region 9 has an imbalance of

2 23.3.

3 The issue we're trying to get here is

4 that livestock production, from a phosphorus

5 replacement standpoint, could be increased

6 substantially in most areas before inputs of

7 phosphorus exceeded outputs, providing fertilizer

8 phosphorus use declined. And I think what we're

9 trying to get at here is that we can get a better

10 balance in most of the districts here by simply

11 cutting back on the amount of artificial

12 fertilizer that's applied and start treating the

13 primary source of phosphorus from manures and then

14 adding artificial rock phosphate to those areas

15 where we need it.

16 And there's another study that was

17 done in four Manitoba municipalities, Hanover, La

18 Broquerie, Roland and Sifton to to give you a

19 comparison between the different districts and how

20 much nitrogen and phosphorus is in their soils in

21 terms of inputs and outputs, the various losses

22 through volatilization, denitrification and so

23 forth and what residual levels they have. And as

24 you can see, some areas of the province actually

25 have deficiencies in various elements.



1 This study showed that a small part of

2 Manitoba has a positive imbalance between inputs

3 and outputs of nutrients. Strategies to reduce

4 inputs and increase outputs of nutrients is needed

5 to increase environmental sustainability.

6 Now, in terms of strategies to

7 maintain nutrient balance, the four key methods

8 here. One is to reduce the inputs of nutrient in

9 feed by using phase feeding, manipulation of

10 diets, use of enzymes to reduce overall inputs of

11 nutrients. Two, use crops with high nutrient

12 demand and maximize fertilizer yield to increase

13 nutrients. Three, minimize the wastage of feed

14 and maintain good animal husbandry to maximize

15 gains in weight per unit of feed. And then use

16 better genetics when ever possible.

17 Now, that was on nutrient management.

18 Then we need to move over and look at manure

19 management. And the key thing here is, how you

20 handle manure depends on whether it's a solid or

21 it's a liquid. And I have provided a chart here

22 describing the various methods of collection,

23 transfer, storage, treatment, utilization,

24 depending on the type of manure that they are

25 dealing with. And it's absolutely fundamental to



1 the sustainability of a farm that you handle the

2 manure. It's one of those core management

3 activities that has to be attended to properly.

4 The design and management of these

5 systems is to ensure that they prevent leakage to

6 the environment, that they provide an appropriate

7 level of odour control, and have sufficient

8 capacity to provide flexibility for the timing of

9 land application operations. And many operations

10 have been designed by professional engineers.

11 There are a variety of requirements under the

12 livestock manure and mortalities management

13 regulation dealing with construction of these

14 things. They all have to have permits, and these

15 permits ensure that the requirements of these

16 structures are designed to protect surface water,

17 ground water and soil. Not only do the manure

18 regulations have to be considered, also the

19 proponent has to look at what requirements the

20 local municipality might have, how close are they

21 to fields for application, what would be the

22 impact of nuisance odours, should they use

23 existing trees and bush, plant additional shelter

24 belts? Most liquid systems hold 300 to 400 days,

25 at least the larger ones do. And this is to allow



1 flexibility of timing, because we have this narrow

2 window of opportunity to spread in the spring or

3 the fall. Water use consumption is carefully

4 monitored, because essentially you have to store

5 it at the other end. So to reduce costs, one is

6 very careful about how much water one uses in a

7 barn.

8 Typical structure in Manitoba is an

9 earthen manure storage structure, and we provide

10 some little diagrams here to show how these look.

11 They are all carefully engineered. They are

12 inspected during construction, and all the details

13 in terms of compactions and porosity and so on are

14 all embodied in the regulations and have to be

15 inspected by a third party.

16 In terms of solid manures, there's

17 been new regulations come forward in terms of

18 dealing with field storage and many producers are

19 now being brought in within those regulations.

20 And the concept, we'll talk about it later, but

21 all producers have to follow these regulations

22 regardless of size.

23 A new development is being the use of

24 hoop structures and quonset shaped metal

25 structures. These are covered with polyethylene



1 tarps. They also have to be careful where they

2 store the manure and so on, both inside the barn

3 itself and when it's excavated out and a new crop

4 brought in.

5 Manure storage structures, if they

6 were built before 1994, are now required to be

7 registered with Manitoba Conservation. Any other

8 structures now have to be registered as well. And

9 I've outlined some of the details in here.

10 In terms of the manure management

11 plans, I think it is a core part of the

12 regulations. The purpose of this regulation is to

13 prescribe requirements for the use, management and

14 storage of livestock manure and mortalities in

15 agricultural operations, so that livestock manure

16 and mortalities are handled in an environmentally

17 sustainable manner. And that's the core part of

18 how these plans are developed. So I want to

19 emphasize this issue of environmentally

20 sustainable.

21 In terms of manure management plans,

22 we provide some details here how they were

23 registered under the Environment Act in 1994 and

24 there's been various amendments since then.

25 As of November 2006, the Department of



1 Conservation has been dealing with 488 manure

2 management plans, of which 398 belong to hog

3 operations. According to our statistics, there

4 are supposedly 424 potential operations. We don't

5 know who these other 26 are. All the operations

6 we know are registered.

7 Operations below 300 animal units

8 don't have to supply a manure management plan

9 unless so directed, but they are bound by all the

10 various regulatory requirements in terms of

11 nutrient to the environment and so on.

12 If the farmer doesn't fill in his own

13 manure management plan and he has it done by

14 somebody else, there are requirements in terms of

15 being a member of an appropriate professional body

16 and these people have to have some training. The

17 key point here, all these plans have to be filed

18 prior to land application. And then we have a

19 huge section in here on land-based requirement

20 calculations and how you go about it. And what

21 we're trying to do here is to show that there is

22 significant effort to prepare these manure

23 management plans. It's not an easy task to go

24 through.

25 Then when you get into the actual



1 application the field, we provide the various

2 descriptions of systems there. For example, the

3 manure has to be agitated, there's manure on-site

4 sampling, the application method is actually

5 monitored, records are kept, and Manitoba

6 Conservation does the general monitoring and

7 enforcement activities. And there's various

8 statistics, various issues that have to be

9 reported are listed out as the final section.

10 I'd like to move on to land use

11 planning as the next title. Sorry, questions?

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Nothing at this point,

13 thank you.

14 MR. DICKSON: We are going to be going

15 to land use planning and we would ask Peter Mah

16 here to deal with this.

17 PETER MAH, Director, Community Relations &

18 Sustainable Development, Manitoba Pork Council:

19 MR. MAH: Thanks very much, Andrew.

20 What I'd like to do over the course of

21 the next few minutes is just walk you through

22 basically what the provincial and local

23 requirements are with respect to land use planning

24 and the development approvals process. I think

25 it's a good, safe bet to say that at many of the



1 public meetings that I've gone to at the local

2 level, and even within the City of Winnipeg, many

3 people do not appreciate, nor do they know all the

4 rules and regulations that are in fact in place to

5 regulate hog production. So I will walk you

6 through very briefly a little bit about the origin

7 and the evolution of the land use planning,

8 because I think it gives you some sense of where

9 we have been and where we are today, to provide

10 context. I would like to spend a little bit of

11 time on the new Planning Act which came in on

12 January 1st of 2006, and in particular the

13 reference to the local livestock operations policy

14 which is mandatory across the province, and at the

15 same time give you some sense of how those

16 policies are actually guided by the set of

17 provincial land use policies which is very

18 critical to a whole host of provincial interests,

19 and then walk you through, in a chart form, the

20 actual livestock approval process.

21 Near the end what I'd like to do,

22 Mr. Chairman and commissioners, is give you some

23 of my own opinions relative to current weaknesses

24 with the process. I'd like to outline an

25 alternative, which in many ways is not a major



1 alternative, but I think some tweaking, which we

2 believe would provide some better balance and

3 remove some of the controversy that we see time

4 and time again at the local level. And then I'd

5 like to wrap up with some comments about what I

6 would refer to simply as a comprehensive safety

7 net, a basket of rules and regulations which all

8 intertwine, basically, to provide the confidence

9 which we believe the hog industry is working

10 through and the public can have the confidence in

11 that the environment is in fact protected, and

12 then close off again with some minor points on

13 closing comments. So maybe with that, if I can

14 just stand up for a minute. Hopefully this works,

15 if I could sort of move around, let me use this

16 little pointer from time to time and maybe it's

17 best if I stand over here.

18 First off, in terms of the actual

19 Planning Act itself, it was first adopted in 1975.

20 At that point, the province had instituted the

21 Planning Act really to institute subdivision

22 control over land division. At the same time, we

23 empowered municipalities to enter into local

24 planning and come up with basic planning

25 statements, BPS's, which today has been supplanted



1 by development plans and zoning by-laws.

2 Over the course of time, the Planning

3 Act was adjusted in 1988 by the adoption of a set

4 of nine provincial land use policies. And those

5 provincial land use policies enunciated clearly

6 what the provincial interest is and was at the

7 time relative to the development of land. And it

8 had nine policies with respect to general

9 development, development around urban centres and

10 villages, agriculture, renewable resources, water

11 and shore land, recreational resources, natural

12 features and heritage resources, flooding and

13 erosion, provincial highways and mineral

14 resources.

15 So you can see back then, even in

16 1988, that the province had already been thinking

17 about trying to integrate all of the resource

18 conservation interests with land use planning and

19 development.

20 In '94, it moved on to add in, as a

21 result of what we call COSDI, the Consultation on

22 Sustainable Development Implementation, which was

23 a very public process back then, to look at

24 adopting a set of principles and guidelines of

25 sustainable development. Of course, as you know



1 today, we have the Sustainable Development Act

2 that balances social, economic and environmental

3 development. So this has been embodied into the

4 provincial land use policy.

5 And then most recently in 2005, you

6 may recall that the provincial land use policy

7 number 2, which is specific to agriculture, went

8 through a major amendment basically to adopt new

9 provisions relative to livestock, and in so doing

10 had set in place a minimum mutual separation

11 standard. Now this is very, very important. What

12 it did basically is provided the guidance and the

13 farm practices guidelines, it said, based upon

14 those guidelines which have adopted and

15 recommended by a multi stakeholder committee, who

16 adopted into regulation and provided a guidance, a

17 minimum base of separation standards right across

18 the province. And then, as we know, during that

19 period of 2004/05, there is extensive consultation

20 right across the whole province from

21 municipalities, special interest groups,

22 agriculture, environmental groups, conservation

23 groups, on the design of the new Planning Act

24 which was at the time dubbed as Bill 40, and

25 subsequently came out with a new act called Bill



1 33.

2 While Bill 33 came to be -- on

3 January 1, 2006 was enacted. It provided, in

4 essence, to maintain a dual role in planning

5 between local authorities, which could be local

6 councils and planning district wards, and in fact

7 a partnership with the province, a dual role. And

8 basically what it said, while about 98 per cent of

9 land use planning in Manitoba, municipalities in

10 Manitoba, roughly had been involved in planning,

11 the Planning Act said, from this point on, land

12 use planning is mandatory for every municipality

13 in the Province of Manitoba. And in so doing had

14 mandated that by January 1st, 2008, which is not

15 really that far off, that every municipality with

16 an agricultural interest must prepare a livestock

17 operations policy. So it must go ahead and

18 proceed. And I'll talk a little bit more about

19 that.

20 One of the key fundamental areas which

21 the new Planning Act clearly defined was, as a

22 foundation, was a clear role and responsibility

23 between local municipal government and the

24 province. In the case of municipal government, it

25 was felt that land use jurisdiction should be the



1 jurisdiction essentially of municipal Manitoba,

2 municipal councils who were duly elected, who know

3 the area perhaps better than anybody else,

4 certainly anybody in the City of Winnipeg and

5 politicians, knew it had a sense and pulse of the

6 community in terms of goals, objectives and their

7 aspirations, and so could better balance the

8 issues of local land use. Now, comparatively

9 speaking, when you look at the province, it was

10 felt through the consultation process and adopted

11 by province that the responsibility for

12 environmental protection should rest with, and

13 this is very important, rest with the province.

14 Because technical issues, the complexity with the

15 environment doesn't rest with just simply

16 municipal units. You are talking about drainage,

17 you are talking about water, you are talking about

18 air, you are talking about the general environment

19 which can transcend in most cases municipal

20 boundaries, sometimes provincial jurisdiction,

21 sometimes international boundaries. And so with

22 the expertise that's required to be able to

23 effectively monitor, effectively control and

24 administer environmental protection measures, that

25 was left to the province.



1 I talked about the livestock

2 operations policies in Minnedosa. This is now

3 mandatory right across the province. January 1st,

4 2006, we're already a little over a year into it

5 and we find basically that we're finding that it's

6 fairly slow, but basically the idea is that every

7 municipality is to set standards for siting of

8 livestock and specific set-backs for livestock

9 operations in their respective areas, again basing

10 it on the provincial land use policies, but

11 there's an opportunity for municipalities to notch

12 up, if you will, those standards that they felt

13 appropriate.

14 Mind you, there is some limits to

15 that. Those limits are that the provincial land

16 use policy says they must be reasonable and they

17 must be generally consistent with the provincial

18 land use policy standard, but there is some

19 latitude.

20 At the same time, they are supposed to

21 look at their land base, the municipalities and

22 the communities are to look at their land base and

23 say whereabouts, based on existing land use, on

24 future land use plans, on natural resource

25 features, where are those areas with which



1 livestock would and should be developed? And

2 conversely, what areas should not be developed for

3 livestock? And so they could designate certain

4 areas where livestock of a certain size could be

5 allowed outright, if they met certain standards,

6 or they could be regulated and allowed up to a

7 certain maximum. And in the case where they are

8 not allowed, for instance, historically, and we

9 are seeing over time around urban centres, a

10 buffer area around urban centres, around

11 designated recreation sites, cottage areas, and

12 this type of thing.

13 Well, how well are we doing? Progress

14 and updates. A conversation with Manitoba

15 Intergovernmental Affairs recently, they have

16 indicated that they know municipalities have

17 embarked on process for these livestock operations

18 policies, but unfortunately and regrettably,

19 things are slow. It may well be for a number of

20 reasons. It could be, for instance, because

21 municipal elections were held last year in

22 October, and typically local decision-making

23 starts to stall before an election and certainly

24 takes time for it to gear up right after an

25 election as new officials carry on their new roles



1 and become familiar with them. At the same time,

2 some of them, quite honestly, might be looking for

3 some indication of what this particular Commission

4 might be coming up with in terms of results.

5 The bottom line is, we're having a

6 number of municipalities that are working on it,

7 but at least one-third, as I understand it,

8 haven't even begun yet.

9 So what are the implications? Well,

10 first of all, we do know that the provincial land

11 use policy already sets in place the minimum

12 siting and setback requirements, and have already,

13 by outright, have prohibited livestock operations

14 on certain lands, class 6, class 7, and unimproved

15 organic soils, that is outright prohibited. So we

16 have that as a base.

17 So what's the bottom line? If you

18 look at the number of regulations that are in

19 place under the Planning Act, and those

20 regulations that are now at the local level that

21 still need to be updated but they are still in

22 place, you've got livestock applications that are

23 still being regulated. It's not today that we're

24 starting from zero. We have in fact a very

25 substantial base of regulations for every



1 livestock operation, be it chicken, cattle, hogs

2 or whatever.

3 Well, here's an example under table

4 number 1. Table number 1 actually shows the

5 separation distances from that provincial land use

6 policy number 2. And rather than go through this

7 whole chart, I just wanted to point out and

8 illustrate what it says. First of all it says,

9 based upon size of a livestock operation based on

10 animal units, and I'm going to use the example of

11 201 to 300 animal units and go across this column

12 here, it will determine the minimum separation

13 distances between, in this case, an earthen manure

14 storage facility and a single residence. A single

15 residence, no other place do you see that for any

16 other development, for a livestock operation from

17 single residence not connected to the operation.

18 Also, there's a certain distance, in this

19 particular case 200 metres from the barn and from

20 a non-earthen manure storage facility. So in this

21 particular case here, we're talking a quarter

22 mile, here 200 metres is one-eighth of a mile. In

23 case of a designated area, and that is designated

24 under the development plan, a recreation area, an

25 urban centre, a rural residential designated area,



1 we're talking in this case here, a 300 animal unit

2 operation must be at least 1 mile away, 1 mile

3 away or 1.6 kilometres. Or in the case of a barn

4 itself, it must be a little over one kilometre or

5 two-thirds of a mile away. Those are significant

6 distances which bottom line are in place.

7 The other thing I should just point

8 out as well is that the intent of the provincial

9 land use policies were those distances to be

10 mutual separation distances, the intent of which

11 is that if you have an existing operator that has

12 a farm, invested time, money and effort into the

13 enterprise, raising a farm family, that that

14 enterprise in agricultural land needs protection.

15 So that rural residents should not be able to come

16 in and violate those separation distances, which

17 are going to potentially pose conflicts, not only

18 for the operation but in future for the rural

19 residences. So clearly these are to be intended

20 to be mutual separation distances.

21 Let me just go on. Other things that

22 people typically do not know that are already

23 included under the Environment Act, the manure and

24 mortalities management regulations. I have gone

25 to countless meetings and the people, they are



1 surprised by this, and yet this has been in place

2 for many years. It says, first of all, for siting

3 and construction requirements for manure storage

4 facilities, whether above or inground, that you

5 have to be at least a minimum of 100 metres from

6 any surface water course, sink hole, spring or

7 well, or the boundaries of an operation. That

8 comes as a surprise to many, many people.

9 Schedule B. Well, we know first of

10 all that we're moving away from winter spreading.

11 And for the large part, there was a large part of

12 the Red River Valley special management area,

13 which was adopted on November 8, 2006, a huge area

14 that was inundated by the last major floods which

15 no longer can you spread manure -- up until a

16 certain time, there's a transition period for a

17 few years with which to be able to have those

18 existing operations ensure that they can adjust.

19 But any new operations, any new expansions cannot

20 spread in the winter time. The winter time

21 basically is a period between November 10th of one

22 year and April 10th of the other. So there's a

23 five month period with which they cannot winter

24 spread. And you will see as time goes on, year by

25 year, that more of the producers who are currently



1 exempt going through, and currently they are

2 basically smaller operations of 300 animal units

3 or less, or those between a barrier of 300 to 400

4 animal units will have a bit of, a few years in

5 which to comply. But anything over 400 animal

6 units, there's no winter spreading.

7 Let me go on to one more thing. In

8 the case of spreading, basically they have to stay

9 a minimum of 10 metres away from any property

10 boundaries. But, again, relative to slope, there

11 is a scale, if you will, where again the distances

12 increase from manure spreading, depending upon how

13 the slope is. So if you look at the last one here

14 where the land is anywhere from 6 per cent or

15 more, and less than 12 per cent slope, you've got

16 to be at least 450 metres away from any surface

17 water course, sink hole, spring or well. Anything

18 over 12 per cent, you're not allowed to spread.

19 And then I'll just move very quickly

20 now to again set-backs from surface water and

21 surface water courses. Again, depending on the

22 features, depending upon the manure application

23 method, there is certain set-backs that are based,

24 either with vegetated buffer strips or

25 non-vegetated. Again, the point is that you've



1 got a tremendous amount of regulations in place

2 that would, first of all, influence the siting of

3 an operation, and then thereafter the operation of

4 the operation on a daily basis.

5 This livestock operation review

6 process, I'll quickly run through it. Basically,

7 the application is put forward to the RM, and as

8 Andrew has indicated already, there is a

9 tremendous amount of due diligence prepared by

10 farm operator in siting, picking the right site,

11 doing the engineering test, soil tests, preparing

12 the application, and getting that before council.

13 What happens is that application goes to the

14 provincial technical review committee for a report

15 and recommendation, comprised of Manitoba

16 Agriculture and Food, Water Stewardship

17 Intergovernmental Affairs and Manitoba

18 Conservation. These specialists review that and

19 then provide that report, not only to the public

20 and to the council, but to the producer, and then

21 there's a public hearing for conditional use.

22 Now, I'll say this here: This

23 conditional use process, I think, time and time

24 again, I've seen it very, very contentious. It

25 pits opponents against proponents and supporters.



1 It's an adversarial process, and I think there's a

2 better way. In any event, I'll talk about that in

3 a minute.

4 Basically, as you go through it, that

5 application must go through this process. And if

6 it meets certain criteria, it can be approved with

7 or without conditions, and invariably it's always

8 with conditions.

9 Even if a local permit is in fact

10 issued by the local council, it is still subject

11 to provincial approvals on the environmental

12 front, in terms of water rights licence, in terms

13 of the manure storage permit. In each and every

14 case, engineering requirements and analyses is

15 required.

16 If those issues, if licences and the

17 permits are issued, between the three of those,

18 permits, licences -- and it signals the proposal

19 can proceed to construction. And so at that point

20 the operation proceeds to construction, and still

21 again, as I have mentioned, must comply on a

22 day-to-day basis with regulations.

23 I'm just going to skip this chart

24 here, it talks about the actual TRC process. But

25 I'm going to move now towards what I think, just



1 to wrap up here, in terms of predictability and

2 consistency, we believe that the up-front local

3 livestock planning is an excellent, excellent

4 vehicle. The local livestock standards, policies,

5 the consultation process with the public is

6 essential, but we note that the conditional use

7 process, like a court, is adversarial. And we see

8 that time and time again, the emotional debate,

9 and some innuendos, and not perhaps always

10 fact-based information comes forward, and not

11 enough good science to be able to balance it. And

12 we see time and time again that applications are

13 denied for inappropriate reasons.

14 However, local council has the hammer,

15 if you will, the decision making. And they have

16 two tests with which to be able to determine

17 whether in fact that application should be

18 approved; a test of compatibility with the local

19 area, is it land use compatible; and secondly,

20 whether it's detrimental or not to the health and

21 welfare of the general residents in the area.

22 Those two criteria, I have to tell you,

23 Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, is subject to

24 emotional debate and the NIMBY syndrome, "not in

25 my backyard." And this is where it starts to



1 break down. And local councils, and I know some

2 of the Commissioners have been on council before,

3 you know darned well kind of pressures that are

4 brought to bear upon special interest groups and

5 by local citizens who are ratepayers who object to

6 a proposal and supporters in many ways remain

7 silent.

8 Let me go to what I think is what's

9 happening here. I think, basically, when you look

10 at denial and fairness, a livestock application,

11 and this is important to realize, that a livestock

12 application today, apart from the pause, could be

13 denied despite meeting all provincial requirements

14 and all local requirements. And that's with

15 respect to all of the policies in place at the

16 provincial level and at the local level. It can

17 meet the siting and separation distances, it could

18 meet the minimum setback requirements. And in

19 fact, through the engineering, design and

20 monitoring, it could meet all of the construction

21 requirements. And yet the process is flawed to

22 the point where, without any reasons, a municipal

23 council can deny that application based on those

24 two tests of compatibility and health and welfare,

25 and without any appeal, without any appeal to the



1 proponent and any of the supporters. Now, we

2 question whether that is fair.

3 As an alternative, we think again the

4 up-front local planning is good. We believe it

5 should be using reliable resource information as

6 much as possible backed by good science. We feel

7 the extensive public consultations are balanced

8 with community objectives and values is extremely

9 important, because that's where you start to

10 tailor your policies and development standards to

11 your area. But we believe that one of the things

12 that you could do is recommend to the province to

13 tweak the Planning Act so that you can identify

14 and zone the best areas for livestock. Areas

15 where -- and the best land use characteristics,

16 sparse population, you've got good water, good

17 drainage, level, fairly level land, heavily

18 forested perhaps for some screening and so on.

19 You could find these areas and at that point

20 determine from your livestock policies where they

21 should go, what standards it should meet. And if

22 those proposed applications meet that criteria, we

23 believe that they should be able to proceed and

24 apply for a development permit, because they have

25 met all the requirements, provincially and



1 locally. What more can you ask for? And so we

2 believe that that should be put in place.

3 For all other areas, we believe that

4 the conditional use process probably is

5 appropriate, because there is a mixture of land

6 uses that still needs to be adjudicated, if you

7 will, by local council. In each and every case,

8 either of those two applications in those

9 processes would still require provincial approval.

10 That's the basis.

11 Section 118 says no development can

12 take place until all permits are obtained from the

13 province and so on, and all conditions are met.

14 So that is a safeguard.

15 Let me go on. There is the list of

16 other acts that apply. So it's not just the

17 Planning Act, it's not just the Environment Act,

18 livestock manure and mortalities, it is a whole

19 host of other things. Those permits, licences and

20 so on must be obtained.

21 So what does it mean? It means that

22 there's a comprehensive safety net, we believe,

23 that the public can be assured that the

24 environment is protected if we go through this

25 local and provincial process, this dual role that



1 I have talked about.

2 We have had extensive public

3 consultation over last two years. We are back in

4 the Clean Environment Commission, with all due

5 respect. We've asked the public for more comment.

6 And what we really need at this point, basically,

7 is to move on to fully implement the improvements

8 that have been sought after, have been negotiated,

9 have been adopted, and in fact have been proposed

10 more coming, and we need time to do that. And we

11 need time then to sit back, re-evaluate our

12 success and our performance, and then see if any

13 further changes -- or perhaps we've gone too far.

14 I might suggest maybe we've gone too far and

15 perhaps we need to go through this first and then

16 reassess.

17 So we've got a rigorous and complex

18 livestock approval process, for siting, for

19 approval, day-to-day operations on the farm are

20 regulated, we have public policies already that

21 are evolving because we know the livestock

22 operations policy more and more, every day, every

23 month, will come forward over the course of the

24 next year or so. We know the proposed nutrient

25 management regulations have been proposed by



1 government, only for consultation but they are

2 ready for adoption, I believe, pretty soon, and we

3 know that this new water management planning

4 system is going to be taking place within

5 watersheds. All of those will be impacting land

6 use planning. And I can assure you that the

7 Planning Act already says that a local community

8 must consider all water plans, all water

9 management plans in the design and update of land

10 use plans. So that's all starting to evolve in

11 front of us.

12 Hog farming, of course, is subject to

13 more media attention and monitoring than any other

14 sector. Some people would say that's bad and some

15 people would say that is good. What it means

16 nevertheless is that we're going to be subject to

17 more media attention, more monitoring by

18 government, so people can have some confidence as

19 we progress. And we, as an industry, start to

20 monitor our own production, we want to ensure that

21 we work with them to follow all of the rules and

22 regulations and we are actively doing that.

23 Lastly, I just wanted to point out

24 that the existing producers on the landscape

25 today, through the course of time, have met all



1 legal siting requirements for both the local

2 municipalities and province. This is an evolving,

3 changing rules and regulatory regime. And what

4 we're doing is our utmost to try to stay abreast

5 of that. We are doing our utmost to ensure that

6 everybody follows the rules and regulations. But

7 you can understand that every new regulation that

8 comes forward, every new restriction that comes

9 forward are being proposed as added cost to the

10 producer, added cost that might drive a young

11 farmer off the land, that will in fact maybe make

12 some operations less viable and forcing them, in

13 essence, to either get larger or disappear. And

14 so in many ways there are some downsides to more

15 regulations. I can appreciate that there is a

16 public interest here. I believe and we believe

17 very, very strongly that we have a comprehensive

18 safety net in place already.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mah, I have a

20 question or two. You had a slide, I don't know if

21 you can back up to, it is on page 46, a slide

22 entitled "Denial and Fairness." Now, earlier,

23 when you discussed livestock operation policies

24 that RMs are required to have in place relatively

25 soon, those policies will set out the standards



1 for siting, set-backs, et cetera, they will

2 designate where farms may be depending -- where

3 they may be, any size up to a maximum, or not at

4 all. Now, when we get to this denial and

5 fairness, and you say that they can be denied

6 despite meeting all provincial and local, et

7 cetera, policies, et cetera, are you saying that

8 where a municipality has a livestock operations

9 policy in place that defines those parameters,

10 they can still say no?

11 MR. MAH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's

12 quite correct. That's what we're pointing out to,

13 that's totally unfair. They've gone through all

14 of the time and expense to prepare a very detailed

15 application, they have worked with neighbours as

16 much as they can, came forward and met every one

17 of the provincial and local requirements, and go

18 to a public meeting and through a very vexatious

19 process, very emotional debate, through innuendo,

20 through perhaps not the application of sound

21 science, persons could come forward, and I would

22 think likely will still come forward and still

23 object to an operation because they don't want it

24 in their backyard, and hence put tremendous

25 pressure upon a council to apply a very subjective



1 and interpretive way that this area is not

2 compatible, this proposal is not compatible with

3 the surrounding area. That test of compatibility

4 is the subjective test.

5 Another subjective test, as I've

6 mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is the test of whether a

7 proposal is detrimental to the health and welfare

8 of neighbours in the surrounding area and their

9 property. If somebody can say, you know what, I

10 live in the area and it's not compatible with my

11 lifestyle and my residence, you know what, I don't

12 want that smell in spite of the fact that I moved

13 here, I should have known that there was an odour

14 that comes from some operations, it's not

15 compatible with my lifestyle. And Mr. Chairman,

16 of the local council, you must deny this

17 application because it's not compatible. And

18 that's what we're saying that, in the scheme of

19 things, an emotional debate puts a tremendous

20 amount of pressure on council, and on that basis

21 alone a council could deny that application.

22 THE CHAIRMAN: The next slide which is

23 entitled "Alternative," you talk about the second

24 and third items, use reliable resource information

25 and backed by good science. How do we define



1 reliable and how do we define good science? I

2 mean, scientists are like lawyers, they can argue

3 either side of an issue.

4 MR. MAH: That's correct. I think

5 that the bottom line is you start to look at, for

6 instance, one of the tests for liability is, is

7 the data, first of all, relevant to the area?

8 Because in many cases people bring up

9 circumstances that had happened in North Carolina

10 as something that was going to happen here in

11 Manitoba, in the RM of Louise? And that's not

12 relevant. Totally different climate, different

13 context. And so what we're saying here is use

14 relevant information. At the same time use

15 updated information. Don't use something that

16 goes back, way back in history in the 1960s or

17 something. What do we have in terms of water

18 quality data and soil data that is current? And

19 so that's the good resource information.

20 The good science, as I've indicated,

21 is there's a lot of rhetoric out there. Some

22 people call it pseudo science, because you go part

23 way into it. But science needs to be peer

24 reviewed. It needs to be balanced and it needs to

25 be tested. And I think that's where councils and



1 the province rely to a large extent upon the

2 scientific community at the university. Because

3 they are the ones that have the research

4 background, they are the ones who do the peer

5 review studies, and those are the ones who are

6 accountable. It's not Joe citizen, nor myself. I

7 am not a scientist, and I can only repeat or talk

8 about science that's based out of University of

9 Manitoba or here locally in Manitoba.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: You have in an ad a

11 number of weeks ago and then your insert on the

12 weekend, you talk about the amount that the hog

13 industry is contributing to Lake Winnipeg's

14 problems. And it's 1 or 1 and a half per cent.

15 You can bring in scientists from the university

16 who will make that case. I can bring in another

17 scientist from the University of Manitoba who will

18 say it's whatever, a significantly different

19 figure. Whose science do we accept? I mean,

20 that's where it may be that the local council has

21 to make a subjective decision on whose objective

22 science to accept.

23 MR. MAH: And I would agree with that.

24 I think local council --

25 MR. DICKSON: There's an answer to



1 that. In terms of science, I mean, one of the

2 issues is to have your material peer reviewed by

3 your fellow scientists. And a scientist who makes

4 a claim that is not supported by his fellow

5 scientists, that defines what good science is. So

6 that's why studies that are done on things like

7 lakes and so on need to be peer reviewed.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: No, I agree.

9 MR. MAH: I think the simple answer,

10 Mr. Chairman, is that local council has that

11 decision making power, and we would hope that

12 local councils, in exercising that power, would

13 look at the pros and cons of the science, because,

14 yes, they are going to have to make that

15 determination.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Don't get

17 anxious if our questions sort of eat into your

18 time, we will allow for that.

19 MR. DICKSON: We'd like to touch upon

20 the issue of ground water supply and quality, very

21 briefly. The key thing here is the majority of

22 hog barns obtain their water supply from wells

23 which withdraw groundwater from subsurface

24 aquifers. There are a small number of barns that

25 use water from dugouts or surface water sources.



1 The key thing on this is under the Water Rights

2 licensing process, this is all governed by the

3 Manitoba Water Rights Act and regulations. This

4 is a licensing program. The core objective is to

5 obtain the optimum development and use of the

6 province's water resources while sustaining the

7 resource base and maintaining environmental

8 quality. In other words, that's what the licence

9 does is to make sure that happens.

10 Now, everybody has to get a licence

11 except for domestic users who use less than 25,000

12 litres per day, and hog barns that use less than

13 25,000 litres a day are exempted as well. We

14 weren't able to get a number on those that are

15 exempted. But the department has issued, as far

16 as we know, 215 Water Rights licences. And by our

17 calculation, that should account for over

18 two-thirds of the production of the province.

19 When they get these licences, the core questions

20 that have to be answered, can the well supply

21 sufficient capacity to provide the required water?

22 Will the withdrawal of the water from this project

23 have a negative impact on other ground water users

24 in the area in the short or long term? And then

25 thirdly and most importantly, can the aquifer



1 sustain the required supply without depleting the

2 groundwater resource or causing a deleterious

3 environmental effect over the long term? So, in

4 other words, the regulations ensure that we can

5 protect our quality and our quantity.

6 Now, in terms of volume, this is based

7 on Manitoba Water Stewardship records, the

8 industry has been allocated a total of 4,440 cubic

9 decametres of groundwater per annum under 215

10 water rights licences. The average annual

11 allocation per water rights licence is 20.6 cubic

12 decametres per annum. The total allocation figure

13 excludes groundwater allocated to mixed users --

14 that is people who have small barns and also have

15 to use it for their well, for their well for the

16 house -- and surface water resources. But those

17 are a small number.

18 To put this into some sort of context,

19 that sounds like a lot of water, the average

20 annual precipitation on a section of land is

21 presented here. And we present a little

22 calculation, we go through this in terms of

23 average rainfall on a section of land. The annual

24 allocation of groundwater to the hog industry is

25 therefore the equivalent of an average annual



1 precipitation that would fall on 3.5 sections of

2 land. That's the total amount of water that gets

3 drawn on annually, 3.5 sections of land in all of

4 Manitoba.

5 Another comparison is with the City of

6 Winnipeg, and the accusation is always made that

7 the industry is using more water than humans and

8 so on. In comparison with the City of Winnipeg

9 which is authorized to remove from Shoal Lake

10 100 million gallons of water per day, that works

11 out to 365 acre feet per day, although the city

12 doesn't actually use all of this, the total

13 groundwater allocated under specific licence to

14 hog production amounts to 10 days of the city's

15 authorization, to provide some context.

16 In terms of siting and construction,

17 these are all governed by the Groundwater and

18 Water Well Act and the Well Drilling Regulations,

19 and we point those all out here and list them.

20 In terms of groundwater quality, other

21 measures to protect the groundwater are also found

22 in the manure and mortalities regulation, and

23 those are all spelled out in here.

24 And we try to find, try to answer this

25 question about contamination. And there's been a



1 higher level of concern and scrutiny of the

2 quality of the groundwater from wells. The

3 published document we could only find is one done

4 by the CEC Commission on the Village of Garson and

5 Rural Municipality of Brokenhead. And it stated

6 clearly in there, the source of the problem was

7 improperly constructed or maintained wells, and

8 malfunctioning septic tanks, septic fields, and

9 holding tanks. Now, that is also backed up by the

10 medical officer of health who stated, existing

11 wells contaminating the aquifer have to be

12 properly connected and abandoned, or abandoned.

13 That individual homeowners will be ordered to

14 correct or abandon defective wells and to repair

15 or replace leaking or inadequate septic fields

16 consistent with the requirements of provincial

17 legislation. And then we provide some background

18 information on groundwater and surface water, and

19 this is drawn on some American texts, and I'm not

20 going to go through those at all. I am going to

21 provide that background information.

22 MR. MOTHERAL: Can I stop you here for

23 a minute and just ask a question? You are

24 comparing the amount of water used to the City of

25 Winnipeg. Do you have any figures on the amount



1 of water used to the percentage of recharge from

2 the aquifers at all?

3 MR. DICKSON: Well, the water drawn

4 out is recharged. When you get your licence to

5 draw your water down, it assumes it's going to be

6 recharged.

7 MR. MOTHERAL: That's part of the

8 requirement of the licence?

9 MR. DICKSON: Right.

10 MR. MOTHERAL: I would like to get a

11 better idea, I mean, if the hog industry is using

12 so much cubic decametres or whatever it was --

13 kilo-pascals, how is that?

14 MR. DICKSON: The recharge will either

15 come from rainfall or from run-off, like from

16 other rivers and so on soaking into the ground,

17 coming into the --

18 MR. MOTHERAL: I realize that.

19 MR. DICKSON: So it's rain landing on

20 the ground. We use 3.5 sections of land in the

21 province in terms of water that falls. All the

22 other water that falls on the land at some point

23 either on surface run-off or soaks in.

24 MR. MOTHERAL: I guess what I want to

25 know, if you used 10 feet of water out of an



1 aquifer, how long does it take to recharge that

2 10 feet? I just want a simple --

3 MR. DICKSON: It depends on the

4 aquifer, it depends on the recharge rate within

5 different aquifers. But essentially the aim is

6 that the aquifer will recharge. You are only

7 taking out what the aquifer is capable of

8 recharging, of being recharged.

9 MR. MOTHERAL: That's all part of the

10 licensing?

11 MR. DICKSON: Right. And there is an

12 order of priority given to the licenses as well.

13 In other words, if you're in an area where there's

14 a limit on what the recharge capacity is, domestic

15 users usually get first priority and so forth

16 down, and industrial users, irrigation users and

17 so forth. And I haven't put all of those details

18 in here. But that's part of the licensing

19 requirement, you have to meet within all those

20 criteria.


22 MR. DICKSON: In terms of surface

23 water quality, I direct just a little short

24 section in here, because a lot of it has already

25 dealt under nutrient management and under manure



1 management. And the key thing we want to point

2 out here is the hog industry supplies nutrients to

3 the crop industry to grow its crops. In terms of

4 surface water quality, the issue is all

5 agriculture. The agriculture industry has a

6 challenge here in terms of reducing the potential

7 for leakage of nutrients and so on from the

8 surface to surface run-off. What we're saying

9 here is there's a lack of research to some extent

10 on those.

11 And I provided an example in here.

12 Deerwood, some years ago did a lot of work on zero

13 tillage. And the information coming to date now

14 in those zero tillage fields was you might be

15 reducing the effect of erosion, the problem is the

16 level of soluble phosphorous has actually

17 increased because of rising organic matter in the

18 top surface. More soluble phosphorous tends to

19 come off those fields. Now the issue is, well,

20 what is a recommended practice? And we'll go into

21 that a little bit later.

22 We recognize there's a need to deal

23 with the level of phosphorus in a number of fields

24 in parts of the province, and we'll talk about

25 that in the next section. And we have standards



1 now set out in regulation. There's going to be a

2 period of adaptation when producers will have to

3 amend their manure management plans and have to

4 acquire additional application fields, or use

5 technologies to reduce the phosphorus in their

6 feeds, or separate -- concentrate the phosphorous

7 levels in their manures in some way so they can be

8 added to those areas which are short.

9 And I want to go back to that table 9

10 on the section on nutrient management, which is a

11 pretty critical table when you look at how to

12 balance the nutrients in the province. What

13 we're saying here in the final remarks is that if

14 the province wants to accelerate that process of

15 adaptation, and there's a public good involved

16 here, and that maybe the province should assist

17 producers to adapt to an enhanced or speeded up

18 means of trying to come more in balance.

19 I'm going to move onto the next

20 section of soil quality. We provide an executive

21 summary there, and then I'm going to move right

22 into the body of the paper.

23 The key thing I want to say here is,

24 manure is a useful soil amendment that serves as a

25 source of nutrients of crops as a fertilizer and



1 as a soil conditioner which can improve the soil,

2 chemical, physical and biological properties of

3 the soil. And for example in soil pH, which deals

4 with acidity or alkalinity of a particular soil,

5 we provide a description in here of the impact of

6 manure. But in the summary, the long-term

7 applications of hog manures will have small to

8 negligible effects on soil pH.

9 In terms of soil organic matter and

10 related soil physical and chemical properties, the

11 organic matter content of prairie soils has

12 significantly declined since cultivation has been

13 initiated here in the prairies. Soil organic

14 matter levels in many soils are only 40 to 60 per

15 cent of the content of soils in the virgin state.

16 Manures add organic materials as well as

17 nutrients. The added organic materials will

18 reduce the rate of decline of soil organic matter

19 and enhance the physical and chemical soil

20 properties that favour crop growth and microbial

21 processes. The long-term sustainability of

22 prairie soils will be enhanced. Numerous studies

23 have reported that increases in soil organic

24 matter or applications of manure resulted in soils

25 being more friable, less compact, more easily to



1 till, have increased water holding capacity,

2 better soil structure and aeration. Increased

3 water holding capacity is particularly important

4 in sandy soils because of their large particle

5 size and they can hold little water. The organic

6 fraction of very sandy soil is responsible for

7 much of its total water holding as well as water

8 capacity.

9 Manure's impact on soil infiltration

10 rate, and this is important in terms of reducing

11 potential run-off to surfaces and so on of

12 nutrients. The cation exchange capacity is

13 important in soils that their capacity is enhanced

14 by having manures. Soil organic manner content is

15 greatly affected by management of cropping

16 systems. And then I talk a little bit about

17 microbial activity and enzyme processes, and there

18 is quite a discussion in here about their impact

19 and the various enzymes and so on that occur in

20 soils.

21 The key here, manure additions to

22 soil, including hog manures, have a beneficial

23 effect on soil microbial activity, soil microbial

24 biomass and enzymatic processes. Nutrient cycling

25 and other important soil processes will be



1 unaltered or improved by long-term application of

2 hog manures at appropriate loading rates.

3 The issue has come up a number of

4 times about micronutrients and trace metals.

5 These are, when you see micronutrients and trace

6 metals in manures, this is a reflection of the

7 feed that it got. It is either the crop has

8 actually got it in itself, or they have been added

9 to the ration to enhance the capabilities of that

10 ration, improving the productivity. And some

11 minerals have been added because of their impact

12 as growth stimulants or as disease control

13 measures. And there's a long lengthy description

14 of all these various minerals and the impact they

15 have. And I'm not going to go into depth on that.

16 In terms of strategies to reduce

17 loadings, research has shown that although heavy

18 metals tend to build up in soil from application

19 of manures, these metals do not affect soil

20 productivity, food safety and environment quality,

21 if not added above established guidelines. And

22 there are already guidelines in place because of

23 the need to deal with municipal waste and so on,

24 and there's been a lot of work done to try and

25 come up with standards that can be measured



1 against. So the industry is already using those

2 in terms of ensuring that there's no problems.

3 One other issue has been this issue of

4 salt. The application of soluble salts to soil

5 can cause salt accumulation or buildup in the

6 rooting zones of soils, and/or contamination of

7 groundwater with salts when the salts are leached

8 from the surface soils. A buildup can affect the

9 rooting zone and the capacity of crop to use or

10 absorb water.

11 There is a report here of all the

12 various studies that have been done on this thing,

13 the frequency of salt in different types of hog

14 manures and so on. I'm not going to go into depth

15 on this. Key thing here are strategies to reduce

16 loadings of salt. Manures are extremely variable

17 in salt concentration, varying with the type of

18 manure and ration. Each manure is unique in its

19 composition and the salt content and loadings of

20 salt to soil can only be accurately assessed by

21 analysis. It is most likely that in instances

22 where manures are high in salts, the source of the

23 salt is the water used in cleaning the barns since

24 dietary salt in rations is low.

25 In terms of odours, it's just another



1 section asked to comment on, and I have provided a

2 short paper here on this. The experience in

3 Manitoba has been, and this is based on

4 statistics, that complaints regarding hog

5 operations have been extremely limited. If you

6 look at the chart in figure 1 from the Farm

7 Practices Protection Board, the most vociferous

8 concerns regarding hog operation odours occur long

9 before the facilities are ever built at public

10 hearings held by municipalities as part of the

11 process to grant or deny a development permit.

12 Often the claims made regarding hog operation

13 odours are overstated and not consistent with the

14 experience of rural residents.

15 Farmers, since 1994, have had a

16 provincial publication to follow called the Farm

17 Practices Guidelines for Hog Producers. This is

18 the document that is used by the Farm Practices

19 Board in terms of adjudicating cases of complaint

20 about nuisance odours. In those guidelines, they

21 provide a series of best management practices, and

22 these include manure injection, which

23 significantly or if not entirely removes odours

24 from land application; manure storage covers for

25 various storage structures, and these can be



1 either straw, plastic and so forth; other

2 practices such as shelter belts, basic sanitation,

3 cleanliness, and diet manipulation, manure

4 additives and solid liquid separation, or some new

5 practices that are being developed, or have been

6 developed.

7 Some emerging technologies in terms of

8 dealing with odour are use of biofilters, though

9 unproven yet, anaerobic digestion. It has been

10 around a long time but the basic problem there is

11 actual costs in terms of they are very expensive

12 to build and don't -- they have technical problems

13 in the amount of power they are supposed to

14 generate. Ongoing research has looked at simple

15 things like, for example, using a fine mist of

16 canola oil in a barn reduces the odour from a barn

17 by pushing down the dust. Other ways, they are

18 looking at manipulating the diet of the pig,

19 including dietary supplements to reduce odour

20 production.

21 Land use planning. This is one of the

22 most successful methods of reducing odour impacts

23 on neighbours, by having appropriate separation

24 distances. And Peter has already talked about

25 that in some lengths and how the municipalities



1 are using that.

2 Then we talk about Farm Practices

3 Protection Act and how it operates. Since its

4 inception, they've had 75 complaints of which 49

5 were regarding hog odour. And then we outline how

6 they were addressed; 37 of these, the hog

7 operations were ordered to modify their practices

8 to reduce the odour emissions. And essentially

9 those were the application of covers.

10 In terms of some of the myths and

11 realities, I think one of the key things is, based

12 upon the evidence that the Farm Practices Board

13 has had, they've had less than four complaints per

14 year regarding hog odour. Virtually all of the

15 hog odour complaints have been resolved by the

16 installation of a cover on the manure storage

17 structure.

18 Why do these operations remain

19 controversial? There's all the various claims and

20 myths. These include like hog odours are

21 unbearable, they lower property values,

22 concentration of barns in local area, mega

23 corporate barns, traditional family farms put out

24 of business.

25 Odour perception is a very complex



1 issue. The primary properties of odour, as

2 perceived by humans, are the frequency of

3 exposure, the intensity, the duration, and the

4 offensiveness. However, the science of measuring

5 odour is crude at present. Although there have

6 been some advances made in terms of some stuff at

7 the University of Manitoba, for example,

8 characterizing offensiveness is a difficult

9 matter, and scientific progress is extremely

10 limited on this thing because people have

11 different emotional and physiological responses to

12 odours, in terms of the unpleasantness, the

13 intermittent nature, the learned response to an

14 odour and so forth. And there's been some studies

15 done on this. For example, we show one here that

16 says the levels of dust, endotoxins and microbial

17 DNA 600 metres downwind from a hog barn are the

18 same as the levels two and one half kilometres

19 upwind from the barn. And that was by Cleave and

20 associates. DGH Engineering has done a study on

21 residents in an area. They surveyed 1,250

22 residents in around 50 hog barns. Seventy-five

23 per cent of the neighbours surrounding the hog

24 operations reported that odours had not caused

25 them to change any of their outdoor activities



1 within the previous 12 months. The size and

2 number of operations find little impact on the

3 perception of odour. The neighbour's perceptions

4 appear to be based more on general opinion than

5 specific observations.

6 The reality of the experience of the

7 hog industry is very different from the myths

8 propagated by opponents to the hog industry. Most

9 hog farmers are very sensitive to the

10 environmental issues surrounding their operation.

11 The vast majority of hog farmers run well-managed

12 operations that meet or exceed the standards

13 published in the provincial guidelines. For those

14 who don't follow the rules, the neighbours have

15 recourse to the Farm Practices Protection Board.

16 The experience of this board over the past 13

17 years confirms that the Manitoba industry has

18 established an exemplary standard of performance.

19 And then I have put up a chart here,

20 because sometimes it has asked, like, how would we

21 regulate odours? In other words, the same way we

22 regulate nutrients in the environment. This is to

23 illustrate the complexity of the production

24 process and where gases and odours and so on can

25 occur in that process.



1 We were asked to comment on disease

2 and disease transmission.

3 MR. MOTHERAL: I have a question on

4 emerging technologies. We were made aware in one

5 of our several meetings we've had preceding these

6 hearings on separating the liquid and the dry

7 matter with centrifuge. Have you got information

8 on that at all, too?

9 MR. DICKSON: I haven't provided a

10 detailed summation of all the technologies that

11 are available. There is a host of them, various

12 systems that have been adapted from municipal

13 treatment systems. There's probably 200 chemical

14 bag-in-the-tank things that people have proposed,

15 all from coal tar to Jerusalem artichoke and so

16 forth. The industry uses an organization called

17 the Manitoba Manure Management Initiative which

18 attempts to try and sort out which technologies

19 might actually work on the farm. Companies are

20 constantly trying different technologies. I can

21 get you more information on a specific one.

22 MR. MOTHERAL: I think we would like

23 more because it's probably a major issue we need

24 to look into.

25 MR. DICKSON: For example, separation



1 technologies, there's various methods. You can

2 have screens and so forth, you can have

3 centrifugal systems, you can have even simple

4 things like letting the first cell of the storage

5 facility fill up and let the liquid drain into the

6 second cell, pump that out, over three or four

7 years later, use a backhoe or a screw auger of

8 some description, and just simply take solids in

9 the first cell out, and then dry them down and

10 spread them. There's a variety of means of

11 handling, separating solids.

12 MR. MOTHERAL: I just noticed it

13 wasn't in your presentation.

14 MR. DICKSON: I didn't try to cover

15 off all the technologies. We'd have a book that

16 would be five pages, I mean five encyclopedias

17 long because there are pros and cons to all of

18 them. The big thing in a lot of them is just the

19 shear cost, though; can they get a simple

20 technology done at a price that will make sense in

21 terms of the value of the nutrient or the odour

22 issue that you're dealing with.


24 MR. DICKSON: Diseases is disease

25 transmission. I talk here about environmentally



1 controlled barns. The reason we had these

2 developed was to reduce the risk of bacterial,

3 viral and protozoan infections in the animals.

4 And the animals were also protected against biting

5 insects such as mosquitos, irritation and disease

6 issues associated with flies and other insects.

7 The animals are kept cooler in summer and warmer

8 in winter. And for example, you get high abortion

9 rates if sows are sunburned, you get nipple loss

10 due to frost bite, and a whole variety of other

11 ravages of weather. These are all eliminated by

12 using environmentally controlled barns. And even

13 inside the barn, housing practices have improved

14 dramatically in the last 20 years. The key thing

15 here is we separate the animals away from the

16 manure. And this drastically improves their

17 health status. By improving their health status,

18 that means you have less need for medication. For

19 example, the sows, you improve food safety from

20 the human perspective, and you also improve the

21 animal comfort and you have fewer sick animals.

22 The next stage we moved to was this

23 multiple site production. And by segregating

24 animals by their different ages, you can use

25 different management strategies for handling



1 manure. This has a major impact on the health

2 status of the animals and once again improves food

3 safety. And I put a description in of how to go

4 about that. Better nutritional procedures

5 enhances the strength and well-being of the animal

6 but it also reduces wasted nutrients.

7 Biosecurity, well fed, comfortably

8 housed animals in a well-protected environment

9 will remain healthy if we practice sound

10 biosecurity. And that is things like keeping

11 other animals out of the barn, staff have to

12 shower and so forth in and out, and we use

13 biocontainer methods related to manure and

14 by-products and so on.

15 In terms of herd health programs, if

16 you have a controlled herd health status, then

17 other technologies can be applied to improve

18 animal health and well-being. And that's things

19 like vaccines and so forth. These play a key role

20 in reducing the susceptibility of animals to

21 disease. As a result of indoor animal housing,

22 disease such a leptospirosis, cryptosporidiosis

23 and giardia -- these are big words for me -- are

24 virtually non-existent in modern swine facilities.

25 Diseases such as salmonella are clinically rare



1 and managed through proper nutrition, sanitation

2 and pig flow.

3 In terms of manure, by practicing the

4 guidelines set out in the Farm Practices

5 Guidelines for Hog Producers, the province says

6 these prevent illness occurring with humans,

7 through maintaining good personal hygiene, hand

8 washing; selecting an appropriate site according

9 to the setback distances and other criteria;

10 handle and store and apply manure according to the

11 guidelines, and avoid water pollution by adhering

12 to environmental regulations. This is in terms of

13 preventing any infectious disease from

14 transferring between animals and humans. And the

15 statement in the book is,

16 "When these Farm Practices are

17 followed, the risk to public health

18 from manure handling operations or

19 manure storage is low."

20 In terms of the human/animal interaction, any

21 potential to human health is handled by the

22 current food inspection system. Local

23 veterinarians monitor farms constantly. And we

24 have a program in place called the Canadian

25 Quality Assurance Program to do that. Provincial



1 veterinary officers and public health authorities

2 are also involved in ensuring that the risk of a

3 zoonotic disease transfer from animal to human is

4 minimal. The key thing here is the swine industry

5 is dynamic. It is very aware of the need for

6 public confidence in its product. It has always

7 endeavoured to be proactive when it comes to new

8 technologies that will improve health and welfare

9 of the animals. Animal health and disease control

10 is important not just to the economic viability of

11 a production facility, but also the quality of the

12 product produced and welfare of the animals that

13 produce them.

14 And we were asked to make some of

15 comments on climate change. And we provided some

16 details here about the impact of both agriculture

17 and the pork industry in Canada and the pork

18 industry and agriculture here in Manitoba. The

19 key point, the pork industry contributes in a

20 small way to the causes of climate change by its

21 emissions of greenhouse gases, but these effects

22 are mitigated by a large extent by the

23 displacement of artificial fertilizers which would

24 require enormous amounts of natural gas to

25 produce. And by mitigation, I mean we supply



1 organic fertilizer from manure.

2 For example, on table 1, a

3 contribution to greenhouse gases from agriculture

4 from all sectors is 7.24 per cent. Where do these

5 greenhouse gases come from? They are enteric

6 fermentation by domestic animals, manure

7 management, fertilizer application and crop

8 production.

9 There's been an increase in greenhouse

10 gases overall from agriculture resulting from the

11 expansion of beef cattle, swine, poultry, as well

12 as an increase in the use of synthetic nitrogen

13 fertilizers.

14 And on table 2, we point out the

15 relative Canadian pork industry greenhouse gas

16 emissions, Manitoba is responsible for 16 per cent

17 of Canadian contribution from hogs.

18 In terms of Manitoba pork industry, it

19 represented 9 per cent of the total Manitoba

20 greenhouse gas emissions and 2.9 per cent of the

21 total provincial greenhouse gas emissions. In

22 other words, a very, very small sector.

23 We talk about some of the strategies

24 that the industry is adopting. The key ones we

25 are focusing on are methane, and we talk a little



1 bit about -- you can put covers on the storage

2 facility, you can have a major impact on how much

3 methane comes off. Feeding efficiencies, feed

4 conversion rates and so forth, anaerobic digesters

5 could be another way of doing it. Even the

6 application of manure in terms of how much water

7 is in soil and time of year you apply it. The

8 other one is nitrous oxide. And that contributes

9 28 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions, and

10 we have a description in there of how that works

11 and where they come from.

12 In terms of overall conclusions, the

13 Manitoba pork industry as of 2004, represented 3

14 per cent of the total Manitoba greenhouse gas

15 emissions profile. It's unlikely that the

16 industry's contribution to Manitoba greenhouse

17 emissions will increase. Even if there was an

18 increase in the Manitoba pork herd, new management

19 practice and technology adoption will offset

20 potential increases in greenhouse emissions. And

21 I won't talk any more about that.

22 Now, we were asked to provide some

23 comments on environmental liability. We asked our

24 legal firm to provide that. And it's really more

25 of a technical paper, and I have included all of



1 his remarks. And there's a qualifier, as you

2 mentioned earlier, about lawyers and what they say

3 and things. So I provided that.

4 Essentially, environmental liability

5 arises from three sources, from statute and

6 regulations, by virtue of an action taken by third

7 party, and also pursuant to the contract between

8 parties to a commercial arrangement. And so we

9 talk about the statutory liability and the

10 provincial statutory requirements, all the various

11 pieces of legislation. The Environment Act has

12 something in it, in manure management regulation.

13 In fact, we provide quite a bit of detail in here

14 about that. And how there's various steps to deal

15 with the issue of who might be responsible for

16 liability. We talk about the Groundwater Well

17 Act. It has a section in there. The Dangerous

18 Goods and handling and transportation have

19 something in there about liability. There are

20 Federal statutory requirements, essentially they

21 arise under the Fisheries Act. And because under

22 Canadian Constitution, the environment isn't

23 addressed as a separate piece of legislation, and

24 so it's addressed through other jurisdiction areas

25 such as the Fisheries Act. And then we have



1 common torte liabilities and then contractual

2 liability and then some concluding comments. So

3 I'm not going to go into that detail.

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Just on that note, Mr.

5 Dickson, among the concerns that we have had about

6 environmental liability is decommissioning, or who

7 is responsible if an operator, for whatever

8 reason, just walks away, he goes bankrupt or he

9 dies or just walks away from the operation, who is

10 responsible to clean up anything that's left,

11 particularly if he or she leaves a large holding

12 facility still full?

13 MR. DICKSON: I think the phrase here

14 is, if you look at the conclusion, he provides,

15 "In the context of a hog operation,

16 those persons who are potentially

17 liable for environmental damages

18 include: The person responsible for

19 bringing the hazardous substance on to

20 the contaminated land; the owner of

21 the contaminated land; the occupier of

22 the contaminated land (including a

23 tenant); the person who owns or has

24 possession, charge or control of the

25 dangerous goods or contaminants; and



1 the 'operator' (as defined in that

2 regulation)."

3 And my understanding is, a lot of this is

4 discovered as we get into it. In terms of actual

5 decommission, and the practical experience is, for

6 example, if a hog barn goes bankrupt and is taken

7 over by a bank, the bank ensures that the property

8 is a state for sale. It is in their best interest

9 to empty the manure out of the storage facility,

10 have it applied to the land as per the

11 regulations, and they want to sell it as a going

12 operation. In other words, they want the storage

13 facility to work properly.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Is it a current

15 requirement to have a decommissioning plan when a

16 person applies for a storage facility?

17 MR. DICKSON: It is spelled out in the

18 environment regulations in 6.21, and I will read

19 it out. Decommissioning a manure storage

20 facility.

21 "If livestock production in an

22 agricultural operation with a manure

23 storage facility is discontinued or a

24 manure storage facility is not in

25 active service for more than one year,



1 the operator shall, without delay,

2 inform the director in writing ,(a)

3 how the operator will maintain the

4 structural integrity of the facility

5 until he or she returns it to active

6 service; or (b), how and when the

7 operator intends to decommission the

8 facility."

9 And I spell that out actually in the preceding

10 section.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fair. Thank

12 you.

13 MR. DICKSON: If you want, I can read

14 them out.

15 THE CHAIRMAN: No.

16 MR. DICKSON: All right. One of the

17 sections was approaches in other jurisdictions.

18 We didn't have a lot of time here to go through a

19 detailed review of the legislated and regulatory

20 approaches taken by other governments in Canada,

21 U.S. or Europe. There is a plethora of this stuff

22 around. And our best sense is after meeting with

23 a lot of official investigation the midwest United

24 States, in the U.S., like Iowa, Minnesota, which

25 are major hog producing areas, other provinces



1 like Ontario and Quebec, a number of our members

2 are European immigrants or we've met with European

3 delegations and so on. Manitoba, our view is

4 Manitoba is at the forefront of environmental

5 regulations pertaining to the livestock industry.

6 That's our basic feel on this thing.

7 And the one thing we would suggest to

8 the Commission, you will probably be exploring

9 other jurisdictions, the devil is in the details.

10 We provide some examples here. For example, in

11 Alberta, their porosity rate in their earthen

12 manure storage structures is 10 times different

13 than ours. In the U.S., they use a phosphorus

14 index model which is based on the concept of

15 nutrient losses arising from summer downpours.

16 Our nutrient loss is surface run-off in

17 springtime. Complex odour models are used in

18 Ontario for siting. And our feeling is, based on

19 discussion with a lot of people, they are very

20 impractical. The concept of plumes is challenging

21 from an engineering perspective, if it actually

22 exists. In Quebec, their basic problem is they

23 import a lot more grain than they produce, so they

24 are importing more nutrients, so they have a

25 problem. How are they going to deal with



1 phosphorous and things like that? Nitrogen, they

2 can blow off to some extent, but phosphorus is a

3 problem, and other nutrients that don't change,

4 they don't volatilize. In Saskatchewan, they may

5 have a manure management plan but only when the

6 barn is in its first year of operation. After

7 that, there's no annual requirement like they do

8 here in Manitoba. And then lowering of thresholds

9 is another thing that comes up. Like, people say,

10 what happens when we get to 100 animal units or

11 something? Well, that's fine, it just means you

12 are going to bring in more small farms that have

13 to come under the thresholds that some of the

14 bigger operations have to deal with. And is there

15 enforcement? Yes, there is. And look at the

16 statistics provided by Manitoba Conservation. We

17 provided a little graph here. And it would seem

18 to us that they are being enforced, and the

19 infractions seem to be declining.

20 THE CHAIRMAN: Just on that,

21 Mr. Dickson, as you know, one of the terms of

22 reference from the Minister asked to us

23 specifically look into that, so I thank you for

24 what you've done here. We will be looking into it

25 somewhat extensively, and we will share the final



1 results with you. And we'd certainly invite your

2 comment on that.

3 MR. DICKSON: We have a bit more time

4 now, after today's hearing, that we will spend

5 more time trying to bring up, or do some more

6 research in the area of what other jurisdictions

7 are doing.

8 THE CHAIRMAN: Good.

9 MR. DICKSON: I mean, the trouble is

10 it changes with time, so some of the information

11 is it's not as easily available as you might

12 think.

13 In terms of the future of the

14 industry, when we get back into sustainable

15 development, you get into this balance between

16 economic development, social development and

17 environmental concerns. And we're trying to

18 address here, where do we think the industry might

19 grow or might shrink? What is the sustainable

20 model for the province?

21 And before we start, in terms of the

22 agricultural economy, I want to point out the hog

23 industry is an integral part of the agricultural

24 economy and has a huge fixed investment in

25 buildings and facilities, and these will continue



1 to provide a strong base of economic activity in

2 many parts of the province.

3 In terms of studies, in terms of

4 economic impact of the industry, there was one

5 done in 2003 by the University of Manitoba under

6 Dr. Jim McMillan. And he looked at eight

7 municipalities in central Manitoba, Dufferin,

8 Macdonald, Montcalm, Morris, Roland, Stanley and

9 Thompson. These had 196 hog operations producing

10 about two million pigs. They had an estimated

11 value of $105 million at the farm gate.

12 Now, a whole variety of statistics

13 came out of this thing in terms of paid income in

14 the area was $10 million and so forth, property

15 taxes, it is a very complex study. Hog production

16 in the region resulted more than $267 million of

17 goods and services at the provincial level. Then

18 they used various multiplier numbers and so on to

19 try to get the knock-on effects within the economy

20 of that production. And it's estimated that 2,779

21 person years of employment were generated. And

22 one of the rules of thumb that came out of the

23 study was for every 606 hogs marketed, there's an

24 additional job created in the provincial economy

25 in some way.



1 We also encourage the Commission to

2 look at anecdotal evidence when you go around and

3 hold your public hearings. So we provide some

4 examples here. If you go to the village, or the

5 Municipality of LaBroquerie, you are going to find

6 it's been transformed by the growth of the hog

7 barns and feed mills in the area. If you go and

8 look at the northeast part of the Interlake, I

9 mean, this was facing severe economic challenges

10 because the railway system was being abandoned,

11 the elevator system was being abandoned or closed.

12 And yet it's now a thriving community in the Town

13 of Arborg. They have got two feed mills. There

14 is modern hog barns in the area that utilize the

15 local feed grains in area, which is reducing its

16 dependence on artificial fertilizers. The same

17 experience has occurred in central Manitoba, for

18 example, in the Town of Killarney in that area.

19 You'll hear from people down there when you go to

20 visit with them. If you go to the City of

21 Steinbach and the surrounding municipalities, I

22 mean, this has been profiled nationally as an area

23 where livestock development has had a major impact

24 on the local economy. And not only has it formed

25 a base -- for example, the credit union has a



1 strong agricultural base from which it can then

2 lend to other industries and develop the community

3 for other economic developments. And a key point

4 about that area is it doesn't have a large amount

5 of annual crop land, and they've always had to

6 rely on livestock for their farm income. The

7 tallest building in Steinbach is the local feed

8 mill last time I looked.

9 General trends in the Manitoba

10 industry. We asked an economist statistician to

11 provide some feedback to us way back in the fall,

12 project the hog sector over the next 10 years for

13 us. The key thing here is we're so dependent on

14 the United States that if you have to look at what

15 the USDA is recommending, or projecting out in

16 terms of economic growth for agriculture, the USDA

17 has looked at population trends in the world, the

18 impact of the U.S. dollar, because a lot of our

19 prices are based on U.S. dollars. What would be

20 the impact of oil price changes? How would that

21 affect agriculture? It looked at world trade and

22 competition and opening markets like Brazil,

23 Argentina, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and so forth. It

24 looked at the meat sector and what's happening in

25 terms of growth in the meat industry, what role



1 will we go in terms of more pork from Brazil and

2 so forth. Food and feed, and this was based in

3 the fall of 2006 and it talked about the demand

4 and changes that are going on in the food industry

5 in the United States in terms of increased demand

6 for meat feeds and so on. China is going to

7 become a net importer of corn. Brazil is rapidly

8 increasing its area of soybeans and it will be a

9 major supplier of soybeans in the world. And then

10 it talks about Kazakhstan.

11 Meat consumption, there's been a large

12 increase in poultry production. What impact will

13 that have on beef consumption and pork

14 consumption -- prices.

15 Then we moved over and looked at the

16 Manitoba pork sector and then we looked at

17 potential markets. And the world pork market is

18 very concentrated. Only 5 per cent of world pork

19 production is traded internationally. China

20 accounts for more than half of known world pork

21 production and consumption. The United States,

22 Canada and the European Union are responsible for

23 over three-quarters of world pork exports. Japan

24 and Russia account for almost half of world pork

25 imports. And the U.S. has now surpassed Canada as



1 the largest pork exporting country. Pork

2 dominates global meat consumption with 46 per cent

3 of market share of all meat protein consumed. The

4 projected 2 per cent annual increase translates

5 into approximately 21 million metric tonnes more

6 of pork needed for 2016, needed by 2016, or 25 to

7 30 million more hogs needed per year globally for

8 the next decade.

9 As pork consumption goes up, Manitoba

10 producers will have the opportunity to capture a

11 share of this larger market, either through the

12 sale of more pigs to the United States or

13 increased pork exports. In other words, we ship

14 the little pigs to the United States, they finish

15 them off and sell overseas.

16 They talk a little about what could be

17 setting us back, animal diseases. But so far we

18 have not had Foot and Mouth Disease. It's not

19 been an issue here. The last case was over 50

20 years ago. There is outbreaks in other parts of

21 the world and that could have a major impact on

22 world trade in pork, for example.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: What about the Wasting

24 Disease that hit Quebec?

25 MR. DICKSON: Sorry?



1 THE CHAIRMAN: The Wasting Disease

2 that hit Quebec?

3 MR. DICKSON: Circovirus is a disease

4 of little pigs and in some into larger pigs. And

5 it's had a major impact in Quebec, it has had a

6 major impact in Ontario. If you look earlier at

7 some the graphs on Ontario and Quebec's

8 production, it has actually dropped in the last

9 year or two. Now, there is new vaccines coming

10 out, they are starting to take hold. And as the

11 herds become more vaccinated and adapt to the

12 disease, it is now getting, to some extent getting

13 under control. Now, the disease is also spreading

14 to the United States, and they are vaccinating the

15 same way we are. So there is that period of

16 adaption as new vaccines come into place. But

17 we're going to see new diseases like this all the

18 time. The livestock industry has diseases. And

19 there are response mechanisms in place to develop

20 things like antibiotics and vaccines and so on to

21 overcome these diseases. The same way we get

22 diseases in humans, we have new vaccines for flu

23 every year and so on. The question is, do we have

24 a system in place to deal with it?

25 In terms of capital, we talked about



1 the availability of capital and, of course,

2 interest rates play a key role in that thing.

3 Will there be more sites for development? A lot

4 of it will depend upon the industry's ability to

5 develop equity capital for retained earnings.

6 We talked a little about feed and

7 what's likely to happen in the feed industry. One

8 key thing here is the Canadian Grain Commission

9 has announced a feed class, which we hope will

10 dramatically allow the development of new feed

11 grains, so that we can get away from this 30 to

12 40 bushels of wheat per acre to 70 to 80 bushels

13 of feed wheat per acre. Not only will it give us

14 a feed cost so we can be competitive with the

15 United States, and B, we should be able to use our

16 nutrients better in terms of cycling them within

17 that production area.

18 Then we talk about prices and what is

19 likely to happen there over 10 years. Net

20 returns, and some of that is based on USDA,

21 slaughter and trade.

22 When we get into this, the last piece

23 here that is probably critical is the four

24 scenarios. And we outline each of those. If the

25 market for 3 and a half to 4 million weanlings



1 continues into the United States, and the Maple

2 Leaf plant goes to two shifts, and our

3 slaughtering capacity remains at 6.5 million, then

4 there's a market for at least 10 million pigs in

5 the province. Go back, remember we talked about

6 9 million pigs as our current production,

7 two-thirds of which would be fed to slaughter,

8 1.5 million more than in 2005. That's over a 10

9 year period.

10 Now, another 10-year projection. If

11 another 2.25 million head plant is built in

12 Manitoba, in 2008, and we increase our

13 slaughtering capacity, and we have to deal with

14 the issue of pigs from Saskatchewan and Alberta

15 being slaughtered here, then this will give a

16 total of 11 million pigs produced in Manitoba, and

17 the markets would have to be found for the extra

18 pork. And as we said earlier, the world demand

19 for pork is increasing at the rate of Canada's

20 total production per year. And if a new plant is

21 built in 2008, but the U.S. border is closed, this

22 is the third scenario, but not to pork, then of

23 course what will happen is weanlings will have to

24 be finished here in Manitoba. And we could get

25 into current levels of 9 million head if



1 additional feeding barns were built. And of

2 course, the fourth scenario is, pork production

3 could decrease because of higher Canadian dollar

4 or U.S. duties or something like that to make the

5 industry unprofitable. And you have to take these

6 projections with a large pinch of salt, to be

7 honest with you.

8 Then we talk about production and

9 various statistics, and how many pigs will be

10 available according to sow numbers and so forth.

11 And then some general comments on new technologies

12 and the adoption process. We have always taken a

13 proactive approach in the industry to deal with

14 environmental issues. And I talk a little here

15 like, for example, nuisance odours. The industry

16 has gone out and, essentially, injects the manure,

17 we have started to put covers on, we are using

18 drag hoses, injection cultivators and so forth.

19 There will be more new technologies flowing out

20 from research and development activities. And as

21 Karl mentioned earlier, our council alone has

22 spent over $6 million on trying to develop those

23 new technologies.

24 We need to move on with dealing with

25 the phosphorus issue as a crop nutrient. We



1 talked to some extent earlier in the various

2 sections. We want to emphasize that we are a very

3 proactive industry. We want to look at using best

4 available control technologies. That's a phrase

5 that is used in the environment industry. We want

6 to form close partnerships with government,

7 regulatory officials, research centres, technology

8 development companies, to create these new

9 technologies. Even government, for example,

10 changing the national regulations on animal feed

11 stuffs will help the industry deal with the issue

12 of phosphorous.

13 In terms of policy tools to be used by

14 government, it is our impression that government

15 policy makers have been primarily focused on

16 developing more and more regulations. We feel

17 this is a limited understanding of the variety of

18 available policy tools. You can still achieve

19 some of the classic objectives of public policy,

20 of efficiency, effectiveness and equality. For

21 example, some years ago the two government

22 departments and the livestock industry created the

23 Livestock Manure Management Initiative, which is a

24 collaborative effort to try to develop new

25 technologies. We feel a renewed effort by



1 provincial departments to invest some research

2 funds matched by industry would play a key role.

3 You could use sales tax exemptions to encourage

4 the adoption of new equipment and services. In

5 the Red River Valley, the smaller producers are

6 going to need significant public assistance to

7 build larger manure structures or they are going

8 to go out of business.

9 Producers need to be educated -- and

10 the crop sector needs to be educated on the value

11 of conserving manure as a source of valuable crop

12 nutrient so that manure becomes a valuable

13 commodity which is sought out by crop producers

14 for its true economic value. Guidelines and

15 publications of general standards are valuable

16 public policy tools, because they clarify the

17 expectations for all stakeholders. Regulations

18 and their enforcement should be viewed as measures

19 of last resort. For example, Manitoba Water

20 Stewardship is actually taking this approach with

21 its new nutrient management regulations that they

22 are setting out. And government officials can

23 guide the tenor of the public debate on

24 environmental issues. For example, this issue of

25 exponential growth. The industry is returned to



1 more normal slow growth rates of two per cent

2 prior to the exceptional growth rate in the mid

3 1990s. The growth of the hog industry in

4 Manitoba, in terms of actual production of animal

5 weights, has been modest. And I put a little

6 comparison in here. In 2006, we might have built

7 10 to 12 barns in the province. In Iowa, they

8 built 290 barns last year.

9 Summary remarks. Our feeling is

10 there's been a plethora of legislation,

11 regulation, public reviews, consultations, reports

12 and new government agencies, we list all these out

13 over the past 10 years. It is our view that

14 successful provincial governments have created one

15 of the strictest sets of environmental regulations

16 for the livestock industry in North America, and

17 these have been strictly enforced as evidenced by

18 statistics on the Manitoba Conservation website.

19 It is the role of government to set the rules for

20 the market economy so that entrepreneurs can

21 invest and create new businesses and employ people

22 in production of goods and services. The hog

23 industry is a slow but steady growth industry

24 which is ideally suited for Manitoba. We can

25 provide a domestic market for a major part of



1 grain industry, and that in turn will reduce their

2 costs in terms of transportation and elevation

3 costs. We can reduce the dependence of crop

4 growers on synthetic and imported mineral

5 fertilizers. We can reduce the threat of trade

6 action by foreign competitors. We can improve the

7 stability of the meat processing industry, and we

8 can add value by converting grains and oil seeds

9 into pork as a consumer ready product.

10 Manitoba has a world class industry

11 which can deliver final product into some of the

12 most discriminating markets in the world. This is

13 an objective we should embrace with enthusiasm and

14 excitement, by finally developing a thriving

15 sustainable agriculture for generations to come.

16 And that's the end of part one. We'll do part two

17 at the end.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,

19 Mr. Dickson.

20 MR. YEE: Yes, I have a question. In

21 terms of nutrient management, I noticed your

22 information discussed budgeting nutrients. And in

23 our discussions with Manitoba Conservation, they

24 mentioned this practice is well known and applied

25 to Quebec. But one of the other things that is



1 being done in Quebec is a better assessment of

2 nutrient loading on lands. It's something they

3 were saying is somewhat lacking here in Manitoba.

4 I was just wondering if this is something that the

5 industry is looking into as part of their studies

6 and as part of that better science you discussed

7 earlier on?

8 MR. DICKSON: Well, in Manitoba we

9 have, to some extent, started that process some

10 years ago. If you look at table 9, this is a

11 study done in 2000, on page 436, section 436. I

12 mean, essentially it's trying to attempt

13 developing a balance of phosphorus in a crop

14 reporting area. And the view at the time I think

15 to some extent was driven by the fact that they

16 looked at fertilizer applied, and then the problem

17 was too much manure. But if you flip the argument

18 around, if you focus on manure and then say, well,

19 how can you reduce the amount of fertilizer

20 applied, then we can bring a lot of these regions

21 into balance very, very quickly. In fact, some

22 will remain in a negative position even with

23 artificial fertilizer applied. The same can apply

24 to nitrogen and so forth, we can do these

25 balances.



1 I think we need to reach out beyond

2 looking at municipal boundaries and look at areas

3 as a whole in terms of watersheds and contours of

4 the land, the suitability of different soil types

5 and so forth. And it also has, the technology has

6 to be at a point where an industry can afford it.

7 The new regulations that are being proposed by,

8 brought into place I should say, by Manitoba

9 Conservation, a study done by the University of

10 Manitoba has indicated that it is going to cost

11 anywhere between 18 and $27 million in terms of

12 implementing those over the next 10 years. Well,

13 that money comes out of net returns. It's not

14 simply added on the total cost. So, now in terms

15 of relation to net income, you're talking 18, 25

16 per cent of a producer's net income just to meet

17 the new phosphorus regulation.

18 MR. MAH: Could I just add a point as

19 well relative to nutrients budgets? Because the

20 hog industry is only one component of the

21 livestock sector, and because the livestock sector

22 is only one component of agriculture, because

23 agriculture is only one component of the whole

24 economy, including the urban economy, the onus, or

25 an attempt to try and have an industry single out



1 an exercise to nutrient budgets I think is perhaps

2 an erroneous way to go. We should all be working

3 collectively to ensure that whatever we are

4 contributing is what we're trying to combat as

5 well, we're trying to reduce. I think the onus

6 really is on government, through Manitoba Water

7 Stewardship and Manitoba Conservation, who have

8 the role, responsibility, and expertise to come up

9 with these overall nutrient budgets on watersheds.

10 And I know they are working towards that.

11 MR. DICKSON: As a supplemental too,

12 on table 9, bear in mind that this is all

13 livestock and this is based on the year 2000, and

14 this phytase, for example, is an enzyme that has

15 been in feeds, came in about four or five years

16 ago, so the effects haven't shown up yet on some

17 things.

18 THE CHAIRMAN: Just on phytase, I

19 think you said 60 per cent of operations are using

20 phytase now; is that correct?

21 MR. DICKSON: That's according to

22 industry sources.

23 THE CHAIRMAN: Is it growing, is it

24 going to reach a point where everybody is using

25 it?



1 MR. DICKSON: One would hope so. For

2 some on farm feed mills, it will take a little

3 longer to adopt the technology.

4 MR. MOTHERAL: One comment on, this

5 comes as being a former municipal councillor.

6 When you say the Red River Valley needs

7 significant public assistance, and I haven't read

8 the whole thing, is that in your earthen storages?

9 MR. DICKSON: The new regulations that

10 have been adopted in November under manure

11 management regulations are going to be banning the

12 winter spreading of manure for all operations.

13 And currently those under 300, 400 animal units

14 are excluded. Those operations are going to have

15 a dramatic problem because they carry 30 to 60

16 days storage capacity. So, I mean, Conservation

17 is well aware of this, and the Minister has

18 indicated that there will be public funding of

19 some form forthcoming in the, maybe the new

20 budget, we don't know.

21 MR. MOTHERAL: And that takes in the

22 biggest percentage of the hog enterprise in

23 Manitoba?

24 MR. DICKSON: It's a designated area.

25 That's where it's being banned. Other parts of



1 the province can still carry on with their

2 spreading.

3 MR. MOTHERAL: Is that designated area

4 where they are prone to flooding?

5 MR. DICKSON: It's bigger than the

6 flooded area.

7 MR. MOTHERAL: It is larger than the

8 flooded area?

9 MR. DICKSON: In fact, it goes north

10 of Woodlands, parts of Selkirk, over to

11 Beausejour.

12 MR. MOTHERAL: I think I had that and

13 I have just forgotten. Thank you.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, thank you very

15 much for your presentation here this afternoon.

16 Yes, Mr. Dickson?

17 MR. DICKSON: Our presentation will be

18 available on our website tonight, or first thing

19 tomorrow morning, and including the Powerpoint

20 presentation as well.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So thank

22 you very much for your presentation this

23 afternoon. We'll take a break for about 15

24 minutes, and then we'll come back with a group of

25 environmental organizations. Thank you.



1

2 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 3:17 P.M.

3 AND RECONVENED AT 3:36 P.M.)

4

5

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we come back to

7 order, please? We have a busy agenda. We have

8 another presentation that will take approximately

9 two hours. We will run straight through. We were

10 scheduled to take a supper break at 5, but we will

11 take it at about 5:30. It may mean a slight delay

12 in starting after supper, but hopefully not.

13 Mr. Koroluk, is your group ready to

14 proceed?

15 MR. KOROLUK: Ready as we ever will

16 be.

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I ask each of you

18 to introduce yourselves for the record? And then

19 I will ask Kathy Johnson, the Commission

20 secretary, to administer the oath?

21 MR. KOROLUK: Glen Koroluk.

22 MR. TAIT: Fred Tait.

23 MS. PRYZNER: Ruth Pryzner.

24 MS. BURNS: Vicki Burns.

25 MR. HARRISON: Bill Harrison.



1 G. KOROLUK, F. TAIT, R. PRYZNER, V. BURNS and

2 B. HARRISON, having been sworn in, present as

3 follows:

4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You may

5 proceed.

6 G. KOROLUK, representing Beyond Factory Farming

7 Coalition

8 MR. KOROLUK: Thank you, Mr. Chair,

9 for this opportunity to follow up the Pork Council

10 on the opening day of the second round of public

11 meetings.

12 I just want to express our concern

13 from months ago. And no fault of the Commission

14 or the chair, but the Minister of Conservation did

15 give you a Terms of Reference that really didn't

16 allow us to have a full-blown environmental Clean

17 Environment Commission hearing, which would have

18 allowed us to ask questions of the hog industry

19 and cross-examine, et cetera, but we will work

20 with what's given to us.

21 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't agree

22 with you, but I agree that we will work with

23 what's given to us.

24 MR. KOROLUK: Okay. Just a bit of a

25 different take on issues here. It's good to see



1 how big the industry is in Manitoba, in Canada.

2 As we see in 2006, Manitoba is the leader right

3 now in the country in terms of hogs marketed in

4 Canada. We are at 8.8 million hogs a year,

5 according to Stats Canada. And correctly pointed

6 out from the previous presentation, we surpassed

7 Ontario and Quebec. And their numbers are

8 actually going down because of the circo virus.

9 There is another chart that gives sort

10 of the pork powerhouses of 2006 in North America,

11 excluding Quebec. It's a funny thing because a

12 few months ago I asked for a breakdown of the

13 companies in Manitoba and how much they produce,

14 and I was told to get the Pork Powerhouse magazine

15 of successful farming. But it gives us an idea of

16 who some of the big players are in the continent.

17 Smithfield Foods, of course, is by far the biggest

18 pork producer in the world, actually. Maple Leaf,

19 which is based out of Ontario, but have their

20 major kill plant in Brandon, is Canada's biggest

21 producer. And they probably rank around sixth or

22 seventh in the continent.

23 And, of course, we have got other

24 companies here in the province. Hytek, Puratone

25 Corporation, they have got about 54,000, 46,000



1 sows apiece. And, of course, the Puratone --

2 sorry, the Hytek Corporation, is still interested

3 in building their own slaughterhouse plant here in

4 Winnipeg.

5 A different look at numbers, this is

6 from 2006. It's the average number of pigs on a

7 farm per operation in North America. And it's

8 basically taking the pig census, as you heard

9 earlier, of about three million pigs in Manitoba

10 and divide it by the number of operators. And

11 you'll see that in terms of operation size,

12 Manitoba is ranked second right now in terms of

13 having the largest operations in the continent.

14 North Carolina, by far, they have big operations

15 there and they have got big problems, too.

16 And we know, you know, Quebec has had

17 the moratorium that has been lifted for two years.

18 North Carolina still has a moratorium on new

19 development. And the moratorium here in Manitoba,

20 which we would like to see extended, at least for

21 a couple of years.

22 We talk about the number of

23 operations, and it's an important question.

24 Manitoba government says around 1,400. Stats

25 Canada, where I got that previous chart, says



1 1,250. And this is for the year 2006. And the

2 Pork Council has publicly said: Well, there is

3 851 registered operators now or it may be up to

4 1,000. And why do we want to know how many

5 operators that are out there? Well, it's

6 important to know who is out there. For one, you

7 have to know where these operations are in terms

8 of monitoring, enforcement, inspection.

9 We had, you know, the Manure

10 Management Regulation of 1994 that came into play,

11 but there were a number of operations in place

12 before that. So I don't think we still have a

13 grasp as to who is out there and where these

14 operations are located.

15 It's also important for

16 de-commissioning and post-closure. I mean, if ten

17 years ago we had 2,000 operations and now we have

18 got 1,000, that means there is 1,000 operations

19 out there that should be adequately

20 de-commissioned. And I haven't seen any records

21 of de-commissioning yet in this province, but I

22 could be wrong.

23 And this is just a recent article from

24 the Manitoba Co-operator, which says that: There

25 is 851 pig operations as of March 2006. And then



1 they say: There is approximately 1,000 operations

2 in the province. So it is good to get a grasp of

3 the numbers.

4 I am not going to talk much about the

5 economics in my overview. We will talk about it a

6 bit more later on in the presentation. But this

7 is from a 2001 article in the Farmer's

8 Independence -- or the Co-operator, I should say,

9 where at that time there was 1,650 hog farms in

10 Manitoba. And 82 percent of the hogs that went to

11 market came from 11 percent of the producers.

12 And so it's a tremendous amount of

13 concentration of ownership in terms of size and

14 production capacity. So, you know, if you break

15 it down, yeah, I mean, 180 factory farm operations

16 accounted for $705 million worth of $860 million

17 total for that given year. And we have heard that

18 in 2005 the economic pie is $1 billion. So, you

19 know, maybe 10 percent of the operations account

20 for over 80 percent of the hogs, so it's an issue

21 of concentration.

22 This is from a recent article also

23 talking about the top 10 percent gets 75 percent

24 of the subsidy. And this is U.S. farm subsidies.

25 And, I mean, we have asked for this information in



1 Manitoba and we haven't been able to get it yet.

2 And what we really want to demonstrate is that

3 there are subsidies. There are programs out

4 there. There are income support programs and

5 there are subsidies.

6 Here is Manitoba Finance Fast Facts

7 from 2001 that says:

8 "Annually tax revenue foregone in

9 support of Manitoba farmers,

10 $170.5 million."

11 You know, it's good to support a

12 family farm or a farm operation in times of need,

13 but who is getting -- who is getting these

14 subsidies? Is it these corporate structures, the

15 investment schemes? These are details we need to

16 know. So we have -- this is the information that

17 we have asked for and have yet not been able to

18 get ahold of it.

19 CAISNISA pay-outs to hog operators,

20 loans and lines of credit that are forgiven or

21 outstanding from the Manitoba Agricultural

22 Services Corporation. And we really want to get a

23 gauge as to how much is the general taxpayer

24 supporting our ILOs or who really is receiving the

25 benefits?



1 Whoa, welcome to North Carolina. This

2 is actually Manitoba. And the next few slides

3 will be all from Manitoba. I don't know if you

4 can see this from the back, but this is a hog

5 operation in southeastern Manitoba in June 2002

6 after some heavy rains. We've got run-off

7 problems. We've got a full lagoon.

8 Same time, same area, different set of

9 operations. You can see all of the standing water

10 in the fields where the manure will be applied or

11 has been applied. This one is interesting because

12 it is in June. And there is standing water all

13 over the place and the lagoon is empty already, or

14 near empty, so we know that the manure has gone

15 onto the fields. You can see the river in the

16 forefront of the picture there. The fields are

17 just 100 percent saturated.

18 Again, here are eight barns in the

19 southeast of Manitoba. I guess some of you might

20 remember the big rain where we had six to eight

21 inches in the southeastern part of Manitoba. But

22 some of these barns themselves are washed out.

23 A different view. Here is an

24 above-ground storage container. Again, the fields

25 are saturated. This just gives you a size -- some



1 of the size of these barn structures and lagoons.

2 You can see, you know, Highway 12 in the forefront

3 there and how small the vehicle is.

4 I don't know how many animals would be

5 in this barn, but at least 10,000. And it's

6 forested area. And the forest has been blown out,

7 leveled out, and that's where they have applied

8 the manure.

9 Again, springtime 2001, this is the

10 R.M. of La Broquerie. Saturated fields, spring

11 run-off, full lagoon, just ready to be emptied.

12 Springtime, again after the April 10th

13 period where you can't apply manure. Again the

14 fields are saturated. And this one is empty, so

15 we know that the manure has gone on to the fields

16 that are saturated around there.

17 Above-ground storage field. The

18 entire area is saturated. And the storage area is

19 brim to the top, probably got a foot left there.

20 And where are they going to put that liquid

21 manure?

22 Another example, an eight barn

23 operation. These are probably finishing barns

24 which hold about 2,000 pigs per barn.

25 Mortality. This is no doubt an



1 accident, but we're trying to find out what the

2 mortality rate of the industry is in this

3 province. Finding proper places to deal with

4 mortality is an issue in Manitoba.

5 A ditch along a highway in the

6 Interlake. The field to the left was manure

7 applied to it. And you can see the algae growth

8 in the ditch. You get a rainfall, that ends up in

9 the lake, Lake Winnipeg.

10 Another example, this is from western

11 Manitoba, of a drainage ditch in a field to get

12 water running off a field in times of spring melt

13 and heavy rainfall. And these fields are manured.

14 And there is a hog operation on this

15 section of land. And it eventually gets off the

16 fields and ends up in a drainage ditch. And then

17 from the ditch to the stream, from the stream to

18 the river.

19 A saturated field again. You can see

20 the algae growth. And again this ends up in the

21 ditch and drainage system. And this is also taken

22 in the Interlake. Just to give you an idea of the

23 size and scope, this is half a picture. If you go

24 to the right side of this picture, and one of

25 these days I will tape them together, there will



1 be 16 barns on one section of land. You know,

2 with 2,000 pigs per barn, that is 32,000 pigs on a

3 section of land at a given time. Again, the place

4 is just saturated. And, you know, the manure has

5 nothing else to do but to mobilize into the

6 aquatic environment. This is a leaky pipe that

7 you can see between the lagoon and the barn.

8 This one is interesting. We think

9 it's, you know, an operator dumping its truck on

10 the snow in the winter time. And you can see the

11 burn-outs. So, you know, you just dump it and

12 move a bit. And there is a whole bunch of them

13 there, burn-outs on the ground. And this is all

14 overhead shots, obviously. Years ago we had an

15 outfit called hog watch. What was it called?

16 MR. TAIT: Hog Air.

17 MR. KOROLUK: Hog Air.

18 So a lot of talk about surface water,

19 contamination, nutrient build-up in Lake Winnipeg,

20 too much phosphorous, et cetera. That's just one

21 issue, just one. I wouldn't call it small. But

22 there is a danger that if you focus on one issue

23 too much, there are other issue impacts that we

24 might let slip away.

25 And back in 1999, the government, in



1 its wisdom, did a sample, a groundwater sampling

2 regime of close to 1,000 wells. I think they took

3 a sample per township. And the results, there was

4 never any report printed up. In fact, we don't

5 know what happened to the report. We were

6 promised there was to be one.

7 But it showed that 32 percent of the

8 wells sampled exceeded the Canadian Drinking Water

9 Quality Guidelines of zero total coliform

10 bacteria. And 16 percent of those wells tested

11 also exceeded the Drinking Water Guidelines of 10

12 milligrams per litre of nitrate, and that was back

13 in 1999. So in areas, environmentally susceptible

14 areas, you know, contamination of the aquifers is

15 a big concern. And we can see that we have got

16 problems in Manitoba. Those are high percentages.

17 So after seeing that report, I

18 actually asked -- went through Freedom of

19 Information and requested all of the monitoring

20 wells installed for all of the lagoons, livestock

21 lagoons, in the province. I can't remember what

22 the number was. I think it was 400, 500 different

23 wells installed. And it took me almost four, four

24 years to get the data. The Freedom of Information

25 isn't the greatest in this province.



1 But I gave the data to Dr. Bill Paton.

2 And he looked at the different parameters. And we

3 didn't get the information properly, but he

4 estimates that over half of the manure storage

5 facilities show evidence of groundwater

6 contamination. And this is data that went up to

7 2005. And we would also like to get an update of

8 this information. We have asked for it, too. And

9 some analysis of it, independent analysis.

10 So what does all of this mean? We are

11 talking about nutrients. We are talking about

12 groundwater contamination. We are talking about

13 Lake Winnipeg nitrification.

14 But there is also other stuff in that

15 manure. And the feed has low dosages of

16 antibiotics. Antibiotics are used to cure, you

17 know, disease, treat an animal. But it is also

18 added, at the sub-therapeutic level, as a growth

19 promotant. And, you know, not all of this is

20 absorbed by the animal. And it is excreted, much

21 like the M and P, into the waste. And that ends

22 up into our environment, too.

23 And, you know, we are not even doing

24 this research here in Manitoba. And I have got a

25 stack about six inches tall of stuff that I will



1 give to you and stuff that is a peer reviewed in

2 the U.S. And I mean, this is real issue that we

3 are not dealing with.

4 And in the U.S., well, the American

5 Medical Association passed a resolution in 2001

6 that the A.M.A. is opposed to the use of

7 anti-microbials at non-therapeutic levels in

8 agriculture, or as pesticides or growth promoters,

9 and urges that non-therapeutic use in animals of

10 anti-microbials, that are also used in humans,

11 should be terminated or phased out based on

12 scientifically sound risk assessment. And, I

13 mean, the A.M.A. is quite a reputable

14 organization. So this is an emerging issue that

15 we have to deal with.

16 So just to sum up some of those

17 pictures that we saw, some of us, a few of us,

18 have asked for manure management plans that have

19 been filed. We have asked for soil test data. We

20 have asked for water quality data. We have

21 installed groundwater monitoring wells,

22 groundwater data of private wells. A list of

23 ingredients in the feed. An update of the

24 nutrient loading in Lake Winnipeg going into 2006.

25 Inspection records of permitted ILOs. Actual



1 water usage data of metered ILOs. Pig mortality

2 rates. So these requests are still outstanding.

3 And we want to point out that in order to do an

4 investigation, we really need to get real data,

5 and the data is there. There is no sense in us

6 bouncing stuff back and forth. We really want to

7 get that data and see what is happening on the

8 ground.

9 A couple more pictures here. A barn

10 in western Manitoba taken in winter time. But it

11 sort of gives you an idea that emissions are

12 coming off three locations from an operation.

13 From the lagoon, and if you put a synthetic cover,

14 you might deal with it. Emissions come from when

15 you apply the manure on to the fields. And they

16 are trying to deal with that problem by doing more

17 injections. But emissions also come from the

18 manure themselves, the stacks.

19 This is a large barn. It probably

20 holds 10,000 animals. And as has been explained,

21 I mean, this is an odour. This is hydrogen

22 sulfide. This is ammonia. And these are toxins.

23 And you can see the drift, depending on the

24 climatic situation at this given place, at this

25 given time.



1 A different shot. You can see the

2 drift. I don't know if you can see it in the

3 back. But this air pollution is going on to

4 someone else's property. And you can see the

5 drift. I don't know if you can see it or not, but

6 it's down low on the ground. Maybe there is some

7 sort of inversion, air inversion happening here in

8 the vicinity. But this is not odour. This is air

9 pollution escaping the property and going on to

10 somebody else's property. We know this. We have

11 measured these constituents. We've got rules and

12 laws in the oil and gas industry that says you

13 can't have over this amount of hydrogen sulfide

14 escaping from your -- from your property. Why is

15 agriculture exempt from that?

16 And in Iowa, which has been mentioned,

17 is the leading pork producer in North America in

18 terms of numbers. And in 2002 -- well, in 2000

19 they put together 40 of the top scientists in the

20 region to look at air quality issues of

21 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, CAFOs. We

22 call them ILOs here. They call them CAFOs in the

23 U.S. And the 40 scientists came out with a

24 consensus report. In response to question 2 -- I

25 think there were only three main responses to



1 three main question. But by consensus of the

2 entire study group, the following substances

3 should be considered for regulatory action: 1.

4 Hydrogen sulfide, 2. Ammonia, 3. Odours. So

5 they are recommending that Iowa should move

6 forward and start regulating the toxic substances

7 coming out of these operations from the barns,

8 from the lagoons and from applying the manure on

9 to the land. They further say:

10 "Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia are

11 recognized degradation products of

12 animal manure and urine. Both of

13 these gases have been measured in the

14 general vicinity of livestock

15 operations of concentrations of

16 potential health concerns for rural

17 residents under prolonged exposure."

18 And in Canada, the Canadian Medical Association,

19 back in 2003 of April, at their Annual General

20 Meeting, were also concerned about the spread of

21 intensive livestock operations. And they passed a

22 resolution that:

23 "The C.M.A. expresses concern with

24 regard to the risk of public health in

25 rural areas as presented by the



1 development of industrial hog farms.

2 And that the C.M.A. urge the federal,

3 provincial and territorial governments

4 for a moratorium on the expansion of

5 the hog industry until scientific data

6 on the attendant health risks are

7 known."

8 So from these slides, just to sum up the

9 information requests that we have outstanding and

10 hope to get in the future in order to carry on a

11 proper investigation, I mean, we want an idea of

12 what the injury and illness rates are of hog barn

13 workers who are exposed to these gases and other

14 workplace and safety areas.

15 We want to get a copy of the relevant

16 in-house and external studies used to maintain

17 set-back distances. And these studies were

18 mentioned in the provincial report that came out

19 for this review.

20 And we also want a more detailed

21 assessment of the complaints to the Farm Practices

22 Board, not that -- well, some of them were

23 remedied. I mean, we should actually be

24 interviewing some of these complainants and see

25 what is happening. I just want to add that no one



1 knows about the Farm Practices Protection Board

2 and the fact that you also have to pay money to

3 make a complaint.

4 And a bit on climate change and, of

5 course, you know, air emissions. And it was

6 mentioned, you know, that methane and the nitrous

7 oxides contribute to greenhouse gas emissions in

8 Manitoba. And they are on the increase, not the

9 decrease. And agriculture is where the problems

10 are right now.

11 But on the flip side of climate

12 change, because of the production system, and

13 that's what we're really looking at is the

14 production system, it uses a lot of water. And it

15 also -- you know, in terms of climate warming,

16 it's a system that will have some problems in the

17 future. In areas where we will get more extended

18 drought, we will need more water. We will need to

19 find more water for these systems. We also are

20 seeing, which you have seen from some of the

21 slides, that we get these intense thunderstorms,

22 and people relate that to the change in climate

23 warming, too.

24 So if we get, you know, four or five

25 or six inches within two days, I mean, you see the



1 manure escapes the operation and is into the

2 surface water system and groundwater system. So

3 that it's the production system that actually

4 creates the problems here. And here, just

5 recently at the Pork Expo, the Banff Pork Expo,

6 David Sauchin, who is one of the leading climate

7 change researchers out of the University of

8 Regina, is warning the hog industry that water

9 management and conservation will be the key for

10 industry to adapt to climate change. The greatest

11 risk climate change presents is a reduction in the

12 amount, quality and distribution of water supply

13 systems.

14 And just a note, the comment about how

15 much water the pork industry uses, we would

16 actually like to see how much water the pork

17 industry uses. They self-monitor. The facilities

18 that do have metres, they read the metres and hand

19 it into the province. I wish I could do that with

20 my gas bill.

21 But the issue is, and it was pointed

22 out also, that most of the groundwater that they

23 take is from the sub-surface aquifers, and these

24 are the ones that will be impacted the most by

25 drought.



1 And just to finish off here, and we

2 will talk about this a bit more, I mean, the

3 impact of the industry to communities. And here

4 is a story from a couple of years ago. And

5 believe me, I've got tons of these stories. When

6 the industry comes into your community, they bend

7 a lot of arms. In this particular development,

8 Dynamic Pork Corporation, which is a network of

9 substantial financial interests and, you know, it

10 is -- most of these operations are investment

11 schemes. You know, it is not a family farm. I

12 mean, you are an investor. So they are networks.

13 And in this particular case, groups

14 want councillors charged with conflict of

15 interest. And we hear a lot of stories of

16 conflict of interest in the rural parts of

17 Manitoba. We have got conflicts of interest in

18 Winnipeg, too, by the way.

19 So, you know, people get upset and

20 people revolt, and it's been ongoing for years and

21 years and years. And, you know, this is a March

22 in front of the NDP convention a couple of years

23 ago. Close to 150 came out. And you get protests

24 all over the place in Manitoba when you try to set

25 up an operation.



1 And that's my part of the

2 presentation.

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Koroluk.

4 I'm sure, Mr. Koroluk, that if you were able to

5 self-monitor your gas meter that you would be

6 completely honest in your reporting.

7 I do have a couple of questions. You

8 showed us a number of pictures of operations

9 where, as you noted, there was water around the

10 operations and the lagoon appeared to be empty.

11 But do you -- are you able to document that that

12 manure was spread on wet fields?

13 MR. KOROLUK: No, not actual

14 on-the-ground verification. All we can say is,

15 well, this is the date we took it. We know when

16 you are allowed to put the manure on the fields.

17 And you can see a picture that, well, okay, this

18 lagoon is almost empty.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: And then you also

20 showed us a picture of a hog barn with exhaust

21 coming out of stacks on the roof and you referred

22 to this as being toxic. What toxins are in that?

23 We've heard evidence otherwise.

24 MR. KOROLUK: Well, ammonia is

25 classified as a toxic substance under the Canadian



1 Environmental Protection Act.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: How much ammonia is in

3 that exhaust?

4 MR. KOROLUK: How much ammonia? There

5 are studies which I can provide to you in

6 measurements and part per million, for sure, yeah.

7 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we would

8 appreciate that.

9 MR. KOROLUK: Okay.

10 THE CHAIRMAN: We need solid evidence,

11 not conjecture.

12 MR. KOROLUK: Most of this stuff I

13 have on hand is mostly from the U.S. and it is

14 peer reviewed, like published, in refereed

15 journals.

16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

17 Mr. Harrison?

18 Bill Harrison, Rural representative for the

19 Provincial NDP Environment Committee

20 MR. HARRISON: Mr. Chair, regarding

21 some of those photographs that were taken during

22 spring flooding, I believe it was. These lagoons

23 were often breached by the water, and that's why

24 the lagoons would appear to be more empty. At

25 times the actual lagoons were washed. And you can



1 see in the actual photographs that they are

2 breached. And there are two streams and I noticed

3 them going right back to the barns. You have to

4 check the photographs closely to verify that.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Next?

6 MR. HARRISON: I would like to get

7 more comfortable here, please.

8 Good day. My name is Bill Harrison.

9 And I am, among other things, a rural

10 representative for the Provincial NDP Environment

11 Committee. And also it is nice to be recognized

12 by the Manitoba Pork Council because I am also Joe

13 citizen. I'm the union window person. I am the

14 NIMBY neighbour. I am that special interest

15 groupie. I am the limited complainer on odour in

16 Manitoba. I am the methodologist. I am a person

17 who happens to live in an area with a rapid

18 increase in the number of mega-hog factories. And

19 I am, first and foremost, a water and an air

20 hugger who is concerned about human health and

21 welfare.

22 I would like to thank the CEC, once

23 again, for hearing from the public and, in

24 particular, from we rural Manitobans on the

25 subject of the environmental sustainability of the



1 hog industry. And you will notice we do not say

2 hog farming, so we have got that right today in

3 Manitoba.

4 I know you have a daunting, but

5 nevertheless valuable task in processing a large

6 amount of information you've been mandated to

7 review. And we hope you will make strong

8 recommendations to the government of the day which

9 will result in real increased protection for our

10 environment and, most importantly, our ground and

11 surface waters and, of course, our people.

12 While I myself have been concerned

13 about environmental issues since attending

14 university in the sixties, I only took up the

15 environmental cause in the year 2000 after living

16 for the previous 28 years in a once pristine

17 valley on the Roseisle Creek in the Pembina Valley

18 foothills west of Carman. Some of you may have

19 been out to that area and cross-countryside skied

20 there and enjoyed the beauty there.

21 Well, my neighbours and I could see

22 the growth of intensive livestock operations,

23 particularly hog production factory barns. I will

24 refer to them as factories because that's what

25 they are. And I'm sorry to see or still hear that



1 people are eating this factory pork because I

2 recommend that it is not the healthiest of foods.

3 I've worked in those barns myself. And, I'm

4 sorry, but I've stopped eating it. Anyway, that's

5 just a personal view.

6 Yes, at the time, much more numerous

7 family farms were, you know, about. But at one

8 time we could see more family farms, rather

9 smaller producers, who now are not there. And my

10 small farm friends who were there have lost a

11 significant portion of their farm income. As

12 noted by the Pork Council here, we saw a reduction

13 in the number of producers and becoming larger

14 producers.

15 And as Glen has mentioned, they are

16 corporate investment. So the small family farmer

17 now has one less bit of income, but the investors,

18 well, they are making money. And that money, that

19 income money which is investment-driven, a lot of

20 it has been leaving our communities, our rural

21 communities.

22 Now, a Hog Watch ad in the June 28,

23 2000 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press put the

24 burr up my backside, as it pointed out then that:

25 "Our province proposed current annual



1 hog production of close to ten million

2 hogs would produce more fecal waste

3 than the entire human population of

4 Canada."

5 And then:

6 "A significant portion of it will wind

7 up in your rivers and ground and

8 ultimately your drinking water."

9

10 And, of course, now we know of pollution, and in

11 particular phosphorous, affecting lakes Winnipeg,

12 Lake Manitoba, Stephenfield Lake, which is a

13 man-made lake near where I live, that feeds

14 thousands of people in the Carman and surrounding

15 area, and who knows yet how many others.

16 These CEC meetings will be of profound

17 historical significance to the environment for our

18 children, our children's children and beyond. The

19 current state of our waterways is screaming for us

20 to help. Denial by the hog industry is not an

21 option. The public has woken up, and that is why

22 we are here today to begin a process to save our

23 water's health and that of those creatures who

24 consume it to sustain their lives.

25 For rural residents and now, in



1 particular, the urban folks of Transcona and St.

2 Vital, and really the whole of Manitoba, this is

3 often a tale of frustration and cynicism born of

4 trying to deal with governments, both municipal

5 and provincial, and the hog industry. Residents

6 are, at best, ignored and, at worse, misled and,

7 yes, lied to by the above mentioned governments

8 and hog industry. I will illustrate that. As

9 well, there has been threats by members of that

10 latter group.

11 My neighbours and my friends support

12 my efforts to defend our environment, but I have

13 seen many give up their struggle since they feel

14 the Department of Conservation, in particular, has

15 failed Manitobans and is often perceived as a

16 promoter of the hog industry. And this is

17 illustrated by members of the now of the pork

18 industry, particularly the Pork Council, who were

19 formerly working for the government, and they have

20 now switched sides. I only wish that this board

21 could recommend that there be a cooling-off period

22 so that when somebody moves from the government,

23 from a position of knowledge, before they can go

24 and work for some industry that they have a

25 particular knowledge in that they have gained at



1 the cost of, you know, our state, that they, you

2 know, have a few years off maybe. You know, it is

3 a conflict of interest, really. They should

4 really give them some time to stay out of the

5 show.

6 Now, the abandonment of Olywest by

7 Olymel and Big Sky Industries, or Big Ski,

8 illustrates the economic uncertainty of the hog

9 industry, at the best of times. Olymel lost

10 $150 million or so in the last few years. And Big

11 Ski is reputed to be 40 percent funded by

12 Saskatchewan taxpayers. So politics enters the

13 sustainable equation, or sustainability equation,

14 as the Saskatchewan government, obviously, does

15 not want to subsidize a slaughter plant in

16 Manitoba, especially when Maple Leaf is closing

17 its plant in Saskatoon. Now, we have seen that

18 because Maple Leaf feels that it is better to be

19 processing here in Canada, and for the Canadian

20 consumer, rather than export it.

21 And lest we forget foreign interests,

22 foreign intervention, rather, when on October 15th

23 of 2004 the U.S. government slapped duties of 13

24 to 15 percent on live hogs shipped to the U.S. for

25 six months in order to protect its own producers.



1 Now, this is the variabilities in the market. It

2 is tough to be a hog processor or a hog producer.

3 And today we have a feed deficit

4 crisis, with the cost of corn skyrocketing in the

5 U.S., because of its demand by the burgeoning

6 ethanol industry. And why should our already

7 suffering grain farmers be expected to grow cheap

8 feed quality grain to make pork producers richer?

9 Yet pigheadedness on the part of the hog industry

10 pursues even more growth problems with all of

11 these dominos falling their way.

12 Now, I'm not totally against the hog

13 industry. I'm not. But there is a limit. There

14 has got to be a limit.

15 But back to my and my own neighbour's

16 own negative experiences with the hog industry and

17 local and provincial governments. Back in the

18 summer of 2000, I attended four livestock

19 stewardship hearings, and then watched in

20 disbelief as the major recommendations in the

21 resultant Finding Common Ground report were

22 ignored by the provincial government. A waste of

23 my time, and many others, and the taxpayers'

24 money. Let's hope today we are not wasting

25 taxpayers' money.



1 Subsequently, my faith in the powers

2 that be was only decreased when Hytek arrived in

3 my neighbourhood. And I see they are here today.

4 An employee of theirs and his brother bought a

5 beautiful piece of land, a quarter section, just

6 under one and a half miles straight south of my

7 home. And just a half mile south of the quiet

8 hamlet of St. Lupicin, well known in Manitoba and

9 beyond for its St. Lupicin Craft Gallery, which

10 provided additional income to the dozen or so

11 artisans and artists who displayed their works

12 there for many years.

13 At the time, six full-time residents

14 and six part-time residents populated the village.

15 Since construction of the 8,000 or more feeder

16 barns, the population is now down to one, and

17 that's in less than three years. The gallery's

18 owner, my good friend, my late friend, Ken

19 Chambers, is dead, due in part to the stress of

20 dealing with the aggressive manager of the

21 Picardie Farm. And, of course, the gallery is

22 closed and the mood of the neighbours is angry to

23 this day.

24 In spite of a promise to cover the

25 manure pit by the proponents before construction



1 began, it only may come to pass because of our

2 recent efforts with the Farm Practices Board this

3 winter, where we did win a decision to have the

4 lagoon covered. But that's not until June, and

5 that is only with straw, even though we

6 specifically asked for a synthetic cover. But, of

7 course, they don't want to spend the money on

8 something that is more effective. Meanwhile, this

9 is another cost to taxpayers because a hog

10 businessman wouldn't live up to his commitment.

11 And so we had to have this meeting, at a great

12 cost again to the taxpayers, and to the people who

13 live in the neighbourhood, of course.

14 Never mind the lie told to us by Water

15 Management in the Conservation Department that

16 these barns would not be built because there was

17 not enough water under the property to support

18 this operation. No, instead they granted a

19 permit, a special permit, to Picardie Farm to pump

20 water via an irrigation-type pipe from the Lyle

21 Creek about two miles away during spring runoff to

22 fill an in-ground storage pit next to their

23 in-ground manure pit. This is sustainability?

24 Meanwhile, I joined the NDP, with the

25 good intention of working with the government to



1 bring improvements to the Planning Act and our

2 Environment Act. It has been a struggle. Our

3 municipal government, government of the R.M. of

4 Lorne, wasted $20,000 on lawyer fees alone

5 fighting its own constituents in the Town of Notre

6 Dame de Lourdes this past summer over a

7 disagreement over the set-backs which we have

8 discussed, or the hog industry presented earlier,

9 that they are so happy with, a disagreement over

10 set-back distances in the R.M.'s new Planning Act.

11 Who were the main witnesses for the R.M.'s lawyer?

12 Why a director of the Manitoba Pork Council and an

13 expert from the Manitoba Department of

14 Agriculture. By the way, the town won this case.

15 And what did this cost the Manitoba taxpayers to

16 have us sit before the planning board? But this

17 is sustainability?

18 Now, a hog factory production

19 proponent in our R.M. at Swan Lake, near Swan Lake

20 Village, or Swan Lake town, I should say, wants to

21 build right on top of the town's aquifer and

22 within one mile of the Swan Lake Band Reserve,

23 angry -- angering both the towns' and reserves'

24 residents. But we will have to wait and see who

25 comes first here, hogs and their few owners or the



1 majority, the human beings who depend on pure

2 water for their health and well-being?

3 In addition, local factory hog

4 producers avoid environmental infraction

5 investigation by spreading and dumping manure in

6 neighbouring ditches and even Roseisle Creek. And

7 there are documents to prove that, though I can't

8 get it anymore because the government has removed

9 it from the internet where they fine people.

10 The environmental inspectors have

11 fined one producer for dumping directly into the

12 Roseisle Creek in the past. And there are other

13 members of the hog industry who have been fined,

14 including, I believe, Elite Swine and one

15 particular Hutterite colony. But anyway, that has

16 happened, it's over with. Now, they do this on

17 weekends because, you know, the environmental

18 inspectors are not on call or in the field, so

19 they can get this done on the weekend. And by the

20 time you get a complaint in, nobody is going to

21 look at it until the following week.

22 Now, we have witnessed winter

23 spreading, winter surface spreading, by

24 individuals who do so on weekends and at night, as

25 well. I've seen, along with a neighbour, a



1 commercial spreader injecting one pass. And that

2 is people who are hired to pump manure from a

3 lagoon. They use a hose. It goes to a tractor.

4 They have an injection unit on the tractor to pull

5 it through the field, go back and forth. Well,

6 they use it to inject into the ground. And that's

7 fine, if they were doing the right amount. But we

8 watched as the tractor went back over the same

9 road above the ground. This is sustainability?

10 This is on a Friday evening again. "Naturally

11 fertilized", the sign says right next to the

12 field.

13 As for myself, well, I have suffered

14 personal financial loss in the towns of Notre Dame

15 and Somerset, where local intensive livestock

16 operators threatened local businesses; telling

17 them they would no longer be doing business with

18 them if they hired me to do their Christmas window

19 decorations at Christmas time for one of the

20 businesses I do at Christmas. Been doing it for a

21 number of years in that town, but no longer.

22 Believe you me, there are a lot of fine people in

23 the town, don't get me wrong, but these hog

24 producers, this is what they have done. They

25 actually did that. They also went after a couple



1 of businesses in Somerset.

2 Also, a hog proponent filed a

3 complaint with the Department of Environment, this

4 is after I wrote a letter to the editor in the

5 local paper critical of the hog industry which,

6 against my business which, fortunately for me,

7 proved to be baseless, but was aggravating. But,

8 of course, these acts were cowardly, as these

9 people have never complained to me personally.

10 They prefer to act furtively. And I expect after

11 this presentation it might only increase. This is

12 not a very good picture of an industry priding

13 itself on helping rural communities. Factory hog

14 production seems to breed arrogance, while it

15 corrupts those who promote it blindly.

16 Now, we have Iowa operators protecting

17 themselves from bankruptcy by incorporating and

18 then suggesting that the government should

19 compensate them when and if disease should strike

20 their industries. That's sustainability?

21 Enough is enough! 8.5 to 10 million

22 hogs is more than enough. Our lakes tell us the

23 environmentally sustainable limit is reached. Our

24 groundwater is under threat and under boil water

25 advisory in my neighbourhood for sure, and my well



1 for sure, and at least half of the province, or

2 just over 40 percent, where livestock inhabits.

3 It is not just the hog industry, to be honest, to

4 be fair. The limit, though, in hog production is

5 reached. Sustainability is not happening now.

6 Growth is finite and must be curtailed now.

7 Let other countries take on

8 sustainable production, if they must, at their own

9 peril. Let's tell our government to make this

10 pause into a permanent moratorium. We won't be

11 able to prove the so-called environmental

12 sustainability until we let time and our efforts

13 prove we can manage the hog production our

14 province currently has. Our waters are our

15 barometers. Our children should not be our guinea

16 pigs.

17 Thanks for hearing me. Good

18 afternoon.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you,

20 Mr. Harrison.

21 RUTH PRYZNER, representing Citizens for the

22 Responsible Application of Phosphorous

23 MS. PRYZNER: My name is Ruth Pryzner.

24 I'm a small mixed farmer from the Rivers Alexander

25 area in southwestern Manitoba. And I've been



1 involved in activities relating to the hog

2 industry since 1998 as a member of my community,

3 the larger provincial community. And I've been a

4 decision-maker serving my community as a municipal

5 councillor from 2002 to 2006.

6 As such, I've gained considerable

7 experience and knowledge about the way in which

8 the hog industry operates in this province, how

9 and why decisions are made about the industry in

10 communities and by the provincial government, and

11 have examined a number of proposals in the course

12 of assisting people in being able to have a

13 meaningful and informed voice when a proposed

14 hog -- a proposal for a hog barn comes to town.

15 The experience and expertise that I

16 bring to share with you is not unique to me.

17 Within rural communities, those people who are

18 forced to face and respond to the demands of the

19 industry have developed significant expertise

20 about how the industry operates; the

21 decision-making approval process, and what they

22 can expect from the province, and the results of

23 having been forced to live with the effects of the

24 industry on a daily basis. We know that the

25 structure of decision-making processes definitely



1 and significantly influence the outcome of

2 decisions. And I have a lot of experience with

3 that.

4 Common sense tells us that in order to

5 arrive at sound decisions, seeking and finding

6 evidence-based truth before drawing conclusions

7 and making decisions based on these conclusions is

8 required. This is also an imperative in

9 science-based decision-making. Yet we must also

10 recognize that our understanding of and an ability

11 to understand our world through science is

12 limited. So, too, is our ability to understand

13 our relationships with the natural world and each

14 other.

15 Because of the subjective nature of

16 our objective relationship to our world and each

17 other, and the limits this places upon us, we have

18 to recognize that there is always a context in

19 which we evaluate and decide. The context in

20 which I tried to locate any search for truth and

21 facts and then, in making decisions, is centered

22 in the perspective of: Will it do harm? And if

23 so, is this harm significant and irreversible? I

24 submit to the Commission that this is a

25 fundamental prerequisite for making decisions in



1 the public interest.

2 We know, from our collective and

3 historical knowledge, that the health of the

4 environment is essential to the health of the

5 public. Therefore, acting in the public interest

6 requires that our collective public interest be

7 protected through our protection of our

8 environment. Preventive and precautionary

9 principles must be embraced, facilitated, allowed

10 and followed if protection of our environment is

11 to happen. Indeed, that is what the Sustainable

12 Development Act, as weak as it is, is trying to

13 tell us.

14 The decision-making process around the

15 hog industry, by contrast, is imbued by the

16 language of litigation. As Lindy Clubb, a

17 committed environmentalist, has described

18 litigation: It is like when you've been told that

19 you are going to be pushed off a ladder. The

20 question you must answer is: What do you want

21 broken; your arm or your leg? The question that

22 should be asked is: What is it going to take to

23 prevent you from being pushed off the ladder in

24 the first place?

25 So what I'm saying, and what you will



1 likely hear from members of the public who live in

2 rural communities, is that the public interest has

3 been subsumed under the corporate, private

4 interest. The public interest has not only been

5 ignored and dismissed by most decision-makers, it

6 has actively been put on the back burner in

7 relation to the industry's interests. This has

8 been facilitated through changes in legislation

9 such as the Planning Act, changes in regulation

10 such as the new phosphorous regulations, rules

11 that permit conflicts of interest with

12 decision-makers and bureaucrats, lack of

13 accountability of decision-makers, little redress

14 for members of the public through an effective

15 ombudsman process, rules that hide information,

16 instead of making it available for public use and

17 informed meaningful participation and

18 decision-making and environmental protection

19 processes, and even a conscious removal of the

20 ability for people to use the courts to ensure

21 enforcement of existing legislation and

22 regulations relating to hog operations, among

23 other things.

24 Members of the public have been

25 assured that the province is there to act in the



1 public interest and to protect the public's

2 interest in the environment in the decision-making

3 process that has been developed for us. This is

4 simply not happening. The process is not working

5 for the public or for the environment. Our

6 collective experience bears this out. And you

7 will hear details from people how this assurance

8 is fraudulent.

9 Indeed, your role here is to provide

10 advice and recommendations to the Minister of

11 Conservation. It was the Minister who provided

12 the Terms of Reference for the hog industry

13 review. While the Terms of Reference sound good

14 on the face of it, what is the real objective of

15 the hog industry review? What do we know? We

16 know that the province has been committed to the

17 expansion of the hog industry, and the priority

18 has been a focus on economic factors and economic

19 growth.

20 In fact, this commitment goes back

21 many years. In 1995, the R.M. of St. Francois

22 Xavier made the decision about a hog operation.

23 And the minutes read that Michael Radcliffe, who

24 was acting on behalf of the proponent:

25 "Reminded council that hog production



1 has been identified as an area of

2 agricultural growth by the provincial

3 government. He and colony

4 representatives advised of the local

5 benefits of an increased tax base for

6 the R.M., in addition to the other

7 benefits to the local and provincial

8 economies that result from active

9 agricultural businesses."

10 In my experience, this advice, and

11 government policy, has not changed, be it a

12 conservative government or an NDP government. The

13 policy of expansion of the hog industry has

14 continued and it has been facilitated by all

15 parties. In effect, there has been no real

16 opposition in government to the hog industry,

17 beyond rhetoric and the scoring of a few political

18 brownie points here and there. Economic benefits,

19 or rather the empty promise of them, drives the

20 policy decisions of all levels of government about

21 the hog industry, not environmental

22 considerations. Sustainability and protection,

23 prevention principles do not drive these policy

24 decisions. Evidence of this lies in many places.

25 One such place is events around the



1 introduction of Bill 40, the Planning Amendment

2 Act, and its withdrawal by the government that

3 introduced it, and then the introduction and

4 passage of Bill 33, what is now the Planning Act.

5 The intent of changing the Planning Act was

6 primarily to address the livestock issue, that is

7 the highly divisive hog industry, and to make it

8 easier for municipalities to subdivide land for

9 development.

10 These two bills were a legal solution

11 to a huge political problem. The political

12 problem was that members of the public, who were

13 concerned about our environment, those who had

14 doubts and sincere concerns, and were in

15 opposition to particular hog operations locating

16 next door in their communities, were becoming

17 educated and effective in slowing down the

18 industry, and even stopping some operations from

19 being approved.

20 But most importantly, members of the

21 public were drawing attention to the failings of

22 the government in addressing the needs of

23 communities and the environment in the hog

24 industry's expansion. People had puzzled out that

25 the government, acting as industry promoters, were



1 also the regulators. People had puzzled out, and

2 have been collecting evidence, that the government

3 and its representatives, as regulator, are not

4 acting in the public interest. This was

5 embarrassing and politically damaging and had to

6 stop.

7 So what did they do? They changed the

8 Act, and they enhanced the role of the Technical

9 Review Committee. And it was through the

10 Technical Review Committee that the government

11 expressed its interest when local decision-makers

12 were asked to decide on the siting of hog barns.

13 The Technical Review Committee became the

14 determiner of what conditions the council could

15 place on hog production. They must be relatively

16 reasonable.

17 And the burden of proof about the

18 merits of a proposal required under the former

19 Planning Act of a proponent was weakened, yet the

20 Terms of Reference for the TRC haven't changed at

21 all. The TRC still is not required to check the

22 accuracy of the applicant's information. In fact,

23 I have been told, by a member of the Southwest

24 Regional Technical Review Committee, that it is

25 not the TRC's job to verify the suitability of



1 spread acres, for example. So whose job is it?

2 And as a councillor I asked for information to be

3 provided to me to do this myself, I was unable to

4 secure it. I couldn't do my duty as a councillor.

5 Here is an example, and I've brought

6 you an example of what the Technical Review

7 Committee provides to decision-makers about the

8 environmental appropriateness of spread acres.

9 There is about three examples here, if you could

10 pass them down. And here is an example of what

11 was provided to me when I asked for it and the

12 department, the Technical Review Committee,

13 decided to turn my request into a FIFA request,

14 which meant I had to wait a long time for it.

15 And I had got the information after

16 the public hearing on the operation. And here is

17 what I was asking for. Because if you get this

18 kind of information, you can put a grid on it and

19 within a one percent accuracy, you can calculate

20 the amount of available spread acres. You don't

21 have to estimate. And that work was never done by

22 the Technical Review Committee.

23 The Technical Review Committee also

24 makes gross errors. There is tons of examples of

25 this where people in the community have found



1 gross errors. And I have been privy to

2 communities myself. I have experience with that.

3 The R.M. of Turtle Mountain, for example, the

4 T.R.C. didn't notice a major drain through the

5 spread -- some of the spread acres for a proposed

6 operation.

7 The R.M. of Portage rejected a

8 proposal, and I've got copies here, because they

9 just didn't seem to notice the marsh.

10 There was a proposal in the R.M. of

11 Lorne, and, gee, they forgot all about Swan Lake

12 First Nation community in looking at set-back

13 distances and the aquifer.

14 In the R.M. of Daly, you know, there

15 was interaction between ground surface water, but

16 there they really didn't know anything about that.

17 The local people did, but they didn't know

18 anything about it.

19 The silencing of the public, the

20 rendering of their participation in the

21 decision-make process from being a meaningful one,

22 through the changes to the Planning Act, to one of

23 going through the motions. That's what I hear

24 from people: What's the point of being there now?

25 And if, by chance, you know, they can get enough



1 political pressure to bear on the council to get

2 them to actually look at the proposal objectively.

3 And that whole process is particularly offensive

4 to me coming from an NDP government that likes to

5 think of itself and portray itself as an

6 environmentally-friendly government.

7 The actions of this government, under

8 the leadership of Gary Doer, Minister of

9 Agriculture Rosanne Wowchuk, and Conservation

10 Minister Stan Struthers, shows its commitment to

11 the environment as being mostly lip service, in my

12 opinion. But it is more than that. This

13 government has actively removed the ability for

14 the public to have a meaningful influence on

15 public policy and decisions about the environment.

16 Meaningful public consultations have been replaced

17 by stakeholder democracy. Unless you are a

18 representative of a group, regardless of your

19 interest and expertise, you are left out. That's

20 how they are running the watershed plan exercises

21 now.

22 The policy of reducing public

23 participation in decisions around intensive

24 livestock operations has been fully supported by

25 the Conservative Party. And I have referred you



1 to Bill 33 in Hansard, if you want evidence of

2 that.

3 And I would like to say that it is

4 disturbing to note that the Pork Council at these

5 hearings was pushing the government to restrict

6 those who could attend conditional use hearings to

7 those who lived within a very short proximity of

8 their proposed operations. So I ask: Where is

9 the industry's interest in ensuring that the

10 larger environmental concerns are addressed in

11 this process?

12 Other initiatives of the government,

13 such as the Water Protection Act and regulations,

14 such as the new phosphorous regulation, have

15 little meaning to people who are living with the

16 effects of environmental degradation, if they fail

17 to translate into action and are supported by

18 appropriate resources and research from the

19 government.

20 The provincial view, as expressed, in

21 particular, through the Planning Act, the role of

22 the Technical Review Committee and government

23 bureaucracy in the approval and permanent process

24 for industrial hog operations and livestock manure

25 mortality management regulation is grounded in the



1 principle of litigation, as opposed to operating

2 on the principle of prevention or precaution.

3 This is a deliberate legislated and unwritten

4 policy of government that expresses itself in

5 various venues. This policy is reflected in the

6 way in which the technical review process proceeds

7 and the advice and recommendations provided to

8 local decision-makers. And we're getting bad

9 decisions as a result of that.

10 I want to talk a bit about the

11 phosphorus regulation because an examination of

12 these regulations is going to be central to the

13 evaluation of whether or not the hog industry in

14 Manitoba is sustainable. One of the central

15 points of the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board, the

16 Manitoba Phosphorous Expert Committee, scientists,

17 and the government has acknowledged this

18 themselves, is that applying more nutrients to the

19 land than what crops can help use causes build-up

20 and saturation of soils over time. Scientists

21 tell us that excess nutrients can, at any time,

22 become available to move into surface waters. A

23 small amount can cause significant problems.

24 The key to minimizing this is to apply

25 nutrients to land at the rate that crops can use



1 them. The fact is the new regulations allow for

2 manure to be applied at varying accelerated rates

3 until soil test readings, using the Olson method,

4 exceed 825 pounds of phosphate or P2O5 per acre.

5 To put this into perspective, the

6 lowest user, a 24 bushel crop of flax, removes

7 18 pounds per acre of phosphate with the seed and

8 straw. A 40 bushel of wheat crop uses 32 pounds

9 per acre, Canola 58. And 100 bushel crop of corn

10 or silage uses about 60 pounds per acre. So why

11 do we need 825? Soil test. Because, basically,

12 what the soil tests are measuring is about 10

13 percent of what's actually there. 90 percent,

14 about 90 percent of the phosphorus that's been

15 applied, is found in the soils. And this is from

16 information that is used in classrooms by soil

17 scientists to teach students about phosphorus.

18 So, I mean, obviously, a significant amount is

19 getting into our water. We have got 900 tonnes in

20 Lake Winnipeg, that's the estimate anyway.

21 So Pork Council people, at conditional

22 use hearings, refer to this as money in the bank,

23 attempting to convince municipalities to approve

24 the next hog operation but, in fact, it's an

25 ecological time bomb. The phosphorus regulation



1 simply is a licence to pollute. The Pork Council

2 claims that manure is applied at agronomic rates.

3 Then I ask you: Why is it going to cost the

4 industry $14 to $28 million to meet the

5 regulations?

6 It is also interesting to note that

7 the Pork Council chair, Karl Kynoch, wrote in a

8 Winnipeg Free Press article that the industry

9 worked closely with the government in developing

10 these regulations and the thresholds. This is one

11 of the reasons why the information I've requested

12 through the FIFA process becomes so important to

13 access and to analyze prior to any conclusions

14 being arrived at by your panel. It provides the

15 data for Manitoba's science-based assessment of

16 the ecological impact of the hog industry in

17 Manitoba on its soil and water resources. And it

18 also is going to tell us what kind of job the

19 province is doing.

20 But I have been informed that I have

21 to wait 13.5 years for it. And that's been told

22 to me by the Ombudsman, who is supposed to be the

23 body, the body of the legislature, that's supposed

24 to investigate matters where members of the public

25 think they have been aggrieved by a public body.



1 They are acting on behalf of the government

2 department to prevent me from getting this

3 information for the purpose of the CEC review.

4 I have recently been informed by the

5 Ombudsman's office, as well, that I will now have

6 to wait until September 2007 for the complaints

7 that I had submitted about important on-the-ground

8 information having been excluded from access

9 requested that I had submitted last year, such as

10 information about manure spreading and the

11 content. And I have to wait until September for

12 those to be addressed. And they told me it's

13 because there is this large volume of requests

14 that the department has to deal with. That's

15 called blaming the victim, and it's called hiding

16 information. And until this matter is resolved,

17 this interpretation will inform all of the

18 requests that are fulfilled.

19 And it is important to note that the

20 Finding Common Ground report, in key

21 recommendation number 2, states that:

22 "The Government of Manitoba should

23 accumulate all relevant data

24 concerning livestock operations in a

25 central openly available information



1 system, in a geographic information

2 format, to provide Manitobans with a

3 realistic assessment of the

4 sustainability of current operations

5 and their effect on both the local and

6 provincial governments because they

7 recognize that reliable information

8 must be available, not only to

9 government and industry, but also to

10 the concerned public."

11 I'm concerned that you have advised

12 Mr. Koroluk that you are not prepared to assist

13 members of the public in accessing information

14 through the FIFA process. I think you would be

15 hard-pressed to do a credible examination of the

16 hog industry without this information.

17 The Manitoba Pork Council has asked

18 that your decisions be science-based. But my

19 question is: Who is controlling the science in

20 this process? The Commission and the industry, as

21 I see it.

22 No funds have been provided to public

23 community groups for research. Those have been

24 specifically excluded from the process. The funds

25 are available on a reimbursement basis which means



1 that people have to have the money in the first

2 place. And farmers aren't flush with cash. Rural

3 residents aren't flush with cash these days.

4 I encourage the Commission to ask the

5 question: Why is the Pork Council taking this

6 political position: To narrow the scope of the

7 investigation and have it science based. When the

8 industry started its big expansion, the approach

9 from the Pork Council was to insist on

10 science-based decisions. When people in rural

11 communities rose to the challenge and presented

12 project proponents with science and local

13 expertise, finding gross errors in industrial hog

14 operation proposals and technical review reports,

15 the Pork Council changed its tactic to insisting

16 on made-in-Manitoba science, arguing that science

17 from other parts of the world and the experience

18 of people living in rural areas and other parts of

19 the world were invalid.

20 Minister of Agriculture, Rosann

21 Wowchuk, began parroting this line as well. So

22 calls from those who are concerned about the

23 environment or water and the effects of industrial

24 hog production in rural Manitoba on the provincial

25 government to commit resources to investigate what



1 is actually happening in Manitoba and produce

2 made-in-Manitoba science in order to inform the

3 public have been unheeded.

4 The vast majority of information has

5 been in the form of publicly subsidized

6 industry-driven studies. Now that the public has

7 been able to identify the significant deficiencies

8 and the lack of made-in-Manitoba science, the Pork

9 Council is calling on the Commission to make

10 science-based decisions. This encourages you to

11 reject the out of provincial science now that will

12 presented to you and see it as invalid. It is a

13 nice little political circle.

14 I would challenge you to break the

15 circle and acknowledge what Dr. Eva Pip has been

16 saying for years, mainly that Manitoba's pigs,

17 Manitoba's province and Manitoba's environment are

18 not as unique as the Pork Council would have you

19 believe. Biologically, we are the same as the

20 folks who live in North Carolina, Europe, Mexico

21 or Brazil. Pigs are biologically the same

22 worldwide. Our soils, while there may be

23 variations within Manitoba and North America, are

24 not different enough to warrant a complete

25 dismissal of the scientific evidence that has been



1 introduced in other areas. Regardless of the

2 position one may take on the issue, the science is

3 clear: Overloading soils with nutrients beyond

4 the capacity of plants to use them in a growing

5 season is bad news for Manitoba soils and bad news

6 for our water.

7 Just one second. I'm a farmer. I see

8 my relationship with the land as borrowing the

9 land from future generations, which is a concept

10 rooted in aboriginal traditions. I would

11 encourage the commissioners to ask why I would be

12 asking for tighter controls over food production?

13 I certainly -- it is certainly not in my economic

14 best interests to ask for this, if I buy the Pork

15 Council's argument. It is hard enough to make a

16 living from farming without adding more expense to

17 what I do.

18 So I suggest that you have to question

19 the motivation of all of the people who will be

20 presenting to you. Are their motivations rooted

21 in the public interest or are they rooted in the

22 individual or corporate interest? Does their

23 message serve to enhance the interest of

24 communities and the health of the people who live

25 in them? Does their message serve to protect and



1 restore the quality of the lifeblood of our

2 planet, which is our water? Does their message

3 serve to do no harm and to find ways of restoring

4 our environment and the ecological and human

5 communities dependent upon its health or are they

6 attempting to advance a private corporate

7 interest?

8 Our experience has been that the

9 government's policies and actions are aimed at

10 facilitating the expansion of the hog industry,

11 without any regard to the environment or the

12 health and well-being of the people and the health

13 and impact in the areas. We have been given

14 endless assurances by government and industry that

15 they are good environmental stewards and that

16 these assurances have been proven false.

17 Now we are told that the CEC is going

18 to conduct a thorough review of the sustainability

19 of the hog industry? Why should we believe this

20 or the Minister of the Environment? In fact, it

21 appears that the minister's view is completely

22 antithetical to a thorough review. In a letter

23 dated February 13, 2007, Minister Stan Struthers

24 wrote to Mr. John Fefcak, a concerned citizen:

25 "The time is right for Manitoba to



1 take a step back and have the Clean

2 Environment Commission conduct an

3 independent public review of the

4 sustainability of the hog industry and

5 the province's water protection plan.

6 We must work to restore public

7 confidence in the industry and in the

8 provincial government's regulation of

9 the industry."

10 Perhaps this helps explain why, after criticizing

11 the government's long awaited phosphorus

12 regulation in the Winnipeg Free Press, Norm

13 Brandson is no longer a member of the CEC panel

14 conducting this review.

15 The politics of pork in this province,

16 as it has elsewhere, has compromised just about

17 every decision-maker in this province. It has

18 split communities and jeopardized the future and

19 well-being of Manitobans, and the environment upon

20 which we depend, in the name of so-called economic

21 development. Your challenge is, in this

22 structurally defective process, to rise above

23 this. And I'm hoping to be delightfully

24 surprised. Thank you.

25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Miss



1 Pryzner.

2 Mr. Koroluk, I just note we are going

3 to break at 5:30 for supper. If your people are

4 not finished, we will come back at 7:00 to finish.

5 MR. KOROLUK: 5:35 tops?

6 THE CHAIRMAN: 5:35 tops.

7 MR. TAIT: Well, Mr. Chairman, and

8 members of the panel, I certainly do not envy the

9 task you have before you. Because, in a more

10 perfect world, we would have been holding this

11 process and having these discussions some ten

12 years ago and made our plans upfront as to how an

13 industry would expand, what some of the pitfalls

14 would be, and what steps we would take to do some

15 environmental and social and economic protection

16 for the people that could be negatively impacted.

17 But, unfortunately, it's become more

18 of the norm in Manitoba now where we go ahead and

19 we do a development. We study its impact

20 afterwards. And we try to mitigate the negative

21 circumstances that arise from those developments.

22 And it's already been mentioned here

23 today that government is playing multiple roles.

24 Government, both the current and the previous,

25 were promoters of the expansion of the intensive



1 livestock industry. That's a legitimate role for

2 government.

3 They also have assumed the role of

4 being the financier of the development, through

5 loan guarantees, through the Manitoba Agricultural

6 Credit Corporation. That's a traditional role of

7 government. Governments finance projects that

8 they see as economic development.

9 The government then takes on the role,

10 that is only really the role of government, to

11 play the role of the regulator. That's a

12 traditional role and a legitimate role of

13 government. Then, of course, they take on the

14 role of regulation, enforcer. And there is an

15 obvious contradiction in those four roles.

16 Government will not put equal emphasis on all four

17 of those.

18 And, unfortunately, and I say

19 unfortunately, and perhaps my information is not

20 correct, but I understand there was an application

21 for intervenor funding to do a regulatory review

22 on how regulations are developed, and how they are

23 applied, how they are enforced in relation to the

24 livestock industry in Manitoba. And that

25 application, I understand, was turned down. And



1 because, if my information is correct, and it was

2 turned down, then that puts a tremendous load of

3 work, I guess, on the Commission itself to do that

4 regulatory review.

5 Because, in my experience and my

6 observation, and my colleague group here has just

7 touched on it, there are failures there. And if

8 we don't address the failures in the regulatory

9 system, and the contradiction of roles a

10 government tries to exercise then, of course, we

11 will go into the future with the same flawed

12 regulatory regime, with the same results coming

13 out of it. And I don't like to even anticipate

14 that happening, but it certainly is a possibility.

15 In the order of reverse order, we have

16 seen, or witnessed within the last year or two

17 years, great discussion about creation of new

18 nutrient management regulations. One would have

19 thought, if one was serious as a government, they

20 would have engaged in this process and had a

21 recommendation come out of this process before

22 embarking. So I have to assume that a provincial

23 government that has invested so much political

24 capital in establishing these regulations would

25 consider amending them? In all likelihood, not.



1 I also was fairly heavily engaged in

2 the discussions that led to Bill 40, which was

3 withdrawn to change the Planning Act. And

4 subsequently it came back with hardly any change

5 at all, known as Bill 33.

6 And my colleague, Ruth Pryzner, has

7 had more experience than I in this. But I think

8 there is something the Commissioner should address

9 here in your deliberations and study. And you

10 have to ask the question: From what source did

11 the initiative come to change the Planning Act,

12 and who were the main beneficiaries of those

13 changes? And how did those changes or how will

14 those changes protect the environment and the

15 sustainability of our natural environment?

16 And the same comment can be made, to

17 an extent, about the Water Protection Act and the

18 Nutrient Management Zones. The opposition to

19 nutrient management regulation was extensive. It

20 was well funded, and it was very effective.

21 But the Commission, I think, you have

22 to ask yourself and understand some things. On my

23 farm, where I circulate the feed source from my

24 land, through my livestock, and from my livestock

25 back out on to the fields, it is impossible for me



1 to have a nutrient build-up. In fact, I will have

2 a nutrient loss, to some extent, because some of

3 the nutrient goes with the livestock and there is

4 an erosion from time to time. And then I build

5 some of that up again with legume crops.

6 But my main concern, in looking at

7 this industry, is the economic framework in which

8 it's forced to function. And in 2003, a very

9 critical report was published. And it was

10 authored by Dr. Ed Tyrchniewicz and Heather E.

11 Gregory. They had done a contract for the Federal

12 Department of Agriculture. That report shows

13 conclusively that Manitoba had lost its

14 competitive advantage in hog production at the

15 time that report was published in 2003 and, in

16 likelihood, it had lost its competitive advantage

17 sometime earlier than that.

18 And it had lost its competitive

19 advantage for two reasons. One totally beyond any

20 control, and the speculation was the increased

21 value of the Canadian dollar. The other was the

22 cost of importing feed grain. And the

23 Tyrchniewicz-Gregory study showed that in 2003

24 Manitoba had a huge feed grain deficit. They were

25 recording Manitoba Department of Agriculture



1 statistics. The late Darryl Kraft and a

2 colleague, Rude, in the same timeframe, published

3 another report that showed that deficit could be

4 as large as one billion tons.

5 So then the question comes, I think,

6 for the Commission, because I've struggled with

7 this: Why would the industry and the Provincial

8 Government continue to finance and promote and

9 expand an industry in the North American market

10 when it was clear you had lost your economic

11 advantage in that marketplace? That is a

12 difficult one to ask -- to answer. Because then

13 when you come or say, well, there are some fixed

14 costs that you can see to hog production, feed

15 being the largest one. Environmental regulation

16 fits into that equation someplace, and so does the

17 cost of labour. What other factors could we

18 factor in that we could regain our competitive

19 advantage in the North American market? Because,

20 obviously, they must have known something, or had

21 some intent, because I think there is enough

22 business sense in the industry, and I hope there

23 is enough business sense over on Broadway, to know

24 that it was futile to expand an industry with

25 public loan guarantees when you had lost your



1 competitive advantage.

2 Another thing that has puzzled me,

3 again on the economic side of this whole equation,

4 it was one thing to promote and develop this

5 industry to the level we have, in spite of this

6 huge feed grain deficit.

7 But almost simultaneously, in the last

8 three years, we're also pushing an ethanol

9 industry. And in the Renewable Fuels Act, the

10 processor of ethanol is required to consume

11 Manitoba-produced grain that doesn't exist. How

12 can that be? These are things for the Commission

13 to discover. How could it possibly be that by

14 developing ethanol, you are going to put pressure

15 on the feed grain supply for the livestock

16 industry you have already promoted, which has an

17 inflationary pressure on feed grain prices, which

18 puts an industry that already was identified as

19 being at an economic, or at a competitive

20 disadvantage, at more of a disadvantage? How

21 could such inconsistency come from the same

22 sources? That question, I think, needs to be

23 resolved. Because, in the end, Ed Tyrchniewicz

24 and Heather Gregory pointed out that if this

25 industry fails, the province is so heavily



1 burdened with loan guarantees, it could have a

2 tremendous impact on the financial stability of

3 the province itself.

4 Other plans that I sometimes have

5 trouble understanding if they exist or they don't

6 understand, is we have some experience in the

7 cattle industry, where I am, with border closures.

8 And we've had some outbreaks of disease in other

9 livestock periodically over our long history.

10 What does the contingency plan look like if we

11 suddenly lost ability to export? Because of the

12 nature of the hog industry and its tremendous

13 capacity and rapid productive capacity, we would

14 be in a crisis in days. What does the contingency

15 plan look like?

16 I also, as a farmer, just dread the

17 fact that when you turn on a radio and you hear a

18 barn burn of any nature, whether it be dairy or

19 whether it be poultry or hogs. But I think the

20 Commission itself needs to say: Why is it that we

21 do not have a building code concerning farm

22 buildings that would at least give some

23 preliminary fire protection?

24 I have a close acquaintance who

25 attended one fire of a hog barn. The stress of



1 thousands of animals being burned to death so

2 affected him that he will never again go to a

3 fire. He withdrew from the local fire department

4 over that. He has nightmares over it.

5 I also cannot help but note, again

6 today, that when we're talking about industry,

7 whether it be agriculture, and today we are

8 talking about the production of intensive

9 livestock, and particularly hogs, we seem to look

10 at figures of gross income. Gross incomes

11 figures, as any of us in agriculture know, are

12 very misleading.

13 I would think that the Commission

14 should look at net income. Look at the net income

15 that is separated from program support and

16 off-farm income to give you a true picture of the

17 economic health of the industry. Because, in my

18 observation, if an industry is not economically

19 healthy, I don't see how it can possibly be

20 environmentally healthy, because people will be

21 forced to cut corners. And so by breaking those

22 figures apart, you can get a pictures, I think, of

23 economic health. And I don't envy you that task,

24 because there are individuals I'm associated with

25 who have, for some time now, tried to break apart



1 what level of program support is going to this

2 industry and other industries, and we can't do it.

3 Perhaps the Commission, with its resources, will

4 be more successful.

5 I also think that the Commission

6 should be leery when they hear talk about the area

7 can utilize this or that level of nutrient. You

8 have to be site specific. Because you can talk

9 about the 13 million-acres of cultivated land that

10 we have available, and that would be about as

11 rational as taking the population of Manitoba and

12 spreading it over the same acreage and ignoring

13 that the Cities of Winnipeg and Brandon exist. It

14 has to be site specific when you are talking about

15 an industry. It's the impact of the industry on

16 the land base that the industry itself is actually

17 occupying and using.

18 You also have to ask yourself, and it

19 came up here today, about: What if? And there

20 will be instances in the future where operations

21 will go bankrupt, will be abandoned for economic

22 reasons and so on. You have to ask: Why did the

23 Province initially reject bonding for public

24 protection? That was the first regulation out of

25 the Tyrchniewicz, Carter Whitaker study, Finding



1 Common Ground, that was instantaneously rejected

2 by the Minister of Agriculture. Why? And in

3 whose interest did that abandonment serve?

4 And if we have an abandonment, I think

5 that the Commission should look at how would

6 abandonment take place? And I believe that

7 abandonment would take place by abandoning the

8 structure and then failing to pay taxes upon it

9 and then it would resort to local government. So

10 we have seen lots of that sort of thing, with the

11 knowledge of underground storage tanks, and stuff

12 like that, that were leaking. And there was a

13 huge liability to try and clean those sites up.

14 And those sites became unsaleable. Nobody else

15 wanted them because they would assume the

16 liability. That is an area that I think is worth

17 the Commission taking a look at.

18 There have been some discussions about

19 public participation. I will maybe get into that

20 in closing. But I would ask the Commission to

21 consider, we have had discussion about the

22 Planning Act, and you will hear lots more. Why

23 would there be a difference between urban and

24 rural planning? Why would it be seen necessary

25 that the Province would have to impose a level of



1 control on planning and rural areas and not in

2 urban areas? Where does the initiative of that

3 come from? Who can benefit by such a system and

4 by how much and when and how?

5 There will be a lot of talk in the

6 next weeks when you go around the Province about

7 the issue of water licences being issued. And

8 there was a discussion a bit today, a question

9 came, a good question from one of the

10 Commissioners, about this very issue. I can

11 rattle off some instances where water licences

12 were provided on unproven aquifers and the wells

13 went dry within weeks of the beginning of the

14 operation. So I don't have confidence as to the

15 industry and the knowledge of the Province's main

16 aquifer like the Carvery Aquifer, yes. The

17 Sandilands Aquifer, yes. I have a pretty good

18 understanding of them. But the small aquifers

19 where barns are being located, that knowledge does

20 not exist.

21 And I can tell you of instances where

22 adjoining wells, on adjoining properties, soon

23 went dry after these wells came in operation. The

24 local land owners, long-term owners, were

25 inconvenienced and had no recourse because you



1 cannot prove, in a court of law, that your well

2 went dry because somebody else pumped the water

3 out of the aquifer.

4 I would ask that the Commissioners

5 also look at the issues of the economics of

6 over-application of commercial fertilizers. I

7 don't know of a banker in Manitoba that would

8 entertain a farmer coming in and saying: I would

9 like to apply 825 pounds of PTO5 on my field this

10 year. But the economics of a livestock industry,

11 or an agriculture industry, in general, that is

12 hard pressed economically, the economics are that

13 over-application is a form of financial survival

14 and environmental destruction.

15 And when you, in time, you are going

16 to hear presentations from the public about the

17 inconvenience of odour. And you saw a short

18 presentation today from the Council, saying that

19 77 percent of people surveyed had no negative

20 experience. That's logical, because the survey

21 took a list of residents that circled the

22 operations. Our winds are prevailing from the

23 west, northwest, southwest. And under normal

24 conditions, I wouldn't expect the people to the

25 north, to the direct south, to the west, northwest



1 and southwest of the operations would ever smell

2 any odour. And if they did, it would be only on

3 very rare occasions, so be conscious of that.

4 The other issue that I think the

5 Commission needs to ask itself, and to people who

6 come before it, can an intensive livestock

7 industry function without the non-therapeutic use

8 of veterinary drugs? Because if it can't, then

9 what are the -- what are the alternatives? And

10 where does that put the Commission in its final --

11 in its final -- writing its final report?

12 When we -- when we finish up this

13 process, you will have heard from many people.

14 And you have heard from some here today. You have

15 heard from residents that have very legitimate

16 complaints about the type of service they have

17 gotten from civil servants, whose only task in

18 life should be to service the public good. These

19 are legitimate complaints. What this type of

20 service does is it damages the public's confidence

21 in government. And from experience, any of us

22 that live in rural communities, we have a

23 hostility to government as it is, without throwing

24 these types of buckets of fuel on to it.

25 You have already heard today, and you



1 will hear again, that critical information that we

2 need to make a very good judgment as to the

3 success and failure or where we should make

4 adjustments in looking and developing livestock

5 that we have is not available, will not be

6 available until at least 2020. And if the

7 Ombudsman keeps us what he is doing, it might not

8 be available by then.

9 You will hear, as you go around the

10 communities, how when people were trying to

11 actively participate in developing their planning

12 for their communities, how they were overwhelmed,

13 particularly by department staff, and the

14 Department of Agriculture, and also from paid

15 staff from the Manitoba Pork Council.

16 You will hear evidence of long delays

17 in responding to complaints from citizens of

18 environmental infractions to such a degree that

19 the evidence of the infraction is gone and the

20 response to the complainant is: No such evidence

21 was found.

22 And your report, in the end, will

23 emerge from this. And those of us that take an

24 interest in environmental issues, we will get

25 copies. And we will keep them and we will refer



1 to them in the future because environmental

2 protection and public participation really never

3 ends.

4 But there is another report that's

5 being written. And that report is being written

6 by the natural environment in which we live in.

7 Lake Winnipeg is writing its own report. The

8 Stephenfield Lake is writing its report. The

9 Little Saskatchewan River is writing its report.

10 And at the end of the day, future critics,

11 observers, will compare the report that came from

12 the Commission, and from this process, and they

13 will compare the one that comes from the natural

14 environment. And they will make their own

15 judgment calls of what success we were in

16 preventing the one that comes from the natural

17 environment as being as bad as I suspect it's

18 going to be. Thank you.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Tait.

20 Ms. Burns.

21 VICKI BURNS, representing Winnipeg Humane Society

22 MS. BURNS: Okay. Hello. I'm Vicki

23 Burns, Executive Director of the Winnipeg Humane

24 Society.

25 And I am going to end on, I would say,



1 kind of a positive note in the sense that I would

2 really like to make comments related to how I hope

3 that the hog industry will move forward. I'm

4 really focusing on the production systems.

5 I am not going to talk about animal

6 welfare because I understand that's not the

7 purview of this Environment Commission. But it is

8 really important to understand that the production

9 systems are really what this industry --

10 everything else flows from how the pigs are

11 raised. So I think it's terribly important to

12 really pay attention to the type of housing, what

13 type of manure collection system is in place,

14 whether the animals are raised on straw, whether

15 sub-therapeutic antibiotics are used. Those types

16 of issues are all of tremendous importance to

17 ultimately what environmental effects flow from

18 this industry.

19 Now, just a little bit of history.

20 Since the 2nd World War, agriculture all over the

21 world has been based on an industrial model. And

22 in animal agriculture, the industrialization has

23 resulted in what we all know as intensive

24 livestock operations. In the simplest of terms,

25 that really means raising many, many animals,



1 sometimes thousands of animals, in very confined,

2 unnatural conditions and relying on the use of

3 very small doses of antibiotics to make it work.

4 The production systems have accounted

5 for the very basic needs of the animals. In other

6 words, their need to be fed, and have some

7 shelter, and so on. But what they haven't

8 accounted for is what we call the species-specific

9 needs of the animals. And the measures that are

10 taken to mitigate that, in other words, the

11 industrialization not being able to take into

12 account the species-specific needs of the animals,

13 the measures that are taken are often part of what

14 we are now witnessing as what we consider the

15 environmental problems.

16 And I think, you know, what your

17 Commission is going to be looking at is a lot of

18 the issues related to air quality, water quality,

19 human health. For many reasons, we are now

20 learning that trying to raise large numbers of

21 animals in the cheapest ways has other hidden

22 costs. So I believe, and I think lots of other

23 people believe, that this industrial style of

24 animal agriculture really isn't sustainable in the

25 long run. And it won't be sustainable, not until



1 we can actually put recognition of the animals'

2 species-specific needs back into the equation.

3 So what does that really mean to the

4 hog industry? It is kind of a scientific-sounding

5 term. But specifically it means: What do pigs

6 actually need to do? Well, what it means is they

7 need to root in something. And we have a lot of

8 what they like to root in, and that is straw. So

9 I am really, really urging the industry, actually,

10 you could use the words "begging the industry", to

11 please listen to this, because there is many good

12 reasons that you are going to hear, from all over

13 the world, why we should be using straw-based

14 systems.

15 Pigs have an innate desire to root

16 around. That's how they spend a lot of their day,

17 if they possibly can, looking for bits of stuff to

18 chew on and eat. And they also have this

19 instinctive need to create a nest for themselves.

20 And here in Manitoba, we do have some straw-based

21 systems. And we know that they are working

22 properly.

23 Feeding animals what they need to eat,

24 it sounds good but, actually, it's not enough. I

25 know that some of the hog industry have heard from



1 Dr. Peter Brooks, from the University of Plymouth,

2 who I think gave a presentation recently at the

3 Manitoba Swine Centre, or at least he did in the

4 last couple of years, where he talks about the

5 feed requirements of pigs is far more than their

6 nutritional needs. In other words, they need to

7 feel full. They need to actually fill up on

8 stuff. And allowing them to chew on straw,

9 throughout the day, is the most economical and

10 environmentally-friendly way to do that.

11 Another of the reasons why our hog

12 industry should move towards straw-based systems

13 is basically economics. Now, since we met last

14 time, there has been some tremendous news in the

15 hog industry. And that is the announcement from

16 Smithfield Foods and from Maple Leaf foods that

17 they are going to phase out the use of gestation

18 stalls over the next ten years. That is an

19 indication of consumer's interests, and that's

20 only going to grow. Consumers are interested in,

21 you know, buying pork that comes from what they

22 consider humane systems. They know that raising

23 pork on straw is consistent with the idea of

24 allowing animals to fulfill their natural

25 instincts. So economically, if we want to be part



1 of the world market, it's important for us to

2 recognize that now. Please don't dig your heels

3 in about that.

4 There are also other environmental

5 advantages. Recently I spoke to Dr. Katherine

6 Buckley, from the Agriculture Research Station in

7 Brandon, about the issue of straw-based systems.

8 She is doing a lot of research on that. Now, one

9 of the very positive things is air quality. There

10 is a scientific reason why having animals on straw

11 creates far less odour than having no straw. The

12 ammonia loss is reduced tremendously when manure

13 is mixed in with straw. So hopefully that kind of

14 science will reach your hands because it is very

15 important.

16 On that note, I really respectfully

17 urge you to visit barns. If you haven't already,

18 visit and compare your own personal reaction to

19 being in barns that have the liquid manure and

20 being in barns with straw based, because there

21 really is a very big difference.

22 One of the other environmental --

23 positive environmental impacts that come from

24 straw-based systems, according to Dr. Buckley, are

25 that when the straw-based systems compost the



1 manure before they put it on the fields, it

2 actually helps a lot in terms of water retention

3 of those soils. So if the composted manure is

4 being put on soils that is highly erodible, it is

5 going to help decrease that erosion. And with

6 what we're hearing now about climate change and

7 the predictions about drier summers and so on,

8 building in something that's going to actually

9 help our soil retain water just makes a lot of

10 good sense. So that research is right in our

11 hands here in Manitoba right now, and we can refer

12 to that.

13 One of the other issues related to the

14 public's heightened interest in climate change now

15 is the -- what I consider the fairly recently

16 recognized contribution of animal agriculture to

17 greenhouse gas emissions. You know, that's just

18 something that a lot of us have not really paid

19 very much attention to, but it's going to be --

20 there is a lot more attention that's going to be

21 paid to it in the next few years, I'm certain of

22 that.

23 And, ultimately, what that may mean

24 for animal agriculture in Manitoba, and all over

25 the world, is it may mean that there are going to



1 be fewer animals raised for food. So I don't

2 think it's crazy to predict that we are probably

3 going to have to decrease the number of pigs who

4 are raised in Manitoba. But if we make sure now

5 to set our industry on the right course, we can

6 ensure that, even if we raised and produced only

7 half the number of pigs over the next ten years,

8 if we do it the right way so that the world market

9 is there for that product, and we build in that

10 producers get compensated more per animal, we are

11 going a long way towards long-term sustainability.

12 Now, on the note of fewer animals, I

13 just want to make the point that Maple Leaf, one

14 of the largest hog producers in Canada, have

15 announced that they are very significantly

16 decreasing the size of their sow herds. And I

17 think that's really an important factor for the

18 industry to pay attention to.

19 One of the other developments that's

20 very recent, and that should be a red flag to our

21 hog industry, is that in the Unites States there

22 has been a lot of attention focused on the

23 non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animal

24 agriculture. And recently, I believe it was just

25 in the last month, there was a bill introduced,



1 both to the Senate and to Congress, that

2 essentially it could combat the antibiotic

3 resistance crisis in human healthcare by phasing

4 out the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in

5 animal agriculture. This bill is supported by

6 more than 350 groups in the Unites States,

7 including the American Medical Association, the

8 Infectious Diseases Society of America and the

9 American Academy of Pediatrics.

10 And a recent report that was

11 co-authored by Dr. David Wallinga, from the

12 Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy in

13 Minneapolis, his report has demonstrated that the

14 routine use of antibiotics in livestock production

15 is contributing to the rise of

16 antibiotic-resistant germs in humans. And that is

17 something that is going to really create much more

18 public concern. And there is no question that is

19 going to come to Canada. So let's be ahead of the

20 game and build in systems that can work without

21 using those sub-therapeutic antibiotics. Raising

22 thousands of animals under one roof in tight

23 conditions, it is simply not going to work, unless

24 you can give them those types of antibiotics, and

25 that's going to stop soon.



1 So to conclude, I want to reiterate

2 that we do need to pay attention to all of those

3 recent developments. The Maple Leaf and the

4 Smithfield's announcements about the phasing out

5 of sow stalls; the news about the overall impact

6 of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock

7 production; the proposed legislation in the States

8 about phasing out the non-therapeutic use of

9 antibiotics; and the dire straits of Lake

10 Winnipeg. Really, it is time for Manitoba to get

11 serious about building a hog industry that is

12 sustainable well into the future.

13 Our province is heavily reliant on

14 agriculture. Really, we should all be looking

15 long term, not at the profits over the next five

16 years. But if we care about our children, and our

17 grandchildrens' future, and the future of farmers

18 in this province, we can see now what needs to be

19 done. And I really beg all of you to pay

20 attention to that.

21 And we cannot pay attention to what

22 this industry is -- we can't do it without paying

23 attention to what the industry is built on. They

24 are animals. I'm sorry to have to remind you of

25 that, because I know you don't want to pay



1 attention to that, but they are animals. And in

2 order to have it long-term sustainable, we need to

3 recognize the species-specific needs of those

4 animals. We need to put respect for nature and

5 for animals back into the equation. If we can do

6 that, we will go a long way towards ensuring that

7 our hog farmers will have a livelihood to count

8 on, and that we will have an environment in

9 Manitoba that's safe and healthy for all of us.

10 Thank you.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Burns.

12 Do you have any wrap-up, Mr. Koroluk?

13 MR. KOROLUK: No.

14 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, can I just

15 jump in for a second? Can I get copies of your

16 presentations to put on the record, just as a

17 reminder, because it's an important part of this

18 whole process. Thank you.

19 THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to thank

20 Mr. Koroluk, in particular, for putting together

21 this group. And I would like to thank all five of

22 you for your very thought-provoking presentations

23 this afternoon.

24 We are now going to break for supper.

25 We will be back here at 7:00.



1 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 5:31 P.M.

2 AND RECONVENED AT 7:01 P.M.)

3 THE CHAIRMAN: Good evening. Could we

4 come to order, please? Good evening. I would

5 like to come back to order. So far we have had

6 four people request to make presentations this

7 evening. If anybody else would wish to make a

8 presentation tonight, please let Joyce, at the

9 back of the room, know.

10 The first person we have up tonight is

11 Mr. Van Slyke. Mr. Van Slyke, would you please

12 state your full name for the record, and then I

13 will have the commission secretary administer the

14 oath?

15 Victor Van Slyke, representing ATD Waste Systems

16 Inc.

17 MR. SLYKE: My name is Victor Van

18 Slyke.

19 VICTOR VAN SLYKE: Having been sworn in, presents

20 as follows:

21 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.

22 MR. SLYKE: Good evening, everyone.

23 As you know, my name is Victor Van Slyke. And ATD

24 Waste Systems is a private company incorporated in

25 British Columbia in 1993. We started ATD to look



1 for a vegetable waste/landfill solution, but when

2 we were told that the hog industry had a much more

3 pressing problem, we adapted our expertise to this

4 new challenge. Suffice to say, it has been a long

5 and fascinating learning experience.

6 ATD has created a hog manure recovery

7 system that eliminates environmental concerns and

8 resolves nutrient balance problems to finally

9 allow a vibrant and sustainable hog industry to

10 move forward.

11 The system makes a dry fertilizer,

12 clean water, and it works because it takes manure

13 straight from the barn.

14 We've obtained two patents, and are

15 pending on a third, and have been assisted along

16 the way by the University of B.C., Chemical

17 Engineering Department, Hipp-Anvil Engineering

18 Ltd. of Vancouver, the North Carolina State

19 University, and members of their staffs.

20 Here are the targets we set for the

21 system.

22 First, we recognized that we had to

23 develop an environmentally sustainable and

24 economically viable system. The environmental

25 issues were simply set at not discharging to the



1 environment. The drive to economic viability was

2 more troublesome. While odour reduction was

3 largely achieved, we found that by itself it could

4 not provide the returns we needed. So, we

5 developed an integrated approach that, while more

6 costly, provided the investment returns that make

7 it viable. We also identified some value-added

8 benefits that are not included in those returns.

9 Secondly, we wanted to install the

10 system on any farm, in any climate, and it had to

11 be easy for an operator to use. That meant

12 finding processes and equipment used in other

13 industries so we could utilize their experience to

14 make things easy to operate. We tied them

15 together in an operating system that can prompt an

16 operator and be remotely monitored by ATD to keep

17 it running efficiently. We had to buy what we

18 needed off the shelf from suppliers that could

19 support us anywhere in the world and make things

20 easy to repair. That's where we found that old

21 technology can be applied to new problems. It

22 seems to be true that there is nothing really new

23 in the world. They are just being rediscovered.

24 Lastly, because of the weather, and a host of

25 other reasons, we wanted to avoid anaerobic



1 treatment. Well, we did that.

2 In terms of viability, we had to get

3 an idea of an operator's current costs so that a

4 comparison to our system could be made. There

5 were some surprises along the way, for example,

6 nitrogen losses in long-term storage were one,

7 water consumption was another, and now new

8 phosphorus rules and expansion are creating

9 nutrient imbalances for some.

10 We recognized that each operation

11 would be unique. And because of that, we

12 developed a spreadsheet that reflects the

13 engineering characteristics of our system and its

14 costs, thus allowing us to customize a solution

15 with an operator's information to get an estimate

16 of the potential costs and benefits before any

17 commitments are made. I will give you some

18 ballpark figures as to costs later and explain how

19 it works as we go along.

20 It would be nice to think we could

21 just compare the two costs, an operator's and

22 ours, and make a decision. But in putting a total

23 solution together, we found that such a comparison

24 was going to be difficult. We had created a major

25 new approach with benefits that could only be



1 valued by the operator.

2 So, while the quantifiable items are

3 largely dependent on the individual operation, I

4 would ask for the moment that you accept that:

5 You won't need manure storage facilities.

6 You won't be disposing of manure slurry.

7 You will use less water.

8 You will produce fewer odours and improve air

9 quality.

10 You will do it on the land you have - even expand

11 on it!

12 You will capture more nutrients.

13 You will reduce greenhouse gases.

14 You will be supported by ATD, long term.

15 Now, with all that in mind, I would ask that you

16 put a value on these other benefits. Yeah, find

17 me one, there you go.

18 Regulatory permitting process is

19 simplified. Reduced odours and water consumption,

20 coupled with the elimination of potential threats

21 to the environment by manure storage facilities

22 and land disposal, will help the permitting

23 process proceed. A strong presentation at public

24 hearings will now provide a positive opportunity

25 to reinforce an operator's commitment to the



1 environment and stewardship of the land.

2 Reduced odours. How do we do it?

3 There are two major components in the odours

4 people complain about, ammonia and the by-products

5 of anaerobic activity. The ATD solution is to

6 stop odour production before it begins.

7 Ammonia is cautioned by enzymes

8 produced by bacteria in feces attacking urea in

9 the urine. By using conveyors at rest, we

10 separate the feces and their bacteria from the

11 urine in the barn and move the urine out

12 immediately. This allows the feces to dry

13 aerobically until the end of the day when the

14 conveyor belt is scraped clean, drastically

15 reducing ammonia production and preserving urea.

16 All manure is treated within 24 hours.

17 Low ammonia means:

18 Improved health for the animals and staff.

19 Lower vet bills.

20 Lung lesions reduced or eliminated.

21 Better feed conversion and earlier to market, some

22 say as much as three days.

23 The other major components of the

24 odour are produced by anaerobic activity. Prompt

25 removal and treatment just doesn't allow that to



1 happen. There will be no hydrogen sulfide safety

2 concerns.

3 We aren't perfect! Barn smells will

4 continue to come from evaporation on the floor,

5 the animals themselves. We still discharge to the

6 air. Changes to barn ventilation can direct

7 exhaust to a biofilter or other odour-destroying

8 equipment. Our burner has been designed for

9 biomass fuels, we use feces, with discharge levels

10 well below the current regulatory requirements.

11 We also discharge moist air from the dryer, which

12 is directed to our only biological treatment

13 facility, an all-weather biofilter.

14 Liquids are treated by membrane

15 filtration, heat, pH shock and UV radiation to

16 ensure pathogen-free water for reuse. Your feed

17 and wash-down water volume will be cut in half to

18 reduce costs as water becomes more expensive and,

19 in some cases, in short supply. The system can be

20 configured to handle irrigation with reduced

21 suspended solids.

22 Computer-assisted operation. The

23 system components are tied into a monitoring

24 system that ATD can monitor remotely, should it be

25 required. System prompts help the operators



1 respond to any action that may be called for.

2 Pellets will carry the analysis

3 provided by the herd, but can be supplemented as

4 required. They are sterilized by the heat of the

5 dryer and will be weed-free. By exporting surplus

6 nutrients, hog density can be increased on the

7 same acreage while maintaining a nutrient balance.

8 Better crop fertilization. Nutrients

9 can be applied more accurately and conveniently,

10 with pellets having a consistent analysis and a

11 high organic content.

12 More heat. Hot water heating is

13 available for barns or residential use as a

14 by-product of drying.

15 A new brand is created.

16 Environmentally sound management should receive

17 market endorsement and a better return. This is

18 the differentiation exporters are looking for as

19 part of their "Canadian" brand.

20 Easier to find staff. New recovery

21 techniques, better air, cleaner surroundings will

22 encourage farm employment.

23 Should an opportunity to relocate

24 present itself, as a neighbour who doesn't stink,

25 doesn't discharge to the land or water, and



1 conserves water, you can locate closer to a feed

2 mill or packing house to reduce transportation

3 costs, a major item.

4 Reduced footprint. New operations

5 will no longer need disposal acreage or manure

6 storage facilities. Employ that capital to

7 capturing nutrients in pellets and increasing

8 populations.

9 There may be other biomass fuels

10 available that are under-utilized, for example,

11 flax and hemp straw.

12 New sources of revenue. Greenhouse

13 gas reduction credits and fertilizer sales provide

14 stable cash flow that is not affected by the hog

15 market, providing some shelter from market swings.

16 Money used for current manure recovery can be

17 redirected. Litigation may be avoided.

18 Dietary changes can be refocused.

19 With odours and manure nutrients under control,

20 dietary changes can be directed to the production

21 of meat, rather than environmental impact.

22 With the odours associated with manure

23 storage facilities and their management eliminated

24 and barn odours reduced, the negative impact of

25 those old features can be reversed.



1 So, in summary, our targets were:

2 No discharge to the environment. As there is no

3 manure storage facility, nor land disposal, we

4 have eliminated them as sources of potential

5 trouble, while reducing greenhouse gases by more

6 than 65 percent. With anaerobic activity

7 eliminated, then so are greenhouse gases, no

8 matter how they are going to be measured. All

9 water is now either part of the pellet or water

10 vapour exhausted to the biofilter, while the rest

11 is cleaned for recycling to the barns. All solids

12 and materials used in the process find their way

13 into the pellet, including the ash from the

14 burner.

15 There is no new technology. We have

16 found a new way to use the existing technology.

17 Economic viability: By eliminating a

18 manure handling cost center in favour of an

19 investment in a new fertilizer manufacturing

20 business. By creating new revenue streams from

21 fertilizer and greenhouse gas emission credits,

22 this vertical integration and diversification

23 places a safety net under hog market prices.

24 The capital budget estimates for a

25 10,000 place grow to finish facility in Canada



1 runs in the area of $5 million, with payback in

2 less than 11 years. This is approximately

3 equivalent to 6,800 sows, farrow to wean, 53,000

4 nursery pigs, 5,000 sows, farrow to feeder, and

5 1,300 sows, farrow to finish. A 20,000 place

6 finisher in Canada comes to about $7.5 million,

7 with payback in about 7.5 years, excluding

8 interest costs. This capital outlay sounds like a

9 lot, but remember there are four sources of

10 revenue.

11 There is the sale of surplus

12 fertilizer, the sale of greenhouse gas emission

13 credits, recovery of current manure managements

14 costs, and avoidance of future manure management

15 costs. These four cash flows, and the tangible

16 results from the value-added benefits I spoke of

17 earlier, will turn a manure management cost center

18 into a profit center.

19 Over the last few years, when people

20 have raised objections to hog farms, I have often

21 said that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

22 Well, today we are out of that tunnel, and it is

23 now up to us to move ahead as fast as we can.

24 Now, I would like to discuss the

25 process in a little more detail.



1 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we not have

2 conversations in the audience, please?

3 MR. SLYKE: I'm sorry, I didn't hear

4 that.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: I was just asking that

6 nobody carry on conversations in the audience.

7 MR. SLYKE: Okay.


9 MR. SLYKE: I think, starting here

10 with the barns, remember we've got two streams,

11 urine and feces. Let's follow the -- isn't that

12 funny. Okay, let's take the liquid stream here,

13 the urine stream first. Starting with the

14 conveyors in the barn, the unique shape and slope

15 of the conveyor at rest allows the urine to drain

16 immediately into the pipeline that will take it to

17 the treatment building where, after some

18 pre-treatment, it will be passed through the

19 membrane filter. If necessary, the filtrate will

20 then go to an ammonia extraction process, which

21 uses heat and pH to remove the ammonia and convert

22 it to ammonium sulfate, which will eventually be

23 added back to the solids prior to drying.

24 The liquid is then passed through the

25 ultraviolet radiation process, pH adjusted and



1 cooled before being returned to the barns, where

2 it will be mixed 50/50 with your normal feed water

3 supply. The pH adjustment is done with lime,

4 which eventually finds its way into the pellet,

5 along with some sulphuric acid, which brings the

6 pH down to normal range.

7 Now the feces path: Having allowed

8 the feces to remain exposed to air circulation for

9 up to 24 hours, the conveyor is rotated and

10 scraped. This will take about five minutes or so

11 each day. The feces are dropped into a bin, which

12 is transferred to the treatment building to be fed

13 into the dryer to produce fuel for the following

14 day. As soon as that is done, the lime sludge,

15 burner ash and ammonium sulfate are added to the

16 remaining feces to be dried and pelleted. The

17 pellets are then moved into bulk storage.

18 We expect a 10,000 head operation to

19 produce about 2,500 tons of pellets per year, with

20 an NPK of about 10-8-7, with sulphur at 4, calcium

21 at 4 and magnesium at 1.4. And that should sell

22 for about $200 a tonne, based on equivalent

23 chemical prices.

24 Bulk chemicals are lime and sulphuric

25 acid, which are consumed and find their way into



1 the pellet. We took measurements of the nitrogen

2 available on manure discharged fresh from the barn

3 and compared it to the nitrogen left when the

4 storage facility was pumped and distributed. That

5 is where we found a substantial loss of nitrogen,

6 close to 70 percent, which confirmed other

7 studies.

8 As you can see, there will be no

9 further need for flushing. So if you are flushing

10 now, we can reduce your water consumption by more

11 than 50 percent, and pumping costs are reduced

12 accordingly.

13 Ammonia in the barn will be

14 substantially reduced, and what little anaerobic

15 activity occurs is internal to the feces itself.

16 The dryer uses biomass, the feces or some

17 alternate that might be available, and while

18 generating carbon dioxide, it does not count

19 against us in determining CO2 reduction. Within

20 the next few months, we may finally have some idea

21 as to the remission credits that may be available,

22 and the extent that a fair market price be

23 obtained for them.

24 While the industry is coming to grips

25 with increased pressure on both the economic and



1 environmental fronts, we have been active in

2 obtaining credibility for our product. We have

3 been short-listed by the North Carolina State

4 University to supply up to four conveyor systems

5 to their experimental hog facility. Our patent

6 application is currently being reviewed, and we

7 expect approval any day now.

8 So, in conclusion, you may have found

9 our website and will already be aware that we are

10 searching for a demonstration site. Hopefully, it

11 will be an operator who has 4,000 to 10,000 head

12 in a reasonably small area who wants to expand and

13 needs a solution to his problems. In Canada, we

14 propose to build a 10,000 head treatment facility,

15 at no cost to the operator, but with his promise

16 to buy it at a discount, to be negotiated if we

17 pass agreed milestones. As attractive as that may

18 sound, we have no applicants at this time. The

19 reason is simply "risk avoidance". Operators will

20 not take on significant debt, no matter what the

21 payback is, until the concept is proven. In other

22 words, no one wants to be first.

23 The answer is to use the approach that

24 worked for Denmark in their adoption of biogas

25 plants. Let me quote from a presentation by Bruno



1 S. Neilsen at the 2007 Banff Pork Seminar, and

2 reported in their Proceedings, pages 237-243:

3 "From the outset, the plants had to be

4 commercially viable. Their economy

5 was based on energy sales. Through

6 the 1980's and 1990's, the development

7 was promoted through a close

8 public-private co-operation. This

9 included public funding for research,

10 development and up to 40 percent

11 investment grant in full-scale

12 demonstration plants. The subsidy for

13 investment in biogas plants was

14 gradually reduced from 40 percent to

15 20 percent, and has been reduced to

16 zero by the government."

17 This is how new technology can be

18 jump-started in our industry, a one-time reduction

19 in capital cost that allows an operator to choose

20 the technology that works best for him, while

21 providing the public with measurable and immediate

22 results in terms of reduced environmental risk and

23 impact, conservation of resources and an expanding

24 agriculture sector economy.

25 And that concludes my presentation.



1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Van

2 Slyke. So you don't have one of these in

3 operation at the present time?

4 MR. SLYKE: That's correct.

5 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have models that

6 you've used?

7 MR. SLYKE: Well, as you can imagine,

8 you can't do this on a small scale. But, yes, we

9 have done field trials on some aspects, lab work

10 on other aspects. And a lot of it is just lifted

11 right out of engineering textbooks. So the

12 challenge to us now is basically to connect the

13 pieces. But we've worked with the engineering

14 people at UBC and the Hipp Engineering people in

15 Vancouver. They have designed it for us. They

16 have laid it out. We have produced mass balances.

17 We know how much energy is going to be used and

18 that kind of thing. So we're pretty confident on

19 the hardware and what it will do.

20 What we're not confident about, and

21 this is why our demonstration period is set ahead

22 about two years, is the measurements of how much

23 material has to be processed. With every

24 operation that we've been to, it's been almost

25 impossible to determine how many gallons of manure



1 are produced a day and what the solid levels of

2 that are. Every operations a little different.

3 And, of course, with the different mixes from, you

4 know, sows to weanlings to whatever, all of that

5 changes a little bit.

6 So we want to take our demonstration

7 site up basically one step at a time, build it,

8 put it together, get our measurements, go the next

9 step. And we think by the time we have done that,

10 and gone through several seasons to make sure

11 there are no seasonal variabilities that we

12 haven't contended with, that we have pretty well

13 gone through 18 months to two years.

14 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you close to

15 finding a demonstration site?

16 MR. SLYKE: I'm sorry?

17 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you close to

18 finding a demonstration site yet?

19 MR. SLYKE: I've got two people in

20 Manitoba who said they would like to be number

21 two. I have got one fellow in Alberta who we just

22 started talking to, and I'm just not certain what

23 he is going to be doing. So I think we have got

24 some interest. And if I can find a way to get

25 that bridge financing to build the first one, that



1 would kick-start it.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: And is this the type of

3 technology that, once it's proven and in place and

4 mass produced, the price will come down?

5 MR. SLYKE: Probably not by very much.

6 There are some things that will come down just

7 because we can buy more than one. You know,

8 actually, when we first started this, one of our

9 biggest problems was to find stuff that was small

10 enough. The ammonia extraction, that kind of

11 thing, they build these things in massive sizes.

12 And 10,000, 20,000 head farm doesn't need anything

13 that large. We have had a struggle to get smaller

14 versions.

15 And the other side of that particular

16 coin was that if we could find a way to reduce the

17 break-even point for an operation, for this kind

18 of thing to be adopted in any way, we can get down

19 to the smaller farms. But right now the economics

20 suggest to us that there is a certain volume that

21 we're going to need to process in order to make it

22 fly. And, of course, that's without any subsidy

23 or anything like that. Give me a subsidy and I'll

24 change my numbers.

25 MR. MOTHERAL: This is probably on the



1 technical side a little bit. You have produced

2 pellets? You have produced pellets, have you?

3 MR. SLYKE: No.

4 MR. MOTHERAL: You haven't produced

5 anything yet?

6 MR. SLYKE: No.

7 MR. MOTHERAL: This is all a

8 conception?

9 MR. SLYKE: Yes.

10 MR. MOTHERAL: So I was looking at

11 your analysis or hope that it would be 10-8-7,

12 that's your analysis of your fertilizer. And at

13 $200 a tonne, from just a quick calculation, it is

14 probably -- per pound of actual nitrogen, it is

15 probably twice as expensive as chemical

16 fertilizer.

17 MR. SLYKE: Well, the calculation of

18 MPK on the finished product is complicated

19 somewhat by the amount of feces that we burn

20 ourselves to make the heat that we are going to

21 need to dry the rest. So some of your solid

22 material coming from the barns is going to be used

23 as fuel. Now, that all changes if you can find

24 some other biomass to use in the dryer. So you

25 lose some of your solids in the burner, that's



1 true. But to the extent that we can pull some of

2 that nitrogen off as ammonium sulfate, we sort of

3 stockpile that while we're making fuel. And then

4 when we get to pelletize the balance for the day

5 all, of the add-ons come back on to that. So it

6 tends to boost the analysis up for that to that

7 point of view.

8 MR. MOTHERAL: More or less I was

9 questioning the price of $200.

10 MR. SLYKE: Price. Well, what we did

11 is I think that $200 price that I'm quoting right

12 now is based on some Manitoba -- where was it?

13 Steinbach, Manitoba, there is a fertilizer, a

14 chemical fertilizer supplier somewhere around

15 there, and they have been giving me current

16 fertilizer prices. And I've been taking those,

17 extracting the nitrogen price, the phosphorus

18 price, the potassium price and then relating that

19 back to what our analysis is going to be, and

20 that's how we got to the $200.

21 MR. YEE: Just one question. You

22 mentioned in your treatment of your urine strain,

23 prior to the membrane filtration you mentioned

24 that there would be some pre-treatment. What sort

25 of pre-treatment would that be?



1 MR. SLYKE: Well, some of that is a

2 little bit on the proprietary side. But

3 essentially what we want to do, in order to make

4 the membrane system work as effectively as we

5 wanted, it was a matter of size. And when we say

6 productivity, on the -- when you process anything

7 through a membrane, you basically have git one

8 incoming stream and two output streams, so one

9 will be called the concentrate and the other is

10 not. Well, if you aren't careful, you wind up not

11 getting a very good job the first time around.

12 So what we found out, in the end, and

13 this was done real, by the way, in a lab down in

14 California, because we couldn't do it in Canada.

15 We had to get some urine from North Carolina State

16 University that they had collected for us, ship it

17 across to California, some membrane people there

18 developed a system for us to keep the size down by

19 essentially running the urine through the darn

20 thing twice in the same day, but to pre-heat the

21 urine to make the membrane more effectively.

22 And we also add a little bit of

23 chemical there that helps us keep the potassium

24 separated as well. Because that was a big problem

25 with the membrane systems, potassium just seems to



1 leak through just about everything, so we had to

2 doctor it up a little bit that way. But, yeah,

3 it's a tricky part of the business. But that's

4 the part that we actually did live.

5 MR. YEE: Are there any residues from

6 the treatment process that have to be dealt with

7 separately?

8 MR. SLYKE: I am not hearing you very

9 well over here.

10 MR. YEE: Oh, sorry, are there any

11 residues from the treatment process?

12 MR. SLYKE: Any residues?

13 MR. YEE: Yes.

14 MR. SLYKE: No, not that I've

15 determined up until now. All of the bulk

16 materials that we buy go right into the pellet or

17 are used in modifying pH backdown, that kind of

18 thing. Even -- well, I suppose, in the long run,

19 one might look at the membrane cartridges and say,

20 yes, sooner or later you will probably have to

21 replace them, but that's about the only other

22 thing. From a consumer point of view, no,

23 everything goes into the product.


25 Mr. Van Slyke.



1 MR. SLYKE: Thank you.

2 THE CHAIRMAN: I wish you well in

3 this. It sounds like a very intriguing and

4 potentially very positive initiative. And I hope

5 you can find some way to bring the price down a

6 little.

7 MR. SLYKE: Well, that would certainly

8 be nice from everybody's point of view, yeah.

9 That's what they said in Denmark.

10 LINDY CLUBB, representing Wolfe Creek Conservation

11 Group

12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Lindy

13 Clubb. Miss Clubb, would you state your name for

14 the record, please, and the commission secretary

15 will administer the oath?

16 MS. CLUBB: My name is Lindy Clubb.

17 LINDY CLUBB, having been sworn, presents as

18 follows:


20 MS. CLUBB: I represent a 20 person

21 group called Wolfe Creek Conservation. It's named

22 after a tributary to the Assiniboine River. Our

23 mandate is to keep the water clean as it enters

24 our local lakes, rivers and streams. It comes

25 from pristine sources inside Riding Mountain



1 National Park. The water coming from the park is

2 clean because they have restrictions on harmful

3 development. We're in southwestern Manitoba.

4 We believe that intensive hog

5 operations are incompatible with our environment

6 and could contaminate our water. We've lived with

7 the smell of manure in our nostrils, and we have

8 all raised hogs in barns. We know how powerful

9 their waste is. We have lived with some

10 environmental degradation from feed lots and

11 smaller barns, but we haven't yet lived with an

12 intensive hog operation, nor do we want to.

13 We consider our air, water and soil

14 unsuitable for large concentrations of hog manure.

15 We have high water tables and slopes, frequent

16 potholes and abundant wildlife in our area. It's

17 mainly mixed farming.

18 Our councillors are small business

19 owners and sausage makers who oversee road

20 maintenance and zoning applications, hardly the

21 experts needed to collect and review information

22 on licence conditions to prevent pollution from

23 huge hog operations.

24 So as community volunteers, this is

25 our story: Around 2003 a land owner on the



1 Menzies Road applied for a permit to put a large

2 hog barn on his property. It was a 2,500 sow,

3 farrow to nursery, 210 grower to finisher

4 operation. The proponents required approximately

5 22-gallons of fresh water per day, per pig for

6 washing, drinking, cooling and domestic use. That

7 amounted to millions of gallons of water per year.

8 There are more than 20 neighbouring

9 farm families that share the same supplies. The

10 use from this one hog barn was enough to lower the

11 nearby water table, that was our first concern. I

12 mean, in 2005 the groundwater was so saturated in

13 our area that digging a six inch hole would bring

14 bubbling water up to the surface. So if manure

15 was injected in the soil that year, it would come

16 up and run off.

17 Last year we had a year of drought.

18 And we can safely assume that millions of gallons

19 of water didn't enter the aquifer for recharge,

20 but recharging the aquifer was left out of the

21 topics discussed during the hearing process.

22 The proposal proceeded in the absence

23 of information about our local water, and in the

24 presence of our policies in Manitoba that don't

25 call for efficiency or conservation. Instead,



1 it's all about supply. That's our regulatory

2 environment.

3 There were very few studies in place

4 for the Odanah Shale Aquifer, which were older.

5 But we knew of an uncapped well on the property,

6 which is an entry point for groundwater

7 contamination. So I started talking to Bob

8 Betcher, who is our provincial groundwater expert.

9 He's not here in his socks today, so I can say

10 anything I want, can't I? I asked: What would

11 happen if the toxic waste from the hog manure, for

12 instance, got into the aquifer? He said the

13 aquifer was like a big lake beneath us and it

14 circulated, and it could go moving from two to

15 fifty miles per hour, so contamination was

16 impossible to track.

17 We attended the hearings for the

18 proposed hog barn and were assured the proponent

19 would cap the well as a gesture of good will. It

20 hasn't been capped yet. The spread fields for the

21 waste were another point of entry for pollution.

22 We have predominantly clay soils, with some sand

23 and gravel lenses that is allow penetration for

24 aquifer recharge. No one is testing their soils

25 enough, we were told. One to four tests per



1 section is inadequate. Soils can change texture

2 and composition and nutrient content within

3 inches. But soil tests are expensive. So in our

4 province, and in our sections, we test once and

5 hope for the best.

6 The councillors refuse to do more soil

7 tests, even though we asked for it. And they

8 refused to make the test results, if they have

9 been done, public as a condition for the operation

10 of this proposed hog barn. Why? Because it's an

11 added cost and it's not our custom to do it.

12 So we had no assurance as a community

13 that aquifer recharge areas were to be located and

14 protected from contamination. Although, I don't

15 think it's unreasonable to expect minimum

16 precautions to be taken and back-up plans to be in

17 place for any kind of operation. I mean, I do it

18 myself. How much would it cost for us to clean up

19 an aquifer?

20 And that's where we started to feel

21 let down by the community conditional use process.

22 After hearing all of the ways an accident could

23 happen, council asked for a performance bond from

24 the proponent. The applicant withdrew. It was

25 acceptable to make a proposal when the community



1 could have paid for clean-up, but the proponent

2 wouldn't contribute to prevention or insurance for

3 any kind of a bad performance in the future. That

4 means that the proponent was looking at a profit

5 of such small a margin that he couldn't afford to

6 put anything into practice to help the

7 environment. We didn't think that was a good

8 idea.

9 Our council's motives for determining

10 this operation rested on possible economic gain,

11 certainly not on ecological costs. To prove that

12 it's a political process, there was an election,

13 with new councillors coming in the following year,

14 and the proponent reapplied with the original

15 permit, which brought a new round of suggestions

16 from us to prevent pollution. Performance

17 indicators were absent. Although they are in

18 place for a lot of businesses, why not this one?

19 Where is the evaluation of or assurances that a

20 manure management plan is followed? Because our

21 plans are only as good as they are put into place.

22 And in this case, manure management was not

23 confidence inspiring, let's say.

24 Council claimed the provincial

25 licensing departments were the experts and the



1 performance reviewers, but we uncovered huge

2 information gaps in that process. The Technical

3 Review Committee in Brandon gave the go-ahead for

4 spread fields for this barn and missed a critical

5 fact that Wolfe Creek runs right across them and

6 would carry toxic waste into our rivers. There

7 was no on-the-ground truthing. There was no

8 verification of the information given by the

9 proponent. Without local people being consulted,

10 the province isn't protecting the public's

11 interest. They certainly weren't there to protect

12 our interests.

13 Run-off to surface water is common on

14 our heavy soils on sloping land. And there were

15 issues of siting the barn. And we don't see

16 issues of siting the barn in the quest for

17 profits. Bonnie Nay, from Turtle Mountain

18 Municipality, writes:

19 "The Southwest Technical Review

20 Committee erred in their analysis of

21 the applicant's proposal for the

22 factory hog barn."

23 The Southwest Technical Review wrote,

24 and I quote:

25 "There are no rivers or municipal



1 drains in this area."

2 Wrong! There happens to be a major municipal

3 drain in this bog-like area called the Ninga

4 Channel. The Ninga Channel will drain seepage or

5 run-off of untreated sewage from the mega hog barn

6 site into the Pembina River, into the Red River

7 and, ultimately, into Lake Winnipeg.

8 If the province or councillor or

9 proponent wouldn't mitigate harm, then we tried

10 to. We recommended above-ground storage of manure

11 to avoid possible groundwater contamination. It

12 was turned down on the basis of expense. We

13 advocated for triple liners for in-ground storage.

14 And they work the best, but we have been warned

15 that liners only last for three years because of

16 the ammonia content and the waste; it wears the

17 membrane down. Seepage penetrates particles of

18 clay soil that line the lagoons, and it is a

19 common problem. But the proponents and our

20 council were willing to risk it for the sake of

21 cutting costs.

22 We asked for moats to line the lagoon

23 area, in case of floods, so the waste didn't get

24 washed downstream in spring melt or the sudden

25 frequent storms events that we get up there.



1 Farmers are often in the business of moving earth,

2 but this proponent didn't want to waste the time

3 looking after his own waste path, and our

4 councillors didn't see the value of a preventive

5 measure like that.

6 So, you know, in the end, we decided

7 it was to the advantage of the producers to

8 pollute. And they can do so since there are so

9 few inspectors. If it is necessary to cost cut to

10 that extent, what would happen to the industry if

11 we began charging for resources like water? How

12 long would the industry last? Not very long.

13 The hog farmers monitor themselves,

14 for the most part, since we only have one

15 inspector for the entire southwest area. He calls

16 the hog barns two weeks in advance and checks a

17 small percentage of the lagoons once a year.

18 Hardly matching in practice the principle, stated

19 by the Manitoba Pork Council, that land around hog

20 barns is more closely monitored than any other

21 farm land in the province, which to me now means

22 that other private land isn't monitored at all in

23 comparison.

24 Our next environmental concern was

25 odour. We discovered a good made-in-Manitoba



1 product called the Gulla Guard. It is a few steps

2 above the practice of spreading straw mulch over

3 the lagoon for odour control, but that was

4 dismissed as too expensive. So without odour

5 control, the six families in close range of the

6 barn smell and spread acres wouldn't be able to

7 work in their large gardens.

8 If Cassie Leganchuk, who rises at dawn

9 to work like ten men in her three gardens, gags

10 when she is out there, her family will go without

11 produce. The gardens produce food for every meal,

12 all year round.

13 If Matt Kowalchuk's lake stocked with

14 rainbow trout gets an algae bloom from

15 contaminated run-off, he goes without cash and

16 food.

17 If Roger Desilet's customers are

18 turned off by the smell, he loses the ability to

19 provide both his family and the community with a

20 lovely organic honey product, his main source of

21 income.

22 So how much of an advantage can it be

23 to the area and the environment? Hog barns reduce

24 environmental air quality. The techniques touted

25 by the industry, such as manure storage covers,



1 shower belt and ventilation systems, might be

2 available and effective, but they were avoided in

3 our situation as too costly an option.

4 Instead, we were faced with losing

5 customers, visitors and our own ability to travel

6 down the road that led to the beach. The onus of

7 proof is on the dissenters right now in the

8 community conditional use hearings. It was not an

9 easy process. And the onus was on us to prove

10 what we said, to offer up facts, which we did.

11 But the emphasis is certainly not on the

12 proponents in the industry to back up what they

13 are saying. It's backwards, the system right now.

14 And it's a disaster in the waiting, and the

15 premises are wrong. This is a question of scale.

16 When the applicant withdrew his

17 request for a barn permit the second time, it was

18 for economic reasons. In the intervening years,

19 in a climate of falling prices for pork, he

20 decided, with the opposition in the community, and

21 the falling prices, he wasn't going to go ahead

22 with the barn. That's the reason we don't have

23 one there. It certainly wasn't because of the

24 facts that we presented that our council

25 dismissed.



1 So if the profits for pork are based

2 on discounting the environmental costs, and

3 keeping what monitoring we do have a secret, then

4 we are not cataloguing the true costs of and to

5 our water, and this form of industry would be

6 over. Please recommend an end to the

7 proliferation of hog industries and their

8 expansion in our province.

9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Miss Clubb.

10 MS. CLUBB: You're welcome.

11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.

12 Mr. Harold Froese.

13 MR. FROESE: Good evening.

14 Harold Froese, representing Manitoba Egg Producers

15 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you please

16 introduce yourself for the record, Mr. Froese?

17 MR. FROESE: My name is Harold Froese.

18 HAROLD FROESE, having been sworn in, presents as

19 follows:


21 MR. FROESE: Thank you. Thanks very

22 much for this opportunity to present. I would

23 like to present from two different perspectives.

24 I've been asked to present some ideas on behalf of

25 Manitoba Egg Producers. And then in the second



1 part, I would like to present some ideas in terms

2 of what I do in my own personal situation on my

3 own farm.

4 I should probably introduce myself,

5 because I think it will help to understand my

6 comments in terms of their perspective. I have

7 been -- I am a full-time farmer in the Oak Bluff

8 area just outside of Winnipeg. And I have been a

9 director on Manitoba Egg Producers since the

10 mid-1980s. I have also been a director on the --

11 the Manitoba director on the Canadian Egg

12 Marketing Agency for a number of years. And one

13 of my roles there is as chair of the Production

14 Management Committee, which deals with issues

15 similar to what we're talking about here for all

16 of the provinces in Canada, as well as animal care

17 and many other issues.

18 Firstly, what I would like to do, is

19 comment on behalf of Canada Egg Producers, and I

20 believe you have a copy of our submission.

21 There is approximately 160 egg farmers

22 in the Province of Manitoba. And we house

23 approximately 2.2 million hens on an annual basis.

24 The average farm size is 15,000 birds, which are

25 roughly 120 animal units.



1 One of the things that's been very

2 important to us as Manitoba Egg Producers, as an

3 organization, is sustainable agriculture and

4 strategic planning. Two of the key pillars of our

5 strategic plan are environmental protection, as

6 well as animal care.

7 And I should have mentioned also that

8 we view this very much as a partnership not

9 exclusive to egg producers. We view it as a

10 partnership with other aspects of the industry, as

11 well as various levels of government, because we

12 feel that we don't necessarily have all of the

13 answers. We are always looking for solutions,

14 trying to be proactive. And we look for input and

15 assistance from those other parties as well.

16 We are also strong supporters of the

17 Recommended Code of Practice for laying hens and

18 pullets, which was agreed to in 2003, and that

19 deals with all aspects of animal care in terms of

20 laying hens.

21 We also support the Livestock Manure

22 and Mortalities Regulation and the current draft

23 Nutrient Management Regulations under Water

24 Stewardship. There is also a very positive

25 comment that we would like to pass on to the



1 Provincial Government in terms of the process that

2 was followed in developing these Nutrient

3 Management Regulations. The process under the

4 three or four ministers, as well as their staff,

5 over about a year's time period, together with all

6 of the commodity groups, we found to be very

7 beneficial. I think we learned from each other.

8 And the resulting proposed regulations were in

9 support of them, and we think they are very

10 positive for all of Manitoba.

11 Some of the things that we have done

12 is we have tried to, again, as I said, be

13 proactive with our producers, encouraging them to

14 use the information that's available as they make

15 decisions in their own operations.

16 We have produced a Manure Management

17 for Laying Hens and Pullets brochure. We have

18 hosted an Environmental Farm Plan Workshop,

19 together with MAFRI, as well as PFRA. And we have

20 another, proposed dates towards the end of April,

21 again encouraging our producers to look at their

22 own specific situation and look at ideas as to how

23 they can be proactive into the future.

24 We have also significantly stepped up

25 our manure management education initiatives, in



1 light of the new phosphorous limits, the Red River

2 Valley spreading ban that has been proposed. And

3 we are trying to keep our producers abreast of the

4 situation so that they have time to think of the

5 changes they may or may not need to make to meet

6 those proposed guidelines.

7 We are holding a series of better

8 management producer information meetings. Part of

9 the reason we are doing this is we view manure as

10 a very valuable food source for crop production

11 within the province. We want to encourage

12 producers to use that manure in the most

13 beneficial way to produce crops, as well as to

14 sustain the soil that they spread the manure on.

15 Many of our producers are

16 recapitalizing or retooling their facilities as

17 they become older. And one of the things that

18 they are doing, again in response to changes that

19 are happening initially. A good portion of our

20 industry handled manure in the liquid form. And

21 by far, almost 100 percent, I can't say

22 100 percent, but virtually all of the producers

23 when they retooled, they went to a dryer manure

24 system. It is much easier to handle. The odours

25 that are present are much less with dry. It is



1 also a lot easier to spread on the land. And we

2 encourage them to monitor that, to test the

3 analysis of the manure, and to spread it in a

4 sustainable way that meets the guidelines.

5 And, of course, as they retool, we

6 also strongly encourage them to follow the

7 Recommended Codes of Practice which were approved

8 in 2003. That process was developed nationwide,

9 with the input of Canadian Federation of Humane

10 Societies, veterinary groups, consumer's

11 associations, and many other stakeholders as well.

12 Some of the recommendations that we

13 have, in terms of environmental sustainability, is

14 that we feel that livestock is only part of the

15 picture. In my own situation, I always thought

16 that my main concern in terms of sustainability

17 was the manure that my animals produce. Through

18 this process over the past year, and the

19 Phosphorus Committee recommendations in Winnipeg,

20 I began to realize that the waste I and my family

21 produce in my household is also an issue in terms

22 of sewage discharge.

23 Another thing that is also an issue

24 for all of us is residents, be it urban, rural,

25 wherever we live, is a simple thing, the type of



1 soap we use in our dishwashers. All of those

2 things contribute to the Lake Winnipeg situation.

3 Winter spreading of municipal and

4 human city waste in the Red River Valley is

5 another thing.

6 And I think as Manitoba Egg Producers,

7 what we would like to do is look for solutions for

8 all of us in the Province of Manitoba. And we, as

9 egg producers, definitely want to take

10 responsibility for our portion of that and to find

11 solutions for the province as a whole.

12 Land use planning, which has been

13 talked about today, of course, is another thing

14 that we strongly support. Proper siting, proper

15 maintenance of buffer zones is also he very

16 important.

17 Manitoba is a unique province, and we

18 want to keep it that way. And I think many of the

19 solutions, or most of the solutions, will be made

20 in Manitoba, which uniquely fit our particular

21 province.

22 And, of course, it's been stated

23 before, but to have approved data and analysis so

24 that on a going-forward basis, we can base our

25 decisions on good data is always beneficial for



1 the province.

2 So unless there is questions, I will

3 just continue. My own situation is somewhat

4 unique in the sense that I think a lot of my

5 thinking has been coloured by my experience as a

6 director on various boards. I have also had some

7 international experience in terms of trade

8 discussions at the WTO, and had exposure to many

9 different parts of the world. And I think that's

10 really encouraged me and my family to try and

11 translate how those messages from a global, to a

12 Canadian, to a provincial perspective, how that

13 fits on our particular farm.

14 Our farm is probably an interesting

15 one in the sense that it's on the west perimeter.

16 It is half a mile west of the Perimeter. When my

17 parents start that had farm in 1946, there was no

18 Perimeter. The city was a long ways away. You

19 have all come close to our place to join us, and I

20 think that's great, but we need to learn to live

21 together.

22 One of the things that has happened,

23 too, is I've never known a life without chickens.

24 I think that's great. Other people might not, but

25 I think that's fantastic. One of the things that



1 happened, which also encouraged my thinking, is

2 many years ago, when I was a very small child, the

3 City of Winnipeg, in terms of handling its own

4 waste, built the Charleswood Lagoon on the west

5 Perimeter. That lagoon is approximately two

6 kilometers away from my farm. And I also

7 mentioned the Perimeter Highway. This really

8 challenged my thinking because what approach

9 should we take? I could leave. I could protest.

10 I could do whatever. We chose the opportunity to

11 make a positive thing out of this and work for

12 solutions on behalf of the whole province because,

13 of course, we get the benefits of the City of

14 Winnipeg.

15 We soil test, virtually on an annual

16 basis, when we spread our manure to make sure that

17 we don't spread manure more than what the annual

18 uptake is of a crop. An aside to that is, I

19 mentioned the Charleswood Lagoon, in the 60 some

20 years that my family has been there, we have seen

21 absolutely no evidence of any kind of leaching

22 through the soil from the lagoon. We are, of

23 course, in heavy clay soils. Not that it was a

24 concern of ours. But the only change we have seen

25 in our soil is things that we have done ourselves,



1 in terms of the crops we have grown with the

2 manure, etcetera.

3 We have always been in the laying hen

4 business. In 1990, we had the opportunity to

5 expand in the chicken broiler business. And, of

6 course, chicken broilers are grown inside on straw

7 bedding. And that added to our operation. A few

8 years later, in 1999, 2000, somewhere in there, we

9 had the opportunity to expand the broiler business

10 once again, which created a challenge for us.

11 Because as well as the things I have mentioned,

12 the community of Oak Bluff is growing

13 significantly. And our farm is located

14 approximately a mile north of the elementary

15 school in Oak Bluff.

16 Economic reasons, biosecurity, all of

17 those things, some succession discussions my wife

18 and I were having, as we have a son who is

19 interested in continuing with the farm, encouraged

20 us to look at alternatives. We are in the R.M. of

21 Macdonald. With the rules that were in place, we

22 probably could have constructed another facility

23 to house the expansion.

24 We chose another route, the reason

25 being we wanted to continue being good corporate



1 citizens, together with our neighbours. We did

2 not want to cause any controversy. What we did

3 was we took our laying hens, and we combined them

4 together with several other producers and built a

5 brand new facility at a community called Dufrost,

6 which is east of Morris. Some of the things we

7 have done with that facility at Dufrost, because

8 it is over the 300 animal units, right from the

9 very beginning we looked very closely at the

10 siting. We made sure we were several miles away

11 from the community at Dufrost. We also made sure

12 that we were at least two miles east of the

13 highest point of water from the '97 flood.

14 We also built a facility that has dry

15 manure. We file an annual Manure Management Plan.

16 We test our manure on an annual basis. We make

17 sure we have more than enough acres from the

18 surrounding neighbours to spread the land. We do

19 soil tests on the land. We rotate the practice of

20 spreading the manure. The land owners tell us it

21 is a valuable source of natural fertilizer for

22 them. And we don't have any problem finding

23 enough acres and willing parties to take the

24 manure.

25 In terms of our farm back at home,



1 strictly now we are completely broilers. And what

2 we do is we have completed our own Environmental

3 Farm Plan.

4 We are also certified with Manitoba

5 Chicken Producers and their On-Farm Food Safety

6 Program. Some of the things that that involves,

7 we try and follow very strict bio-security

8 procedures. I have also been involved in working

9 groups nationally in terms of traceability,

10 bio-security programs, after the avian influenza

11 situation in B.C. in 2004. We don't allow people

12 into the barn. For example, when feed trucks

13 deliver feed, they deliver the feed, but they do

14 not go inside the facility. We have signage at

15 the entrance to the farm, a visitor stop at the

16 road. They don't drive up to the barn. So those

17 are some of the things that we do.

18 In terms of the manure, we again

19 handle it according to the On-Farm Food Safety

20 Program. We have arrangements are neighbouring

21 lands owners. And overall it's been a very

22 positive process.

23 One thing I'll mention, just before I

24 close, is I have mentioned we are residents of the

25 R.M. of Macdonald. About four or five years ago I



1 served on a Macdonald-Richot Planning Working

2 Group, where the councillors in those two

3 municipalities put together a group of

4 individuals. I represented livestock. We had

5 town people. We had many various backgrounds to

6 work on proper planning. And I think it was a

7 very successful process because we looked at the

8 municipalities in terms of where the streams and

9 rivers were, where the towns were, where the major

10 arteries were, and drew concentric circles for

11 potential livestock production.

12 And I would say, specifically in the

13 R.M. of Macdonald, it has worked extremely well.

14 We have I think in the neighbourhood of six hog

15 operations along the southern edge of the

16 municipality. If you know your geography, it's

17 the Village of Brunkild that is east of there,

18 between there and Domain. There are very few

19 residents around there. There is enough acres to

20 spread the manure.

21 And the owners of those facilities, by

22 and large, are local farmers who wanted to

23 diversify their operations. They were grains and

24 oilseeds farmers. And one of the families

25 involved in those farms has brought two children



1 into the business by expanding through livestock.

2 They are excellent corporate citizens, which

3 covers the way they inject the manure.

4 The other thing that has happened, as

5 a result of that, which is a sustainability factor

6 in rural communities. And as a parent who has so

7 far only exported one child to Alberta, hoping to

8 reduce that to zero in the future, these hog

9 facilities have provided a lot of employment for

10 the young people in the local area. Some of them

11 have taken up residence in the area. They have

12 developed a passion for livestock. They have

13 acquired residences in the area. We are a small

14 area and a few jobs means a big deal. So from the

15 human side of it, it has also been very

16 sustainable.

17 So I think with that I will close my

18 comments. If you have any questions, I look

19 forward to answering them.


21 Mr. Froese.

22 MR. MOTHERAL: Just one. I realize

23 where your operations in Macdonald. Your combined

24 operation in Dufrost, which R.M. is that in Morris

25 or De Salaberry?



1 MR. FROESE: De Salaberry.

2 MR. YEE: Oh, just a quick question.

3 You mentioned you test your soils annually and you

4 have filed a Manure Management Plan?

5 MR. FROESE: Yes.

6 MR. YEE: I was just going to ask,

7 based on your notes, your average farm size is

8 15,000 hens which is roughly 120 animal units. I

9 thought you didn't have to file a plan unless you

10 were at 300?

11 MR. FROESE: No. I should clarify

12 that. 15,000, that's the average size for

13 Manitoba.

14 MR. YEE: Okay.

15 MR. FROESE: When we combined numerous

16 families into one facility, we are significantly

17 higher than the 15,000, so we are over the 300.

18 So we voluntarily did it, but it is also a

19 requirement as well.

20 MR. YEE: Okay, thank you.


22 Mr. Froese.

23 MR. FROESE: Thank you.

24 Brandy Street, representing the Manitoba Livestock

25 Manure Management Initiative Inc.



1 THE CHAIRMAN: Brandy Street. Miss

2 Street, could you introduce yourself for the

3 record, please?

4 MS. STREET: It's Brandy Street.

5 BRANDY STREET, having been sworn, presents as

6 follows:

7 MS. STREET: Okay. Well, thank you

8 very much for having me here. Again, my name is

9 Brandy Street. And I am here representing the

10 Manitoba Livestock Manure Management Initiative.

11 So at the MLMMI, we've realized that livestock

12 operations may or may not be contributors to

13 nutrient in ground and water supplies. And

14 because of this, the government has brought in

15 regulations in place. And we currently have

16 regulations in place and will continue to have

17 regulations in the future.

18 However, our concern is we need

19 science-based best management practices in order

20 to enhance the environmental sustainability of the

21 livestock industry and make for more fair and

22 equitable regulations.

23 Our goal is:

24 "To allow Manitoba livestock

25 industries to achieve their full



1 economic potential through sustainable

2 growth."

3 And our mandate promises to do so by resolving

4 issues in manure management, promoting sustainable

5 manure management and developing best management

6 practices.

7 And if you notice here, the key word

8 seems to be "management", and that's because

9 manure is not simply a waste product of the

10 livestock industry. If managed properly, it can

11 be a very valuable resource.

12 So in order to attack this issue, we

13 plan on doing a few things at the MLMMI. Firstly,

14 to continue to pioneer efforts to investigate

15 solutions towards manure management issues from

16 both a practical and a research angle.

17 Secondly, to build on the initiative's

18 strong research base by implementing a

19 multi-faceted scientific approach that focuses on

20 practical, farm ready, and economically feasible

21 projects, along with existing basic research. The

22 key points here are that it has to be economically

23 feasible and something that can be applied within

24 Manitoba, or else it won't be adopted.

25 Thirdly, to create a communications



1 strategy that keeps the entire community informed

2 of the Initiative's activities. And there are a

3 few ways we plan on going about that. First off,

4 we have done quite an overhaul of our website. I

5 have done a lot of work myself, and have to say I

6 am very proud of it.

7 We also plan on getting out

8 newsletters in the near future, hopefully.

9 Brochures are in the works, fact sheets. So I

10 guess you have noticed that there are websites

11 along the bottom of these slides.

12 And last of all, to broaden the

13 Initiative's mandate by developing research

14 priorities that apply to multiple livestock

15 sectors and to promote the Initiative to these

16 other livestock operations.

17 The issues aren't solely with one

18 livestock sector. This has to be a team effort.

19 A number or all of the livestock sectors have to

20 get together as a team and be proactive in

21 attacking these issues.

22 So what exactly are the main issues of

23 concern? Well, first and foremost, phosphorus, as

24 I'm sure you are all aware, has been in the news a

25 lot lately, and we are putting regulations in



1 place. That is because there can be high input of

2 phosphorus in the soils in areas of high livestock

3 industry and in limited land base to sustain

4 livestock farms. If we apply too much manure to

5 the land, we can get leaching and run-off of

6 phosphorus into our ground and surface water

7 supplies which can, in turn, compromise water

8 quality and compromise the health of the aquatic

9 life and any life that depends on that water

10 supply.

11 Manitoba, our government, has put in

12 regulations restricting the level of soluble

13 phosphorus in the soil, which means we have to

14 restrict application rates of manure as well.

15 So at the MLMMI, we have done or

16 funded some research in the past in order to

17 combat this problem. We have ongoing studies in

18 phytase feeding. I am not sure if you are aware

19 or not, but phytase is an enzyme you put into the

20 feed. It sort of helps to more efficiently

21 utilize the phosphorus that's in the feed so that

22 the animal excretes less.

23 We have looked at the nature of

24 phosphorus in manure. We have done literature

25 reviews on the effects of phosphorus in the



1 environment. And currently we have projects

2 funded towards phosphorus saturation -- looking at

3 phosphorus saturation in Manitoba soils and a cost

4 assessment of proposed phosphorus management

5 regulations.

6 In the future, we would look at

7 funding research into new technologies and

8 practices that would reduce phosphorus loading in

9 the soils, and that can be done in a number of

10 ways.

11 First off, you could look at diet

12 amendments and, again, processing. For example,

13 different levels of processing of the feed that

14 would enable an animal to more efficiently utilize

15 the nutrients in the feed or adjusting nutrient

16 levels to better meet the animal's requirements.

17 Again, additives such as phytase or cellulase and

18 phase feeding, which is basically supplying

19 nutrients at a level to meet each stage of growth

20 of an animal.

21 You could also look at -- or, sorry,

22 look at manure management practices, alternating

23 handling systems or treatment of the manure to

24 reduce the levels of phosphorus. And improved

25 application methods and timing of the manure on to



1 the field.

2 Nitrogen management is another issue

3 sort of affecting the industry right now. The

4 LMMMR has regulations that limit residual nitrogen

5 levels to approximately 34-kilograms per hectare,

6 and that's regardless of crop species, on class 5

7 soils. These soils are prone to leaching of

8 nitrogen into water supplies just because they are

9 so porous.

10 However, there has been recent

11 research conducted that is saying that maybe these

12 limits are actually too low. Maybe it's possible

13 to apply more nitrogen to these soils without

14 increasing the risk of leaching if the land is in

15 a perennial forage system.

16 In the future, it would be a good

17 idea, from our point of view, I think, to fund

18 research that establishes loading rates of the

19 nitrogen for sandy soils and looks at best

20 management practices for annual and perennial

21 cropping systems.

22 Another issue with nitrogen that I

23 didn't really touch in on that previous slide was

24 dealing with ammonia emissions. We have heard a

25 little bit about that today. And we would also



1 look at funding research dealing with reducing

2 these emissions that, again, could be done with

3 diet amendments, different manure management

4 practices. Barn cleanliness is one way of

5 combatting this problem. Looking at different

6 manure storage facilities or ways of storing

7 manure. And technologies related to improved

8 field application methods.

9 Currently we also have a study going

10 on looking at best management practices to improve

11 environmental sustainability and productivity of

12 grassland systems using hog manure.

13 And the other issue of sort of the

14 most concern right now, or I guess the third of

15 high concern right now, is odour management. And

16 we have heard a little bit about that here today

17 already. It is a cause of very poor perception

18 and acceptance of the livestock industry from

19 nearby residents. And it seems that the hog

20 industry sort of takes the brunt of the blow with

21 this issue.

22 People tend to associate odours with

23 maybe a concern of health and safety, aside from

24 the fact that it is just a nuisance problem. So

25 it is very important to address this issue just to



1 improve public perception and increase acceptance,

2 which would allow for expansion of the industry.

3 And maybe look at more research into improving the

4 industry as a whole so that people would be more

5 accepting of it.

6 To date, we have funded research

7 looking at odour emissions from hog operations, as

8 well as the negative air pressure technology for

9 controlling odour from manure storages.

10 In the future, technologies and

11 practices that would effectively reduce odours

12 would be, in our minds, good projects to look at

13 funding. And this can be done in a number of

14 ways. Best management practices for barn

15 cleanliness, again dirty animals or dirty

16 facilities can contribute greatly to odour in a

17 barn.

18 Improved manure handling or management

19 systems, so covers, slurry additives or just

20 different storage systems in general.

21 On-farm odour reduction strategies,

22 such as the building of shelter belts and

23 windbreaks. That would simply just filter the

24 odour upwards into the air, and that way

25 surrounding farms wouldn't smell as much of that



1 from the livestock operation.

2 And then improved manure application

3 methods and timing. Again, it comes down to, for

4 example, would you spread manure, broadcast

5 spreading, like just spreading it on top of the

6 land, or incorporating it into the soil.

7 Incorporating it would reduce the odour and

8 ammonia emissions. Or timing, for example, a hot

9 sunny day compared to a cool cloudy day, where you

10 would have a lot more odour on the hot sunny day.

11 So to recap, research aimed at

12 reducing environmental risks to ground and surface

13 water and soils. Reducing the risk of soil

14 degradation. Reduction of odour and emissions.

15 And production of valuable by-products such as

16 energy, compost and fertilizer provide that odour

17 or other undesirable emissions would be reduced

18 would be funding priorities for the MLMMI. And it

19 is important to point out that technologies that

20 are economically feasible, likely to find

21 application in Manitoba or likely to benefit

22 Manitoba agriculture are key to us at the

23 Initiative.

24 To date, we've heard 192 projects or

25 applications for funding, of which we've funded 57



1 of them. Total funding is at about $4.4 million,

2 of which the MLMMI has funded nearly $2.8 million.

3 So the difference would come from the project

4 performers themselves or from matching funds.

5 And the type of projects have

6 fertilizer value, odour abatement, water quality,

7 infrastructure acquisition, to name a few. If you

8 are interested in a little more detail on the

9 projects themselves, you can always check out our

10 website at manure.mb.ca.

11 So to conclude, since our

12 incorporation in 1998, the MLMMI has worked

13 towards fostering research to enhance the

14 sustainability of the livestock sector. However,

15 our concern, again, is with the existing and

16 upcoming legislations and regulations that they

17 just be based on good science. And earlier there

18 was a question about, well, what makes good

19 science? Again, that comes down to peer reviewed

20 science. Is this something that your peers in the

21 industry would accept as good practice?

22 So with the involvement in the

23 research of the MLMMI, that would enable the CEC

24 to take a proactive role and sustained leadership

25 in addressing the research needs of the livestock



1 industry in regards to environmental stewardship.

2 And with that, I would like to thank

3 you very much for your attention, being pretty

4 much, I think, the last in the evening and open

5 the floor for any questions.

6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Miss Street.

7 MR. MOTHERAL: Thank you. And I know

8 we are going to hear more on this particular

9 issue. I can't get my head around it yet. And

10 it's to do with the phosphorus again. And I am

11 almost ashamed to say that I have a degree in

12 agriculture, although it was a number of years

13 ago. There is a lot of things I still don't

14 understand. Maybe I didn't then either.

15 But the whole business of, it came up

16 again today, with there being allowed 800 pounds.

17 And then, of course, I have heard it in parts per

18 million and things like that of the residual

19 phosphorus left and what's allowed. And I know

20 that we need to get more information on what's

21 available, what's soluble, what's residual. And I

22 know it's too complicated for you probably to

23 answer right now. But there is a need, I think,

24 for our commissioner, and we have talked about

25 this, we have to get this straight in our heads.



1 And I see Dr. Braggs there probably wondering did

2 I ever learn anything in university?

3 I know that it's -- I haven't got it

4 straight in my mind yet. You know, I know that

5 plants require so much P2O5, and they will use

6 that up. But is there going to be some in there

7 that's not available. Somebody today said they

8 were up to 800-pound. Isn't that what was quoted,

9 800-pounds? And I need some conversion factors

10 and what's available and what's not.

11 MS. STREET: Well, that I would

12 definitely have to get back to you on.

13 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay.

14 MS. STREET: But I will do that.

15 MR. YEE: Maybe a couple of questions.

16 One is a follow-up to what Wayne had just asked.

17 It was mentioned earlier on, I think it was

18 earlier on this afternoon. We understand the

19 nutrient budgeting and that there is -- you look

20 at the amount of nutrients in the feed and you can

21 do a mass balance in terms of what's fed to the

22 animals and what comes out. But my understanding

23 in discussions with Manitoba Conservation is that

24 there are better methodologies of calculating

25 loading to land and areas to better manage the



1 phosphorus and the nitrogen in the soils. That's

2 a project that might be worthwhile for your group

3 to undertake. I am just looking at your research

4 initiatives, so maybe just a comment on that.

5 And the other thought I had was, and I

6 noticed you're creating a community communications

7 strategy. And you mentioned newsletters and

8 brochures. I am just wondering, does that include

9 your research projects in terms of sort of

10 summaries of your findings and information that's

11 coming out your research projects?

12 MS. STREET: Well, all of the results

13 of the research proposals, or of the research

14 projects, the final reports and a summary are

15 provided on the website, so you can find that

16 information there. The newsletters would contain

17 probably a summary on the most recently completed,

18 and would probably come on a quarter or an annual

19 basis. So it wouldn't necessarily include them

20 all, depending on how many, you know, have been

21 completed, but yes.

22 MR. YEE: Thank you.


24 Miss Street. Is there anybody else who wishes to

25 make a presentation this evening? Seeing none, I



1 thank you all for coming out this afternoon and

2 this evening. We will reconvene tomorrow

3 afternoon in Stonewall at the Legion at 1:00.

4 Thank you and good night.

5 (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AT 8:21 P.M.)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



1 CERTIFICATE

2

3

4

5 Lisa Reid and Debra Kot, Court reporters, in the

6 Province of Manitoba, do hereby certify the

7 foregoing 265 pages are a true and correct

8 transcript of my Stenotype notes as taken by me at

9 the time and place hereinbefore stated.

10

11

12

13 ----------------------------

14 LISA REID

15

16 -----------------------------

17 DEBRA KOT

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Page 1

Aabandon71:14abandoned71:12

71:12 101:10,11186:21

abandoning187:7abandonment

146:6 187:3,4,6,7abatement261:6ability 17:11 106:4

156:10,12 158:20165:13 184:11235:18 236:5

able23:10 46:2251:15 52:17 56:1156:16 58:23 68:14106:15 124:1,17139:4,11 154:11155:12 173:7194:11 235:6

aboriginal 174:10abortion 87:8above52:4 78:21

145:7 152:9176:22 235:2

above-ground125:24 126:17233:10

abreast62:4 241:3absence228:22absent231:17absolutely35:25

245:21absorb79:10absorbed130:20abundant 227:16Academy200:9accelerate75:14accelerated168:2accept66:19,22

207:4 261:21acceptable230:25acceptance258:18

259:1accepted7:12accepting259:5access169:13 170:8accessing171:13accident127:1

230:22according13:15

18:22 25:20 29:529:8 39:3 89:8,10108:10 115:21120:5 197:24248:19

accordingly 216:12account5:3 17:20

25:3 27:23 68:17103:24 123:19194:12

accountability158:13

accountable66:6accounted123:16

194:4,8accounts103:20accumulate170:23accumulation79:5accuracy162:22

163:19accurately79:20

210:9accusation70:6achievable27:13achieve109:18

252:25achieved205:3acid 215:5,25acidity 76:4acids24:19,19acknowledge

173:15acknowledged

167:17acquaintance

184:24acquire 75:4acquired 250:13acquisition 261:7acre70:11 106:12

106:13 168:4,7,9168:10

acreage186:12210:7 211:5

acres163:1,8,20164:5 235:6247:17,23 249:19

across10:7 12:2441:14 44:17,2047:3 50:11 224:17232:5

act 38:23 41:1142:19,21 43:344:1,23,25 45:1145:21 49:19 51:2358:13 59:17,1761:7 68:3 70:1882:3 93:11,17,2193:25 140:1 150:1150:2,10 153:10157:12 158:9,25161:2,4,5 162:8

162:19 164:22166:13,21 180:3180:11,17 183:9187:22

acting 157:5 159:24161:25 162:4170:1

action 93:6 112:6134:3 166:17210:1

actions165:7 175:9active95:25 96:5

160:8 217:1actively 61:22 158:6

165:13 191:11activities 10:12 36:3

40:7 83:25 108:20155:1 254:2

activity 77:17,23100:1 208:5,24212:6 216:15

acts59:16 153:8actual 18:16 25:12

25:23 39:25 41:2042:18 55:24 81:1195:4 111:4 131:25139:13 140:25141:1 222:14

actually 15:2 16:2520:7 22:9 23:1124:23 25:15 26:1127:5,7 30:8 34:2440:4 41:16 50:470:12 74:16 78:885:19 96:9 97:21105:8 110:20120:8,18 125:2129:18 135:23137:3,16 152:25165:2 168:13173:1 186:16195:1,6,9,24196:7 198:2,8221:8 225:4257:12

ad 66:10 143:22adapt 75:17 105:11

137:10adaptation 75:2,15adapted85:12

204:3adaption 105:16add 26:12 43:20

76:16 112:8114:18 135:25224:22

added16:15 29:1,3

29:25 31:8 62:962:10 75:8 76:1778:8,11,21 114:14130:18 214:23215:15 230:11246:7

adding 27:4 34:14174:16

addition 7:3 27:20151:3 160:6

additional 36:2375:4 100:24 108:1148:10

additions 77:21additives81:4

256:17 259:19address99:18 161:6

179:8 180:8258:25

addressed82:693:23,24 166:10170:12

addressing161:22261:25

add-ons223:5adequate29:17adequately122:19adhering 89:11adjoining 188:22,22ADJOURNED

265:5adjudicated 59:6adjudicating 80:19adjust 52:18adjusted43:3

214:25adjusting 256:15adjustment 215:3adjustments191:4administer 8:24

46:24 118:20203:13 226:15

administrative 8:1adopt 44:8 116:3adopted13:10

25:10 42:19 44:1444:16 46:10 52:1360:9 116:10221:18 253:24

adopting 14:2443:24 91:24

adoption 43:3 61:292:19 108:12110:4 217:24

advance175:6234:16

advances83:6

advantage181:14181:16,19 182:11182:19 183:1234:7 235:22

advantages197:5adversarial 55:1

56:7advice4:22 159:10

160:10 167:7advised160:4

171:11advisory 153:25advocated233:13aeration 77:2aerobically 208:13Affairs 9:7 10:13

11:2 48:15 54:17affect 78:19 79:8

102:21affected5:1 77:15

185:2 211:14affecting 144:11

257:3affects32:11afford 114:6 231:5after 6:17 14:15,21

15:3,13 21:1448:24 60:8 96:2298:6 99:4 118:12125:6 126:12129:17 142:15152:25 153:4,10163:15 176:10188:23 214:17226:22 230:22234:3 248:10

afternoon 4:3117:15,23 154:18202:23 263:18265:1,3

afterwards 177:20again42:4,12 47:9

53:10,11,20,21,2554:24 55:21 56:856:12 58:3 88:2125:18,24 126:9126:12,13 127:19127:20 128:3141:23 149:12152:10 181:5183:3 185:2,5191:1 240:12,21241:18 246:10248:18 252:8256:12,17 258:2259:15 260:3261:15,19 262:10



Page 2

262:16against54:25 79:1

87:4 147:12 153:6216:19

agencies111:12Agency238:12agenda118:7ages87:24aggravating153:7aggressive148:20aggrieved169:25agitated40:3ago14:7,20 27:22

30:12 66:11 74:12104:20 109:21113:10 115:16119:13 120:12122:17 128:14138:4,23 177:12245:2 248:25262:13

agree66:23 67:8119:21,22

agreed217:17239:18

agricultural 17:2433:21 38:15 45:1651:14 95:22 99:2299:23 102:1124:21 160:2,9178:5

agriculture 43:1044:7,22 54:1674:5,5 90:16,1891:3,10 102:16,21112:15 114:22,23131:8 133:15136:9 150:14165:9 172:20181:12,25 185:7185:11 187:2189:11 191:14193:20,22 194:24197:6 198:16,24199:24 200:5,12201:14 218:24239:3 260:22262:12

agri-Manitoba 5:17agronomic169:2ahead45:17 177:18

200:19 213:23219:21 236:21

ahold 124:18aid 11:14aim 73:5aimed175:9 260:11

air 25:24 46:18128:16,17 133:3,7133:8,20 136:5141:19 194:18197:9 207:8 209:6209:11 210:21215:8 227:13235:24 259:8,24

albeit 7:10Alberta 22:11 97:11

107:14 220:21250:7

Alexander 154:24algae127:7,20

235:14alkalinity 76:4allocated69:8,13

70:13allocation 69:11,12

69:24allow 30:6 36:25

67:18 106:10119:16 168:1204:9 208:25229:23 248:11252:24 259:2

allowed7:11 48:5,648:8 53:18 119:18139:16 157:9215:7 262:16,19

allowing 196:8,24206:14

allows208:12214:15 218:19

all-weather 209:13almost16:7 103:24

129:23 139:18183:7 219:24241:21 262:11

alone64:21 108:21150:4

along11:24 127:5151:25 204:15206:5,19 215:5249:15 253:21254:11

already 10:18 43:1647:4 49:11,1251:22 54:8 60:2061:7 62:18 73:2478:22 79:1 81:24125:13 147:6177:22 183:16,18190:25 197:17217:9 258:17

alternate 216:17alternating 256:22

alternative 41:2542:1 58:3 64:23

alternatives190:9246:20

although 70:1178:17 83:5 230:14231:17 262:12

altogether18:17always55:7 56:9

70:6 90:6 102:5108:12 156:18239:13 242:15243:25 246:3261:9

amend75:3amending179:25amendment30:13

44:8 75:24 161:1amendments38:24

256:12 258:3America 111:16

120:10 121:7133:17 173:23200:8

American 71:19131:4 182:9,19200:7,9

amino 24:19,19ammonia25:2,9,22

26:3 132:22 134:4134:10 139:24140:2,4 197:12208:4,7,15,17214:20,21 216:13221:10 233:16257:24 260:8

ammonium 214:22215:15 223:2

among94:5 141:9158:22

amongst12:21amount 18:13 26:24

28:8,24 34:1154:1,9 64:2066:12 70:2 71:2471:25 81:13 102:4113:19 123:12133:13 137:12142:6 152:7163:20 167:23168:18 222:19263:20

amounted228:7amounts29:1,3

31:7,8,16 70:1490:24

anaerobic81:9 92:4

205:25 208:5,24212:6 216:14

analyses55:14analysis33:21

79:21 130:9,9210:2,10 222:11222:12 223:6,19232:20 242:3243:23

analyze169:13Andrew 2:12,13 9:4

9:12 10:24 11:3,611:7 40:19 54:8

and/or 79:6anecdotal101:2angering150:23angle253:16angry 148:22

150:23animal 24:10,16,20

24:21 25:19 35:1439:7 50:10,1151:1 53:2,4,587:21 88:5,18,2190:3,9 98:10104:17 109:10111:4 116:13130:17,20 133:21134:12 193:5,22194:24 198:16,24199:10,23 200:5238:16,25 239:6239:19 247:8251:8 255:22256:14,20

animals12:23 14:2115:1 16:4 20:828:5 87:3,4,7,1587:21,24 88:2,888:11,20 89:1490:9,12 91:6126:4 131:9132:20 185:1193:14,25 194:1,5194:9,12,21 195:1195:23 196:24197:10 199:1,12200:22 201:24202:1,4,5 208:18209:5 242:17259:15 263:22

animal's 256:16animal-plant-soil

24:8announced106:9

199:15announcement

196:15announcements

201:4annual 17:1 28:20

69:10,20,23,2598:7 102:5 104:4134:19 143:25238:23 245:15,17247:15,16 257:20264:18

annually 70:3 124:8251:3

annum 69:9,12another 19:7 34:16

64:5 66:16 70:579:25 92:5 98:9107:10,11 118:8120:9 126:22127:10 149:9182:3 183:2 192:4196:11 206:7229:21 240:20242:23 243:5,13246:22,24 257:2257:22

answer66:25 67:970:24 157:20182:12 217:23262:23

answered68:20answering250:19answers239:13antibiotic 200:2antibiotics 105:20

130:16,16 193:15194:3 199:23200:4,14,21,24201:9

antibiotic-resistant200:16

anticipate 179:13antithetical 175:22anti-microbials

131:7,10anxious67:17anybody46:3,4

203:7 264:24anymore151:8anything 53:5,17

94:10 164:16,18221:12,23 222:5224:6 229:10231:6 263:2

anyway143:4151:15 168:20

anywhere53:14114:11 205:19



Page 3

apart 57:12 185:22185:25

apiece121:1appeal57:25,25appear84:4 140:24APPEARANCES

2:2appeared139:10appears175:21applicant 230:24

236:16applicants217:18applicant's 162:22

232:21application 28:1,15

36:9,21 39:1840:1,4 53:22 54:754:12,13 55:556:17 57:10,12,2363:15,20 64:17,2175:4 78:1,18 79:480:24 82:9 91:792:6 154:22178:20,25 217:6255:14 256:25258:8 260:2,21

applications49:2256:12 58:22 59:876:7,24 227:20260:25

applied 26:6 31:434:12 88:17 95:10112:24 113:16,20113:23 125:10,11126:7 127:7 168:2168:15 169:2178:23 205:21210:9 228:1253:23

applies95:16apply 26:23 58:24

59:16 63:25 89:1092:7 113:23126:13 132:15167:24 189:9254:14 255:4257:13

applying 134:8167:18

appreciate41:362:15 140:8

approach108:13110:20 172:8205:5 206:25217:23 245:8253:19

approaches96:17

96:20appropriate 36:6

39:15 47:13 59:578:2 81:23 89:8166:18

appropriateness163:8

approval 41:2059:9 60:18,19155:21 166:23217:7

approvals40:2455:11

approve168:23approved55:6

56:18 161:19242:7 243:23

approximately 6:249:20 16:22 28:2529:4,12 104:5118:8 123:1 213:2228:4 238:21,23245:5 246:14257:5

April 5:19,21 52:22126:12 134:19240:20

aquatic 128:6 255:8aquifer 68:25 71:11

73:1,4,6,7 150:21164:13 188:16,16188:17 189:3228:19,20 229:4229:12,13,24230:13,19

aquifers 67:24 72:273:5 129:14137:23 188:12,18

Arborg 101:13areas29:18,18 32:4

32:6 34:6,14,2445:20 47:9,2548:2,4,11 58:1458:14,19 59:375:8 93:24 96:25114:2 129:13,14134:25 135:14136:17 172:18174:1 175:13188:1,2 230:13255:2 263:25

Argentina 102:23argue65:2arguing 172:16argument 113:17

174:15arise93:21 177:21

arises93:5arising 97:15arm 157:21arms 138:7around 13:23 42:15

43:9 48:9,10,1081:10 83:22 96:22101:2 113:18120:21 121:24126:16 139:9157:14 160:25165:23 188:6191:9 195:16223:14 224:11227:25 234:19249:19 262:9

arranged 6:3arrangement93:8arrangements

248:20arrive 15:17 156:5arrived 148:2

169:14arrogance153:14arteries 249:10artichoke 85:15article 122:23 123:7

123:22 169:8artificial 34:11,14

90:23 101:16113:23

artisans148:11artists 148:11ash212:13 215:15ashamed262:11aside245:18 258:23asked5:2 11:18

27:22 60:5 80:184:20 85:1 90:1492:22,23 98:22102:10 120:12123:25 124:17129:18 130:8131:18,19,20149:6 157:22162:12 163:2,11171:17 229:10230:7,23 233:22237:24 263:16

asking163:17174:12 214:5

aspects219:9,10239:10,19

aspirations46:7assessed79:20assessment113:1

131:12 135:21

169:15 171:3256:4

Assiniboine226:22assist7:4 75:16

171:12assistance110:6

116:7 239:15assisted204:15assisting155:12associate258:22associated87:6

185:24 211:22associates83:20association9:19

131:5 134:18200:7

associations242:11assume179:22

187:15 228:18assumed178:3assumes72:5assurance10:14

89:25 159:7230:12

assurances175:14175:16 231:19

assure61:6assured59:23

158:25 229:18ATD 2:19 203:15

203:23,25 204:6205:16 207:14208:5 209:24

atmosphere30:2131:1

attack 253:12attacking 208:8

254:21attempt 113:12

114:25attempting 168:23

175:6attempts85:18attend 166:6attendant 135:6attended36:3

147:18 184:25229:17

attending 142:13attention 61:13,17

161:21 193:12198:19,20 199:18199:22 201:2,20201:21,23 202:1262:3

attractive 22:20217:17

audience214:2,6auger86:7Australia 21:5authored 181:10authorities 45:5

90:1authority 19:22authorization 70:15authorized 70:9availability 106:1available7:13,23

8:8 85:11 99:11108:10 109:4,18117:18 158:16163:20 167:22170:25 171:8,25186:10 191:5,6,8210:13 211:10216:2,17,21 236:2240:14 262:21263:7,10

average13:1369:10,19,23,25121:6 238:24251:7,12

avian 248:10avoid 31:5 89:11

151:4 205:25233:11

avoidance213:14217:19

avoided211:17236:2

awaited176:11aware85:4 90:5

116:17 217:9254:24 255:18

away19:22 51:2,3,552:10 53:9,1687:15 94:8,9106:11 128:24149:21 244:18245:6 247:10

A.M.A 131:6,13

Bb 52:9 96:6 106:15

119:2back 7:24 8:4 13:2

17:17 18:6 23:1627:1 34:11 43:1543:23 60:3,1162:21 65:16,1675:9 99:14 102:11104:17 107:5117:24 118:6125:4 128:25



Page 4

129:12 132:6133:3 134:19141:3 147:15,17152:5,8 158:6159:20 176:1177:4 180:4,25195:2 202:5,25203:5,9 214:23223:5,19 236:12247:25 263:12

backdown225:17backed58:6 64:25

71:9background 21:17

66:4 71:17,21backgrounds249:5backhoe86:7backside143:24backwards236:13backyard 56:25

63:24back-up 230:16bacteria 129:10

208:8,10bacterial 87:2bad 61:14 167:8

174:5,5 192:17231:3

bag-in-the-tank85:14

balance27:2 33:1033:24 34:10 35:742:2 46:7 56:1175:12,18 99:15113:13,21 204:8210:7 223:4263:21

balanced58:765:24

balances33:19 44:2113:25 219:16

ballpark 206:18ban 241:2Band 150:22Banff 137:5 218:1bank 95:7,7 168:22banker 189:7bankrupt 94:8 95:6

186:21bankruptcy 153:17banned116:25banning 116:11barley 16:3barometers154:15barrier 53:3base44:17 47:21,22

49:16,25 68:7

100:1 101:25102:1 160:5186:16 243:24253:18 255:3

based14:19 17:926:23 28:17 44:1347:23 50:9,953:23 57:23 66:869:6 80:3 82:1184:4 97:14,18102:19 103:2106:20 115:13120:19 131:11156:7 172:7193:21 197:20215:22 218:5223:12 237:1251:7 261:17

baseless153:7basic42:24 81:2,10

97:6,22 194:5253:21

basically40:22 42:844:8,12 45:8 47:547:6 52:21 53:2,854:6 55:4 57:960:6 121:8 168:11196:13 219:12220:7 224:7256:18

basing47:9basis18:25 54:4

55:22 59:10 64:20155:24 171:25233:12 238:23243:24 245:16247:16 264:19

basket42:7beach236:6bear 57:4 115:12

165:1bears159:6Beausejour117:11beautiful 148:5beauty142:20became162:13

187:14become13:13 49:1

103:7 105:11167:22 177:17241:17

becomes110:12169:12 209:18

becoming143:13161:16

bedding246:7beef91:11 103:13

before8:21 34:638:6 48:23 54:1257:2 80:9 99:21122:12 145:23148:25 150:16156:6 177:9179:21 190:6198:1 206:16208:6 215:1243:23 248:23

beg201:19began149:1 172:21

234:11 242:20begging195:10begin144:22beginning188:13

247:9begins208:6begun49:8behalf 9:23 159:24

170:1 237:24238:19 245:12

being21:22 22:1037:19,23 39:1549:23 62:9 73:876:25 81:5 98:18101:10,11 107:15113:1 114:7 116:5116:25 139:22155:12 157:23161:19 164:21,24165:11 169:14178:4 182:15183:19 185:1188:7,19 192:5,5192:17 194:11197:19,20 198:4205:23 215:1217:6 232:9246:25,25 262:3262:16

beings151:1believe42:2,9 56:2

58:4,11,23 59:2,359:22 61:2 62:1662:16 138:5140:22 151:14152:22 173:19175:19 187:6194:22,23 199:24227:4 238:20

belong39:2below33:4 39:7

209:10belt 16:20 208:14

236:1belts36:24 81:2

259:22bend138:6beneath229:13beneficial77:22

240:7 241:13243:25

beneficiaries180:12

benefit 188:3260:21

benefits124:25160:5,7,18 205:8206:16,25 207:16213:16 245:13

best28:2 32:1 42:1758:14,15 80:2195:8 96:22 109:3145:6 146:9174:14 218:20230:5 233:14252:19 253:5257:19 258:10259:14

bet 40:25Betcher229:8better 23:10 34:9

35:16 42:2 46:3,755:2 72:11 77:288:4 106:16 113:1113:6 146:18208:21 210:8,17210:21 241:7256:16 263:24,25

between19:8 26:1434:19 35:2 45:545:23 50:13 52:2153:3 55:17 89:1493:7 99:15 114:11128:7 164:15187:23 249:18

beverage20:24beyond2:15 114:1

119:6 144:18148:9 160:17174:3 181:19

big 25:18 86:1888:23 120:1,16121:14,15 125:20129:15 146:7,7,10172:8 197:21224:24 229:13250:14

bigger 13:8 98:14117:5

biggest116:22120:17,20 221:9

bill 2:16 44:24,25

45:2 118:25 130:1137:20 140:18141:8 161:1,4166:1 180:2,5199:25 200:5

billion 16:8 20:2521:1 123:18 182:4

bills 161:10 208:19bin 215:11binder 11:11bioavailable26:13biocontainer 88:13biofilter 209:7,13

212:10biofilters 81:8biogas217:24

218:13biological 76:2

209:12biologically 173:19

173:21biomass77:24

209:9 211:9216:16 222:24

biosecurity 14:788:7,10 246:16

bio-security 248:7248:10

birds 238:24birth 14:14 15:2bit 13:3 21:25 32:5

41:6,10 45:1853:4 74:21 77:1692:1 93:13 99:3119:24 123:6128:12 136:4138:2 143:17167:10 188:8193:19 220:5222:1 224:2,22225:2 257:25258:16

bite 87:10bites13:9biting 87:4bits 195:17blaming 170:15blindly 153:15blocks27:17bloom 235:14blow 98:2 258:20blown 126:6Bluff 238:7 246:12

246:15board 10:5,10

19:21 29:6 80:780:19 82:12 84:15



Page 5

84:16 135:22136:1 145:20149:2 150:16167:15

boards244:6Bob 229:7body 39:15 75:22

169:23,23,25bog-like 233:3boil 153:24bomb 168:25bond 230:23bonding 186:23Bonnie232:17book 86:15 89:15boost223:6border 107:21

184:7born 145:3borrowing 174:8both 6:21,25 12:1

16:18 38:2 62:190:16 134:12145:4 150:23171:5 177:24200:1 216:25235:19 253:16

bottom 49:5,17 51:665:5 254:11

bought 148:4bouncing132:6bound 39:9boundaries46:20

46:21 52:7 53:10114:2

BPS's42:25Braggs263:1brand 210:15,19

247:5Brandon 21:8,12

120:20 186:13197:7 232:3

Brandson176:13Brandy 2:21 251:24

252:1,4,5,9Brazil 102:22 103:1

103:7 173:21breached140:23

141:2break 57:1 117:23

118:10 123:14173:14 177:3185:25 202:24

breakdown 120:12breaking 185:21break-even221:17breed153:14

breeding14:13 16:5bridge 220:25brief 7:10 9:16briefly 41:6 67:21brim 126:19bring 27:1 65:8

66:15,16 98:1299:5 113:20 150:1155:16 226:5228:13

bringing 94:19brings 215:5British 203:25broad 4:25broadcast33:15

260:4broaden254:12Broadway 182:23brochure 240:17brochures254:9

264:8broiler 246:5,9broilers 246:6

248:1broken 157:21Brokenhead71:5brokers 19:24Brooks 196:1Broquerie 34:18

126:10brother 148:4brought 37:19 38:4

57:4 114:8 163:5231:15 249:25252:14

brownie 160:18Brunkild 249:17Bruno 217:25brunt 258:20Bryksa 2:13 9:6,6

9:13bubbling 228:14buckets190:24Buckley 197:6,24budget116:20

212:24budgeting112:22

263:19budgets33:19

114:19 115:1,9buffer 48:10 53:24

243:15build 30:7 78:18

81:12 110:7150:21 181:4199:9 200:20217:14 220:7,25

221:11 253:17building 102:7

121:3 184:21198:8 201:11214:17 215:12259:22

buildings 99:25184:22

buildup 79:5,8build-up 128:19

167:19 181:1built 16:17 38:6

80:9 107:11,21108:1 111:6,8149:16 201:23245:4 247:4,14

bulk 215:17,24225:15

bunch 128:12burden 162:17burdened184:1bureaucracy

166:23bureaucrats158:12burgeoning147:5burn 184:18 222:19burned 185:1burner 158:6 209:8

212:14 215:15222:25

Burns 2:17 118:24118:24 119:1192:20,21,22,23202:11

burn-outs 128:11128:13

burr 143:24bush36:23bushel168:6,8,9bushels106:12,12business82:24

110:8 152:17153:6 182:22,23212:20 225:3227:18 234:1246:4,5,9 250:1262:15

businesses111:21152:16,20 153:1160:9 231:18

businessman149:10

busy118:7buy 20:13 174:14

205:17 217:16221:7 225:16

buying 196:21

by-laws43:1by-product 210:14by-products 88:14

208:4 260:15B.C 204:16 248:11

CCAFOs 133:21,22CAISNISA 124:19calcium 215:20calculate163:19calculating 263:24calculation 68:17

69:22 222:13,17calculations28:7,10

39:20California 224:14

224:17call 4:4 8:13 43:21

65:22 128:21133:22,22 151:18194:8 228:25

called12:15 13:1814:3,22 31:2444:25 80:16 85:1689:24 128:15,15170:15,15 210:1224:9 226:21233:3 235:1 247:5

calling 173:9calls172:22 192:15

234:15came41:11 44:25

45:2 63:16 100:13100:22 115:15122:10 123:11133:23 135:18138:23 180:4186:19 188:9,23192:11 262:15

Canada19:1490:17 96:20103:22,25 120:1,4120:5 121:25134:18 144:4146:19 199:14200:19 212:25213:6 217:13224:14 238:16,19

Canada's107:19120:20

Canadian22:1,523:9 27:21 89:2491:15,17 93:22106:8 108:3 129:8134:18 139:25146:19 181:21

210:19 238:11242:9 244:12

canola81:16 168:9cap229:19capabilities78:9capable73:7capacities32:20capacity16:10

21:21 30:4 36:868:21 73:14 77:177:3,8,12,13 79:9107:3,13 116:16123:14 174:4184:13,13

capital 16:1 105:25106:1,5 179:24211:6 212:24213:8 218:19

capped229:20capture 104:10

207:12capturing 211:7carbon 216:18care15:6 201:16

238:16 239:6,19careful 37:6 38:1

224:10carefully 37:3,11Carman 142:18

144:14Carolina 65:9

121:14,18 125:1173:20 204:18217:3 224:15

carry 48:25 116:15117:1 135:10210:2 214:6 232:6

Carter 186:25cartridges 225:19Carvery 188:16case45:24 48:7

50:13,19,21,2351:1,3 53:8 55:1459:7 66:16 104:19138:13 150:14231:22 233:23

cases6:2 46:19 65:880:19 209:19

cash20:10,11 172:2172:3 211:14213:15 235:15

Cassie235:8cataloguing237:4category19:10Cathy 2:7 8:23cation 77:12cattle 50:1 91:11



Page 6

184:7cause79:5 142:15

167:23 247:2258:17

caused83:24causes90:20 167:19causing69:2cautioned208:7CEC 7:4 71:4

141:22 144:16170:3 175:17176:13 261:23

cell 8:10,14,16 86:486:6,9

cellulase256:17census17:9 121:8cent16:22 17:1,13

18:10,14 21:3,2224:23 25:3 26:5,626:15,17 27:12,1528:16,18,20 29:129:12 31:1 45:853:14,15,18 66:1476:15 83:23 91:491:16,19,20 92:992:14 103:18104:2,4 111:1114:16 115:19

center212:18213:17,18

centered156:21central 100:7

101:17 167:12,14170:25

centre50:25 196:3centres43:9 48:9,10

109:7centrifugal 86:3centrifuge 85:7certain 13:23 27:19

31:11 48:3,4,5,749:14 50:18 52:1653:23 55:6 198:21220:22 221:20

certainly 46:4 48:2399:1 174:13,13177:8 179:14226:7 231:11232:11 236:11,23

CERTIFICATE266:1

certified 248:4certify 266:6cetera63:1,7,7

119:19 128:20chair 4:6,7 119:8,14

140:20 169:7

238:13challenge22:19

74:6 172:11173:14 176:21204:4 219:12246:10

challenged245:8challenges101:9challenging97:20Chambers148:19chance164:25change16:12,13,15

23:7 83:25 90:1590:20 98:3 136:4136:12,22 137:7137:10,11 180:3,4180:11 198:6,14221:24 230:1245:24

changed13:4160:11 162:7,20172:15

changes16:14 23:860:13 99:10102:20 103:4158:8,9 164:22180:13,13,14209:6 211:18,20220:5 222:23241:5,18

changing27:2362:3 109:10 161:5

Channel233:4,4characteristics

58:15 206:13characterizing 83:8charge94:24charged138:14charging 234:11Charleswood245:4

245:19chart 15:22 30:5

35:21 41:19 50:755:23 80:6 84:19120:9 121:25

charts 28:8 29:2029:23

cheap147:7cheapest194:21check9:22 23:17

141:4 162:21261:9

checks234:16chemical76:2,10,19

85:13 204:16215:23 222:15223:14 224:23

chemicals215:24chew195:18 196:8chicken50:1 246:5

246:6 248:5chickens244:23child 245:2 250:7children 144:18,18

154:15 201:16249:25

children's 144:18China 103:6,19choose218:19chose245:10

246:24Christmas 152:18

152:19,20circle 173:13,15circled 189:21circles249:10circo 120:8Circovirus 105:3circulate 180:23circulated 229:14circulation 215:8circumstances65:9

177:21Cities 186:13citizen 66:6 141:13

175:24citizens57:5 154:21

191:17 247:1250:2

city 41:2 46:4 70:570:8,11 71:24101:20 243:4244:18 245:3,13

city's 70:14civil 190:17claim 67:4claimed231:24claims80:12 82:19

169:2clarify 110:16

251:11class49:14,14 106:9

112:10 257:6classic109:19classified139:25classrooms168:16clay 30:3 31:18

229:22 233:18245:23

clean1:1 2:3 4:6,1115:11 60:4 94:10119:16 176:1187:13 204:12208:14 226:23

227:2 230:18cleaned212:11cleaner210:21cleaning26:1 79:23cleanliness81:3

258:4 259:15clean-up231:1clear 45:22 174:3

182:10clearly 6:12,14 12:1

43:5 45:21 51:1971:6

Cleave83:19climate 65:12 90:15

90:20 136:4,11,15136:22 137:6,10137:11 198:6,14205:10 236:19

climatic 132:24clinically 88:25close36:20 42:12

109:6 129:2138:23 144:1184:24 216:6218:7 220:14,17235:5 244:19248:24 250:17

closed101:11107:21 148:22

closely141:4 169:9234:20 247:9

closer211:1closing7:2 42:13

146:16 187:20closures184:7cloudy 260:9Clubb 157:16

226:10,13,13,16226:16,17,20237:9,10

coal85:15Coalition 6:22

119:7code184:21 239:17Codes242:7coin 221:16coliform 129:9collaborative

109:24colleague179:6

180:6 182:2collect17:11 227:21collected224:16collecting162:2collection35:22

193:13collective157:2,6

159:6collectively115:3colony151:15 160:3coloured244:5Columbia 203:25column 50:11combat115:4 200:2

255:17combatting 258:5combination 22:24combine25:25combined247:3

250:23 251:15combining 12:19come25:10 37:17

42:24 51:15 60:2363:21,22 72:1574:19 75:18 78:378:25 91:5 92:1198:13 105:16112:15 115:8117:24 118:6132:14,17 149:1177:4 179:21180:11 182:13183:21 188:3190:6 197:23200:19 203:4,5209:4 221:4,6223:5 228:15244:19 261:3264:18

comes18:6 52:856:10 62:8,864:14 90:7 92:398:9 114:13 116:5138:6 150:25155:14 182:5192:13,16 196:21213:6 226:24260:3 261:19263:22

comfort 87:21comfortable 13:7

141:7comfortably 88:7coming18:19 49:4

60:10 72:17 74:13105:9 132:12134:7 139:21165:4 179:12189:8 216:24222:22 227:1231:13 264:11265:1

commencing4:25:18



Page 7

comment7:9 60:580:1 85:1 99:2116:4 137:14180:16 238:19239:25 264:4

comments4:10 7:242:5,13 90:1592:23 94:2 108:11193:2 238:6250:18

commercial17:728:22 29:2 30:1593:8 152:1 189:6

commercially 218:4commission1:1 2:3

2:7 4:6,11 6:3,949:3 60:4 71:497:8 101:1 106:8118:19 119:13,17156:24 171:20172:4 173:9 176:2179:3 180:21182:6 183:12184:20 185:13186:3,5 187:5,17187:20 190:5,10192:12 193:7194:17 203:13226:14

commissioner180:8262:24

commissioners11:10 41:22 56:2357:2 174:11188:10 189:4

commit 172:25commitment 149:10

159:20 165:10207:25

commitments206:17

committed 157:17159:16

committee10:13,1310:15 44:15 54:14140:19 141:11162:9,10,13,24163:7,12,22,23166:22 167:16232:3,20 238:14242:19

commodity 110:13240:6

common94:1147:21 156:4170:20 187:1232:13 233:19

communications253:25 264:6

communities5:1747:22 138:3143:20,21 153:13155:10,17 158:2161:16,23 164:2172:11 174:24175:5 176:18190:22 191:10,12250:6

community 10:2540:17 46:6 58:861:7 66:2 101:12102:2 138:6 155:2155:3,4 163:25164:12 171:23227:24 230:12,21230:25 235:19236:8,20 246:12247:5,11 254:1264:6

compact76:25compactions37:13companies85:19

109:8 120:13,24company203:24comparatively 46:8compare19:14

192:11,13 197:18206:21

compared19:1522:6 33:15 216:3260:9

comparing 71:24comparison34:19

70:5,8 111:6206:4,23 234:23

compatibility 56:1857:24 64:3

compatible56:1964:2,2,10,15,17

compensate153:19compensated

199:10competition 102:22competitive106:14

181:14,16,18182:18 183:1,19

competitors112:6complain 208:4complainant 191:20complainants

135:24complained153:9complainer 141:15complaint 80:19

136:3 151:20153:3

complaints80:482:4,13,15 135:21170:6 190:16,19191:17

complete173:24completed248:2

264:17,21completely139:6

175:21 248:1complex12:17 15:2

60:17 82:25 97:17100:15

complexity 15:2346:14 84:23

complicated222:18262:22

comply 53:5 55:21component4:22

25:17 114:20,22114:23

components208:3208:23 209:23

composition24:2079:19 230:2

compost197:25260:16

composted198:3comprehensive42:6

59:22 62:17comprised54:15compromise255:7

255:8compromised

176:16computer 14:9Computer-assisted

209:22concentrate75:6

224:9concentrated

103:18 133:21concentration

79:17 82:22123:13,21

concentrations134:15 227:14

concentric249:10concept37:20 97:14

97:20 174:9217:21

conception222:8concern31:10 71:1

119:12 129:15134:23 181:6200:18 228:11

234:24 242:16245:24 252:18254:23 258:14,15258:23 261:15

concerned134:20141:20 142:12161:13 171:10,11172:22 175:24

concerning170:24184:21

concerns80:8 94:599:17 134:16161:14 166:10204:7 209:2

conclude201:1261:11

concludes218:25concluding94:2conclusion94:14

217:8conclusions92:12

156:6,7 169:13conclusively181:13condition 230:9conditional 54:21

54:23 56:6 59:4166:6 168:21230:21 236:8

conditioner 76:1conditions55:7,8

59:13 162:14189:24 194:2200:23 227:22

conduct4:13175:18 176:2

conducted257:11conducting176:14confidence7:22

42:8,10 61:1890:6 176:7 188:14190:20 231:23

confident 219:18,20configured 209:20confined194:1confirmed 216:6confirms 84:17confiscate8:17conflict 138:14,16

146:3conflicts 51:17

138:17 158:11Congress200:1conjecture140:11connect219:12connected50:17

71:12cons67:13 86:17

conscious158:19190:3

consensus133:24134:1

conservation4:125:6 30:18 38:739:1 40:6 43:1844:22 54:18 98:16111:18 112:23114:9 115:7116:16 119:14137:9 145:14149:15 159:11165:9 218:23226:10,21 228:25263:23

conservative160:12165:25

conserves211:1conserving110:11consider5:10 61:8

179:25 187:21194:14 196:22198:15 227:13

considerable155:6considerably15:21considerations

160:22considered36:18

134:3consistency56:2consistent47:17

71:16 80:13196:23 210:10

consistently33:14constantly85:20

89:23constituents133:11

150:5Constitution 93:22constructed71:7

246:22construction 36:13

37:12 52:3 55:1955:20 57:20 70:16148:15,25

consultants7:4consultation43:21

44:19 46:10 56:560:3 61:1

consultations58:7111:11 165:16

consulted232:9consume144:24

183:10consumed104:3

215:25



Page 8

consumer112:9146:20 225:22

Consumers196:20consumer's196:19

242:10consumption20:20

37:3 103:11,13,14103:21 104:2,9206:7 207:19216:10

contact7:23contain 26:14

264:16container 125:24contaminants94:25contaminate227:6contaminated94:20

94:21,22 235:15contaminating

71:11contamination

32:17 70:25 79:6128:19 129:14130:6,12 229:7,15230:14 233:11

contended220:12content25:13 27:7

29:21 76:11,1577:14 79:19170:11 210:11230:2 233:16

contentious54:24contents5:5context20:23 41:10

65:13 69:18 70:1594:15 156:18,19

continent 120:16,22121:13

contingency184:10184:14

continue5:18 10:410:20 99:25 182:8209:4 244:3246:25 252:16253:14

continued160:14continues107:1continuing 25:10

246:19contours114:3contract 93:7

181:11contractual 94:1contradiction

178:15 179:9contrast 31:19

157:15

contrasted16:23contribute 136:7

231:2 243:2259:16

contributes 90:1992:8

contributing 66:13115:4 200:15

contribution 91:391:17 92:16198:16

contributors 252:12control 36:7 42:22

46:23 78:12 90:994:24 105:13109:4 181:20188:1 211:19235:3,5

controlled 13:1114:9 87:1,1288:16

controlling 171:19259:9

controls 174:12controversial 82:19controversy42:3

247:2conveniently210:9convention138:22conversation48:14conversations214:2

214:6conversely48:2conversion92:4

208:21 263:9convert 214:21converting 112:8conveyor208:14

214:15 215:9217:4

conveyors208:9214:14

convince168:23cool260:9cooled215:1cooler87:7cooling228:6cooling-off 145:21copies164:8 191:25

202:15copy12:23 135:15

238:20core18:23 26:21

36:2 38:11,1768:4,19

corn 16:20 103:7147:4 168:9

corners185:21corporate 82:23

124:14 143:16158:3 174:22175:6 246:25250:2

Corporation 120:25121:2 124:22138:8 178:6

correct 31:5 63:1265:4 71:14 115:20178:20 179:1219:4 266:7

correctly 120:5corrupts 153:15COSDI 43:21cost62:9,10 86:19

106:14 114:10,14146:1 147:4 149:9149:12 150:15169:3 181:22182:17 212:18213:17 217:15218:19 230:11,18234:9 256:3

costly205:6 236:3costs16:1 23:1,13

37:5 81:11 112:2112:3 182:14194:22 206:3,14206:16,18,21209:18 211:3213:8,14,15216:11 231:11233:21 237:2,4

cottage48:11councillor 116:5

155:5 163:2,4233:8

councillors 138:14227:18 230:6231:13 234:4249:2

councils45:6 46:257:1 65:25 67:12

council's 174:15231:9

count 202:7 216:18countless51:25countries21:5

154:7country 104:1

120:3couple121:21 132:9

138:4,22 139:7152:25 196:4263:15

coupled207:20course19:9 25:18

40:20 43:2,2552:6 53:17 60:2361:12,25 106:1107:23 108:2120:17,23 121:1136:5 142:11144:10 148:21149:7,13 153:8155:11 178:13179:10 199:5220:3 221:22242:5 243:13,22245:13,23 246:6262:17

courses53:21court 56:7 189:1

266:5courts 158:20cover11:20 82:16

86:14 132:13148:24 149:6

covered37:25149:4

covers26:1,1,3,4,780:24 82:9 92:1108:17 235:25250:3 259:19

cowardly 153:8co-authored200:11co-operation218:8Co-operator 122:24

123:8CO2 216:19Craft 148:9crazy 199:2create109:8 111:21

195:19 200:17253:25

created9:21 100:24109:22 111:14204:6 206:24210:15 246:10

creates137:4197:11

creating 206:8212:20 264:6

creation 179:17creatures144:23credibility 217:2credible 171:15credit 101:25

124:20 178:6credits 211:13

212:21 213:13216:21

Creek 142:17149:21 151:6,12226:10,21 232:5

crisis 147:4 184:14200:3

criteria 55:6 56:2258:22 73:20 89:9

critical 41:18 75:11106:23 153:5181:9 191:1 232:4

criticizing 176:10critics 192:10crop 27:2 28:2

29:10,19 31:1333:9,12,14 38:374:3 76:20 78:779:9 91:7 102:5108:25 110:10,11110:13 112:3113:13 168:6,8,9210:8 241:10245:18 257:6

cropping 77:15257:21

crops19:15 28:5,1728:20 29:13 31:2033:17 35:11 74:375:25 167:19,25181:5 241:13246:1

cross-countryside142:19

cross-examine6:19119:19

cross-representat...10:10

Crow's 16:13crude 83:5crush 13:6cryptosporidiosis

88:22cubic 69:8,11 72:12cultivated 186:9cultivation 76:12cultivators 108:18cure 130:16current 4:16 41:23

65:18 89:22 95:14107:6,25 143:25144:19 171:4177:24 206:3209:10 211:16213:13 223:15239:22

currently 5:2012:11 22:20 52:2553:1 116:13



Page 9

154:14 217:6252:15 256:1258:9

curtailed 154:6curve 25:20custom230:11customers235:17

236:5customize206:14cut 185:21 209:17

234:9cutting 34:11

233:21cycle29:24,24cycles24:12cycling 77:24

106:16cynicism145:3C.M.A 134:23

135:2

Ddaily 54:4 155:24dairy 184:18Daly 164:14damages94:17

190:20damaging162:5Dame150:6 152:14danger128:22dangerous93:17

94:25darn 224:19darned 57:3Darryl 182:1data 65:7,18,18

129:24 130:1,6131:19,20,22132:1,4,5,7 135:5169:15 170:23243:23,25

date10:19 74:13139:15 259:6260:24

dated175:23dates240:20daunting 142:4David 137:6 200:11dawn 235:8day 8:8 60:22 68:12

68:13 70:10,11119:10 141:8142:8 148:23192:10 195:16196:9 208:13215:11,14 217:7220:1 223:4

224:20 228:5260:9,9,10

days5:16 36:2470:14 116:16127:25 136:25172:3 184:14208:22

day-to-day55:2260:19

de150:6 250:25251:1

dead148:19deadline7:14deal12:7 40:16

74:22 78:23 93:1497:25 98:14105:24 107:13108:13 109:11127:3 131:15132:14,16 145:4170:14 250:14

dealing30:14 35:2536:13 37:18 39:181:8 86:22 108:24131:3 148:20257:24 258:1

deals76:3 238:14239:19

dealt 73:25 225:6death185:1debate56:8,24

63:19 64:19110:23

Debra 266:5,17debt 217:20decade16:23 104:8decametres69:9,12

72:12decide156:19

162:12decided163:13

234:6 236:20decision56:15

66:21 67:11 149:3159:22 206:22

decisions155:9156:2,5,7,21,25160:20,24 165:15165:23 167:9171:18 172:10173:10 240:15243:25

decision-make164:21

decision-maker155:4 176:17

decision-makers

158:5,12,13162:11 163:7167:8

decision-making48:22 155:21,25156:9 157:14158:18 159:2

decline76:18declined34:8 76:12declining 98:19decommission95:5

96:7decommissioning

94:6 95:15,19decorations152:19decrease108:3

136:9 198:5 199:3decreased148:2decreasing199:16Deerwood74:12defective71:14

176:22defend145:12deficiencies34:25

173:7deficit 147:3 181:24

182:3 183:6define64:25 65:1defined45:21 95:1defines63:9 67:5definitely 26:2

155:25 243:9263:12

degradation134:11166:16 227:10260:14

degree191:18262:11

delay96:1 118:11delays191:16delegations97:3deleterious69:2deliberate167:3deliberations180:9delightfully 176:23deliver 13:19

112:11 248:13,13Delta 1:17demand16:18,19

35:12 103:3,5107:18 147:5

demands155:18democracy165:17demonstrate124:2demonstrated

200:13demonstration

217:10 218:12219:21 220:6,15220:18

denial 57:10 62:2263:4 144:20

denied56:13 57:1363:5

denitrification30:22 34:22

Denmark 217:24226:9

densities18:7density18:14 29:18

210:6deny57:23 64:16

64:21 80:11department 38:25

68:15 145:14149:15 150:13153:3 163:12170:2,14 181:12181:25 185:3191:13,14 204:17

departments109:22 110:1231:25

depend106:4 151:1176:20

dependence101:16112:3

dependent22:2102:13 175:5207:3

depending35:2453:12,21,22 63:2132:23 264:20

depends35:20 73:373:4 255:9

depleting69:1depth 78:15 79:14describe12:17described6:10

30:16 157:17describing35:22description 12:10

14:13 21:6,2576:5 78:13 86:888:3 92:10

descriptions32:2140:2

design36:4 44:2357:19 61:9

designate48:3 63:2designated48:11

50:23,23,25116:24 117:3

designed15:16

36:10,16 209:8219:15

Desilet's235:17desire195:15despite57:13 63:6destruction 189:14detail 93:13 94:3

213:25 261:8detailed33:20

63:14 85:10 96:19135:20

details37:12 38:938:22 73:17 90:1697:9 124:15 159:7

determinant 23:2determination

67:15determine4:18

50:12 56:16 58:20219:25

determined225:15determiner 162:14determining 216:19

231:9detrimental 56:20

64:7develop102:2

105:19 106:5108:22 109:24183:4 204:23

developed14:1938:18 48:1,2 81:581:6 87:2 155:19159:3 178:22205:5 206:12224:18 242:8250:12

developing22:18109:16 112:14113:13 169:9183:14 191:4,11240:2 253:5254:13

development11:137:23 40:18,2443:1,7,9,9,19,2243:25 44:1,350:16,24 58:10,2459:11 68:5 80:1199:15,16,16101:23 106:3,10108:20 109:8121:19 135:1138:7 157:12161:9 176:21177:19 178:4,8218:6,10 227:3



Page 10

developments102:3177:21 199:19201:3

devil 97:9de-commissioned

122:20de-commissioning

122:16,21DGH 83:20diagram 24:16diagrams37:10Dickson2:12,13 9:4

9:4,12 10:24 11:711:9 12:5 23:1923:23 24:3 40:1466:25 67:19 72:372:9,14,19 73:373:11,22 85:9,2586:14,24 94:5,1395:17 96:13,1698:21 99:3,9104:25 105:3112:19 113:8115:11,21 116:1,9116:24 117:5,9,16117:17

dies94:9diet 24:18 26:14

27:6 81:3,18256:11 258:3

dietary 25:13,1427:12 79:24 81:19211:18,20

diets27:16 35:10differ 6:21difference187:23

197:21 261:3different 12:6 13:15

13:15 14:5 15:2418:16 25:16 32:2032:20 33:23 34:1965:12,12 66:1873:5 79:13 83:1184:7 85:20 87:2487:25 97:12 114:4119:25 121:5125:8,23 129:22130:2 133:1173:24 220:2,3237:23 244:9256:13 258:3,5259:20

differentiation210:18

difficult 33:1 83:8182:12 206:24

dig 197:2

digesters92:4digestible26:12digestion81:9digging 228:13diligence32:4 54:9dioxide 216:18dire 201:9direct 4:15 73:23

189:25 209:6directed 39:9

209:12 211:20directly 19:24 20:6

31:3 151:11director 10:25

40:17 96:2 150:12192:23 238:9,10238:11 244:6

Directors 10:5dirty 259:15,15disadvantage

183:20,20disagreement150:7

150:9disappear62:13disaster236:14disbelief147:20discharge209:5,9

209:11 210:25212:2 242:22

discharged216:2discharging204:25discontinued95:23discount217:16discounting237:2discourteous8:15discover183:13discovered95:4

234:25discriminating

112:12discuss213:24discussed62:23

112:22 113:6150:8 228:21

discussion15:530:12 77:18 97:19179:17 187:21188:8

discussions112:23177:11 180:2187:18 244:8246:17 263:23

disease78:12 85:1,286:24 87:5 88:2188:22 89:13 90:390:9 104:18,24105:1,3,12,13

130:17 153:19184:8

diseases14:7 86:2488:25 104:17105:17,18,21,22200:8

dishwashers243:1dismissal173:25dismissed158:5

235:4 236:25displacement90:23displayed148:11disposal207:22

211:5 212:3disposing207:6dissenters236:7distance50:18distances50:5,13

51:6,9,10,16,2053:11 57:17 81:2489:9 135:17150:10 164:13

distributed 216:4distribution 18:3

29:17 137:12district 10:9 45:6districts 10:7,8

34:10,19disturbing 166:4ditch 127:5,8,11,16

127:17,21ditches32:13 151:6diversification

212:22diversify 249:23divide 121:10division 42:22divisive 161:7DNA 83:17doctor 225:2document71:3

80:18 139:11documents151:7Doer 165:8doing 27:14 44:9

45:13 48:13 54:1161:22 62:4,5 92:599:7 130:23132:16 152:7,17152:20 169:19191:7 197:8220:23 241:9,18253:13

dollar 22:5,6 23:9102:18 108:3181:21

dollars 16:8 102:19

Domain 249:18domestic68:11

73:14 91:6 111:25228:6

dominates104:2dominos147:11done10:3 33:2

34:17 39:13 67:671:3 78:24 79:1283:15,20 86:2098:24 100:5 113:1113:11 114:9151:19 152:24163:21 181:11201:19 215:3,14219:9 220:9224:13 230:9240:11 245:25247:7 254:4,5255:15,24 256:9258:2 259:13

door 161:16dosages130:15doses194:3doubt 126:25doubts161:14Doug2:8down 16:25 20:3

22:9 32:7 57:172:5 73:16 81:1786:9 101:19 120:8123:15 133:6148:16 161:17163:10 178:25179:2 215:6 221:4221:6,18 224:13224:18 226:5230:21 233:12,17236:6 260:3261:19

downpours97:15downsides62:14downstream233:24downwind 83:17dozen148:10Dr 100:6 130:1

173:15 181:10196:1 197:5,24200:11 263:1

draft 239:22drag 108:18drain 86:5 164:4

214:15 233:3,4drainage31:12

46:16 58:17127:11,16,21

drains 233:1

dramatic 116:15dramatically 87:14

106:10drastically 87:16

208:14draw 72:5drawing 156:6

161:21drawn 70:3 71:19

72:3dread 184:16drew 249:10dried 215:16drier 198:7drift 132:23 133:2,5Drilling 70:18drinking 129:8,11

144:8 228:6drive 62:10 160:23

205:1 248:16driven 113:15drives 160:19dropped 22:9 105:8

215:11drought 136:18

137:25 228:17drugs 190:8dry 15:11 85:6 86:9

188:13,23 189:2204:11 208:12222:21 241:25247:14

dryer 209:11 210:5215:13 216:16222:24 241:23

drying 210:14214:23

dual 45:4,7 59:25dubbed44:24due32:4 54:9 60:4

87:10 148:19Dufferin 100:7Dufrost 247:5,7,11

250:24dugouts67:25duly 46:2dump 128:11dumping 128:9

151:5,11duration 83:3during 6:17 25:23

26:7 37:12 44:18140:21 149:21228:21

dust 81:17 83:16duties108:4 146:23duty 163:4



Page 11

dynamic 90:5 138:8

EE 181:10each6:24 8:22

15:24 16:3 55:1359:7 79:18 106:24118:17 156:13,16206:10 215:11240:7 256:19

earlier 62:22 93:2105:6 107:18108:21 109:1113:7 121:9 150:8181:17 208:21213:17 261:17263:17,18

early 16:21 21:18earnings106:5ears13:9earth 234:1earthen37:9 50:13

97:11 116:8easier161:8 210:20

241:24 242:1easily26:12 76:25

99:11east247:6,12

249:17eastern18:5easy39:23 205:11

205:14,20 236:9eat15:12 67:17

195:18,23eating143:1,4ecological168:25

169:16 175:4231:11

economic22:1644:2 90:10 99:16100:1,4 101:9102:3,16 110:14123:18 146:8159:18,18 160:18174:13 176:20177:15 178:8181:7 182:10183:3,19 185:17185:23 186:21205:1 212:17216:25 231:10236:18 246:16253:1

economical196:9economically

185:18 189:12196:25 204:24

253:20,22 260:20economics123:5

189:5,10,12196:13 221:19

economies160:8economist102:10economy21:1 99:22

99:24 100:19,24101:24 111:20114:24,24 218:4218:24

Ed 181:10 183:23edge249:15edition 143:23editor 153:4educated110:9,10

161:17education240:25Edwin 2:5 4:8effect69:3 74:15

77:23 160:15171:5

effective149:8158:14 161:17180:20 236:2

effectively46:23,23224:4,21 259:11

effectiveness4:18109:20

effects76:8 90:21100:19 115:16155:23 166:16172:23 193:17255:25

efficiencies92:3efficiency109:20

228:25efficiently 205:17

255:20 256:14effort 39:22 51:12

109:24,25 254:18efforts 5:3 145:12

149:2 154:12253:14

egg237:14,25 238:9238:11,19,21239:2,9 243:6,9

eight 10:6,18 100:6125:18,20 126:22

either 19:24 25:453:24 59:8 62:1365:3 72:14,2378:7 81:1 104:11212:9 262:14

elected10:6 46:2election48:23,25

231:12

elections48:21elementary246:14elements34:25elevation112:2elevator101:11eliminated 87:11

208:20 211:23212:4,7

eliminates204:7eliminating 212:17elimination 207:20Elite 151:14elsewhere176:16else's133:4,10embarked48:17embarking 179:22embarrassing162:5embodied37:14

44:3embrace112:13embraced157:9emerge191:23emerging81:7 85:4

131:14emission25:22

212:21 213:12emissions82:8

90:21 91:16,20,2192:9,15,17,20132:11,14,17136:5,7 198:17201:6 257:24258:2 259:7 260:8260:14,17

emotional56:8,2463:19 64:19 83:11

emphasis178:16236:11

emphasize38:19109:2

employ111:21211:6

employee148:4employment100:21

210:22 250:9empowered42:23emptied126:11empty 95:9 125:13

125:14 126:14139:10,18 140:24160:19

enable256:14261:23

enacted45:3encourage101:1

110:3 172:4174:11 210:22

241:11 242:2,6encouraged12:9

244:10 245:1246:19

encourages173:10encouraging240:13

240:21encyclopedias

86:16end5:9 7:18 11:24

12:4 37:5 41:21112:16,17 183:23191:22 192:10,25208:13 213:21224:12 234:6237:6 240:20

endeavoured90:7endeavours7:6endless175:14endorsement

210:17endotoxins83:16ends127:8,16,20

130:21 192:3energy25:14,15,17

218:5 219:17260:16

enforced98:18111:17 178:23

enforcement40:798:15 110:18122:8 158:21

enforcer 178:14engaged7:18

179:20 180:1engaging7:4engineered37:11engineering54:11

55:14 57:19 83:2097:21 204:17,17206:13 219:11,13219:14

engineers36:10enhance76:19 78:9

174:23 252:20261:13

enhanced75:1776:22 77:13 162:8

enhances88:5enjoyed142:20enormous90:24enough21:20 56:11

149:17 153:21,21153:22 164:25173:24 174:15182:21,23 195:24221:10 228:10

229:25 247:17,23249:19

ensure4:25 5:1415:16 36:5,1552:18 61:20 62:569:4 115:3 158:20199:6 209:16

ensures95:7ensuring79:2 90:2

166:9 202:6enter 42:23 228:19enteric 91:5entering 30:9enterprise51:13,14

116:22enters146:12

226:23entertain 189:8enthusiasm112:13entire 126:18 134:2

144:3 234:15254:1

entirely 80:23entitled 5:6 62:22

64:23entrance248:15entrepreneurs

111:20entry 229:6,21enunciated43:5environmentalist

157:17environmentally

4:20 31:6 38:1638:19 86:25 87:12129:13 153:23185:20 204:23210:16

environmentally-...165:6 196:10

envy177:8 185:23enzymatic77:24enzyme27:4 77:17

115:14 255:19enzymes35:10

77:19 208:7equal178:16equality 109:20equation146:13,13

182:16 183:3195:2 202:5

equipment110:4205:12 209:8

equitable252:22equity 106:5equivalent69:25

213:3 215:22



Page 12

erodible 198:4erosion32:10,12,18

43:13 74:15 181:4198:5

erred 232:20erroneous115:2errors 163:24 164:1

172:13escapes137:1escaping133:9,14especially31:11

146:16essence45:4 62:13essential56:6 157:4essentially12:16

21:8,19 37:4 46:173:5 82:8 93:4,20108:16 113:12200:2 224:3,19

established78:2184:18

establishes257:18establishing179:24estimate163:21

168:20 206:15estimated100:10,20estimates130:4

212:24et 63:1,6,7 119:19

128:20etcetera246:2ethanol147:6 183:8

183:10,14Europe 96:21

173:20European97:2,2

103:22Eva 173:15evaluate156:19evaluation167:13

231:19evaporation209:4even41:2 43:15

49:8 55:9 86:387:12 92:5,17109:9 113:22130:23 147:10149:5 151:6158:19 161:18179:13 199:6207:10 225:18230:7

evening152:10203:3,4,7,22237:13 262:4264:25 265:2

event55:2

events160:25233:25

eventually127:15214:22 215:4

ever20:17 35:1680:9 118:15 190:1263:2

every45:12,15 47:649:25 55:13 59:760:22,22 62:7,863:16 100:23105:23 176:17219:23 220:2235:11

everybody62:668:10 115:24

everybody's226:8everyone203:22everything 13:4

193:10 225:1,23evidence82:12

101:2 130:5139:23 140:10160:24 162:2166:1 173:25191:16,19,20245:21

evidenced111:17evidence-based

156:6evolution 41:7evolve61:10evolving60:21 62:2exactly254:22examination5:7

167:11 171:15examined24:9

155:11example16:2 17:25

34:1 40:2 50:3,1074:11 76:3 81:1583:7,15 85:2587:8,19 91:2 95:697:10 101:18,25104:22 108:15109:9,21 110:19110:24 115:14126:22 127:10163:1,5,6,10164:3 206:5211:10 248:12256:12 260:4,8

examples97:10101:4 163:9,24

excavated38:3exceed84:12 168:4exceeded34:7

129:8,11excellent56:3,3

250:2except68:11exceptional111:2Exceptions6:1excess24:22 167:21exchange22:3,25

77:12excitement112:14excluded116:14

170:8 171:24excludes69:13excluding120:11

213:7exclusive239:9excreted24:24 25:2

25:3 26:18 28:1128:25 29:9,13130:20

excretes24:22255:22

excretion25:8,1226:21 28:11,17

executive10:1224:4 75:20 192:23

exemplary84:18exempt53:1 133:15exempted68:13,15exemptions110:3exercise115:1

179:10exercises165:20exercising67:12exhaust139:20

140:3 209:7exhausted212:10EXHIBITS 3:1,3exist183:11 184:5

186:13 188:20existing36:23 47:23

51:11 52:18 61:2471:10 158:21212:16 253:21261:15

exists97:22expand177:13

182:9,24 207:10217:12 246:5,9

expanding218:23250:1

expansion21:13,1491:11 135:4159:17 160:13161:24 172:8175:10 177:25206:8 237:8

246:23 259:2expansions52:19expect153:10

155:22 189:24215:18 217:7230:15

expectations110:17expected147:7expense63:14

174:16 233:12expensive81:11

209:18 222:15230:3 235:4

experience80:2,1484:6,16 95:5101:17 155:7,15156:2 159:6160:10 164:2172:17 175:8179:5 180:7 184:6189:20 190:21204:5 205:13244:5,7

experiences147:16experimental217:5expert 150:13

167:16 229:8expertise46:22

115:8 155:15,19165:19 172:13204:3

experts227:21231:25

explain 176:10206:18

explained132:20exploring 97:8Expo 137:5,5exponential17:3

110:25export 16:9 18:9,11

21:4 146:20184:11

exported250:7exporter 22:10exporters210:18exporting 20:19

104:1 210:5exports20:2 103:23

104:13exposed135:13

215:8exposure25:23

83:3 134:17 244:8express119:12expressed162:11

166:20

expresses134:23167:4

extended7:1121:20 136:17

extensive44:1958:7 60:2 180:19

extensively98:25extent66:1 74:9

90:22 98:2 105:12109:1 113:9,15180:17 181:2216:22 223:1234:10

external 135:16extra 107:17extractable31:12extracting 223:17extraction 214:20

221:10extremely58:8

79:16 80:5 83:9249:13

FF 2:17 119:1face155:18 159:14faced236:4facilitated 157:9

158:8 160:14facilitating 175:10facilities 16:17 52:4

80:9 88:24 99:25130:5 137:17207:5,21 211:6,23241:16 249:21250:9 258:6259:16

facility 25:23 50:1450:20 86:5 90:1192:2 94:12 95:995:13,16,20,23,2496:4,8 209:13212:3,25 216:4217:5,14 246:22247:5,7,14 248:14251:16

facing 101:9fact 27:23 41:4

42:11 45:6 49:2455:9 56:17 57:1960:9 62:11 64:1293:13 113:15,21117:9 129:4 136:2159:20 162:22168:1,24 175:20181:1 184:17232:5 254:9



Page 13

258:24factor 22:5 182:18

199:17 250:5factories141:18

142:24factors 159:18

182:17 263:9factory 2:15 119:6

123:15 142:23143:1 150:18151:3 153:13232:22

facts124:6 156:21236:10,24

fact-based56:10fail 166:16failed 145:15failing 187:8failings 161:21fails 183:25failure 191:3failures 179:7,8fair 58:2 96:11

154:4 216:22252:21

fairly 47:6 58:17180:1 198:15

fairness57:1062:22 63:5

faith 148:1fall 37:3 70:1

102:11 103:3falling 147:11

236:19,21falls 72:21,22false175:16familiar 12:11 49:1families 228:9 235:5

249:24 251:16family 51:13 82:23

124:12 138:11143:7,8,16 235:10235:19 242:20244:10 245:20

fantastic 244:25far 45:15 60:13,14

68:15 104:17120:17 121:14196:5 197:11203:5 241:21250:7

farmer 39:12 62:11143:16 154:24174:7 184:16189:8 238:7

farmers 10:2,1580:15 84:9,11

124:9 147:7 172:2201:17 202:7234:1,13 238:21249:22,24

Farmer's 123:7farming 2:15 13:12

61:12 119:6120:15 142:2174:16 227:17

farms 13:2,3 14:1117:6 63:2 82:2389:23 98:12 123:9135:1 143:7,8213:20 221:19249:25 255:4259:25

farrow 14:4 213:3,4213:5 228:3

farrowing 13:1915:1

fascinating204:5fast 124:6 213:23fault 119:13favour 76:20

212:18feasible32:3 253:20

253:23 260:20features43:12

47:25 53:22211:25

February 175:23fecal26:18 144:2feces208:8,10,12

209:9 214:11215:7,8,11,16216:15,16 222:19

fed 15:4 26:1027:16 28:5 88:7107:7 194:6215:12 263:21

federal 27:19,20,2293:20 135:2181:11

Federation242:9feedback4:22

102:11feeder13:24 15:9

16:19 17:15 23:8148:15 213:4

feeding16:4 23:1,225:18 27:9 35:992:3 108:1 133:21195:23 255:18256:18

feeds75:6 103:6115:15 144:13

feel10:3 58:6 97:6

109:16,25 145:13196:7 230:20239:12 242:14

feeling97:18 111:9feels146:18fees150:4feet70:11 72:25

73:2Fefcak175:24fellow 67:3,4

220:21felt 45:25 46:10

47:12fermentation 91:6fertilization 210:8fertilized 152:11fertilizer 26:23

28:23 29:2,4,1534:7,12 35:1275:25 91:1,7113:16,19,23204:11 211:13212:19,21 213:12222:12,16 223:13223:14,16 247:21260:16 261:6

fertilizers 30:1590:23 91:13101:16 112:5189:6

few 4:10 13:5 40:2152:17 53:4 120:12125:2 131:17146:2,10 150:25160:17 198:21213:19 216:20229:3 234:9 235:1246:7 249:18250:14 253:13254:3 261:7

fewer 14:6 87:21199:1,12 207:8

field 37:18 40:1126:17 127:6,11127:12,19 151:18152:5,12 189:9219:9 257:1 258:8

fields 32:13 36:2171:8,15 74:14,1974:23 75:4 125:10125:15,16,24126:10,14,15127:13,16 132:15139:12,16 180:25198:1 229:20232:4

FIFA 163:13

169:12 171:14fifty 229:15fighting 150:5figure 66:19 69:12

80:6figures 17:10 71:25

185:10,11,22206:18

file 247:15 251:9filed 39:17 131:19

153:2 251:4fill 39:12 86:5

149:22 196:7filter 214:19 259:23filtrate 214:19filtration 209:15

223:23final 5:19 6:25 40:9

75:13 98:25112:11 190:10,11190:11 264:14

finally 8:10 112:14204:8 216:20

finance124:6 178:7182:8

financial 138:9152:14 184:2189:13

financier 178:4financing 220:25find 47:5 58:19

70:24 71:3 84:2101:5 127:1136:19 175:3207:16 210:20212:12 215:25220:24 221:9,16222:23 226:5243:10 260:20264:15

finding 47:5 127:3147:21 156:5170:20 172:13186:25 205:12220:15,18 247:22

findings 264:10finds 215:4fine 81:15 98:11

151:9 152:7,22fined 151:11,13finish 14:4 104:14

138:1 177:4190:12 212:25213:5

finished 12:2315:14 22:23107:24 177:4

222:18finisher 17:19 19:1

19:9 213:6 228:3finishing 20:18

126:23finite 154:6fire 184:23,25 185:3

185:3firm 92:24first 8:21 24:3

42:18,19 49:1050:8 52:2,9 54:260:15 65:7 73:1586:4,9 98:6117:18 141:19150:25 157:24164:12 172:1186:24 203:10204:22 214:13217:22 220:25221:8 224:11228:11 254:3,23256:11

Firstly 238:18253:13

Fisheries93:21,25fit 243:20fits 22:1 182:16

244:13five 10:8 52:23

86:16,16 115:15136:24 201:15202:21 215:10248:25

fixed 99:24 182:13flag 199:20flawed 57:21

179:11flax 168:6 211:11flexibility 36:8 37:1flies 87:6flip 113:17 136:11flood 247:13flooded117:6,8flooding 43:12

117:4 140:22floods52:14 233:23floor 13:20 209:4

262:5flow 24:9,10 89:2

193:17 211:14flowing 108:19flows 24:17 193:10

213:15flu 105:22flush 172:2,3flushing 216:9,9



Page 14

fly 221:22focus113:18 128:22

159:18focused109:15

199:22focuses253:19focusing91:25

193:4folks 145:1 173:20follow 37:21 61:21

80:16 84:14 119:9214:11 242:6248:7

followed 89:17157:10 231:20240:2

following 134:2151:21 215:13231:13

follows 62:6 119:3203:20 226:18237:19 252:6

follow-up 263:16food 10:14 20:24

54:16 78:20 87:1988:2 89:22 103:2103:4 174:12199:1 235:11,16241:10 248:5,19

foods120:17 143:2196:16,16

foot 104:18 126:19foothills 142:18footprint 211:4forage31:20 257:15forages32:5,13forced 155:18,23

181:8 185:21forcing 62:12forefront 97:4

125:16 126:2foregoing266:7foregone124:8foreign 112:6

146:21,22foremost141:19

254:23forest 126:6forested58:18

126:6forget 146:21forgiven 124:20forgot 164:11forgotten 117:13form 25:2 26:10

30:23 32:19 41:19109:6 116:19

173:5 189:13237:5 241:20

format 171:2formed 101:24former 116:5

162:18formerly 145:19forms 18:25 30:3forth 12:8 14:10

16:5,11 17:9 26:131:19 34:23 73:1573:17 81:1 83:1485:16 86:2 88:1288:19 92:4 100:14102:23 103:2108:10,18 113:24114:5 132:6 152:5

forthcoming 116:19fortunately 153:6forward 25:10

37:17 54:7 56:1060:23 62:8,963:16,21,22 134:6193:3 204:10250:19

foster 9:25fostering 261:13found 70:21 107:17

163:25 168:15191:21 205:3,20206:23 212:16216:5 217:8224:12 240:6

foundation 45:22four 34:17 35:7

82:13 86:6 106:23115:15 129:23,23136:24 147:18178:15,16 203:6213:9,15 217:4229:25 240:4248:25

fourth 108:2fraction 77:6framework 181:7Francois159:21fraudulent 159:8Fred 118:22Free143:23 169:8

176:12Freedom129:18,24frequency79:13

83:2frequent 25:25

227:15 233:25fresh 216:2 228:5friable 76:25

Friday 152:10friend 148:18,18friends 143:10

145:11Froese237:12,13

237:14,16,17,17237:18,21 250:21251:1,5,11,15,22251:23

front 55:12 61:11138:22

fronts 217:1frost 87:10frostbite 13:8frustration 145:3fuel 190:24 215:13

222:23 223:3fuels183:9 209:9

211:9fulfill 196:24fulfilled 170:18full 21:21 94:12

125:7 126:11196:7 203:12252:25

fully 60:7 165:24full-blown 119:16full-scale218:11full-time 148:13

238:7function 181:8

190:7fund 257:17fundamental 35:25

45:20 156:25funded 9:22 146:11

180:20 255:16256:2 259:6260:25 261:2

funding 116:18178:21 218:9256:7 258:1259:13 260:18,25261:1

funds 110:2 171:22171:24 261:4

funny 120:11214:12

further 5:5 12:260:13 134:9 216:9

furtively 153:10futile 182:24future 10:5,21

47:24 51:18 99:13135:10 136:17174:9 176:18179:11 186:20

192:1,10 201:12201:17,17 213:14231:3 240:23250:8 252:17254:8 256:6257:16 259:10

GG 119:1,6gags235:9gain 4:22 231:10gained145:25

155:6gains35:15gallery 148:9,21gallery's 148:17gallons70:10

219:25 228:7,18game200:20gaps232:2gardens235:7,9,11Garson71:4Gary 165:8gas90:24 91:15,20

91:21 92:9,14133:12 136:7137:20 139:5198:17 201:6211:13 212:21213:12

gases84:24 90:2191:3,5,10 134:13135:13 207:13212:5,7

gate100:11gathered17:11gauge124:23gave11:11 130:1

196:2 232:3gear48:24gee164:11general4:25 9:5

10:24 11:1,7 40:643:8 46:18 56:2184:4 102:9 108:11110:15 124:23134:14,19 189:11259:20

generally47:17generate81:14generated100:21generating216:18generations112:15

174:9genetics12:20

35:16gentlemen4:4

geographic171:1geographical10:7geography249:16germs200:16gestation13:17,18

14:16,24,25196:17

gesture229:19gets20:3 70:2

123:23 127:15235:14

getting 17:3 54:12105:12,12 124:13124:13 167:8168:19 170:2224:11 254:7

giardia 88:23gilts 14:14git 224:7give9:16 14:14 15:2

22:14 24:12 28:2134:18 41:15,22106:13 107:15119:15 127:22131:1 145:13146:4 184:22185:16 200:24206:17 221:23

given6:8 7:1 73:12119:20,23 123:17128:3 132:24,25175:13 232:8

gives41:8 120:9,15125:25 132:11

giving 11:4 223:15Glen 2:15 118:21

143:15global 104:2 244:11globally 104:7goal252:23goals46:6goes52:24 54:13

65:16 94:8 95:6104:9 107:2 117:9152:3 159:20181:3 225:23235:15

going-forward243:24

gone30:18 41:151:24 60:13,1463:13 108:16125:14 126:15191:19 220:10,13

goods93:18 94:25100:17 111:22

gotten190:17



Page 15

governed68:270:17

governments96:20111:14 135:3145:4,7 147:17171:6 178:7

government's175:9176:8,11

go-ahead232:3gradually 218:14graduate7:19grain 16:13 20:15

26:11 97:23 106:8112:1 147:7,8181:22,24 183:6183:11,15,17

grains 101:15106:11 112:8249:23

grandchildrens201:17

grant 80:11 218:11granted 149:18graph 17:23 98:17graphs19:13 105:7grasp122:13 123:2grassland258:12gravel 229:23great 149:11 179:17

244:20,24greater 33:14greatest129:25

137:10greatly 32:11 77:15

259:16greenhouse90:21

91:3,5,9,15,20,2192:9,14,16,20136:7 198:17201:6 207:13211:12 212:5,7,21213:12

Gregory 181:11183:24

grew 13:3grid 163:18grips 216:24gross163:24 164:1

172:13 185:10,10ground 36:17 67:20

68:23 72:16,20128:13 132:8133:6 142:10144:7 147:21152:6,9 164:15170:20 187:1252:13 255:6

260:12grounded166:25groundwater 31:5

31:23,25 67:2369:2,9,13,2470:13,17,20,2171:2,18 79:793:16 129:1 130:5130:12 131:21,22137:2,22 153:24228:12 229:6,8233:11

group 117:24118:13 134:2145:10 165:18179:6 202:21226:11,21 249:2,3264:2

groupie 141:15groups5:21 6:23

44:21,22,23 57:4138:13 171:23200:6 240:6242:10 248:9

grow 74:3 99:19147:7 196:20212:25

grower 228:3growers112:4grower-finisher

15:9growing 115:23

174:4 246:12grown 246:1,6growth 16:22 17:1

25:20 33:12 76:2078:12 101:6102:16,25 110:25111:1,2,3,23127:7,20 130:18131:8 142:22147:10 154:6159:19 160:2253:2 256:19

guarantees178:5182:25 184:1

Guard 235:1guess72:24 125:19

179:3 254:10258:14

guidance33:644:12,16

guide6:10 110:23guided41:16guidelines43:24

44:13,14 78:21,2280:17,20 84:13

89:4,5,11 110:14129:9,11 241:6242:4

guinea154:15Gulla 235:1

Hhairless13:8half 11:21 17:14,15

17:21 66:14 83:18103:20,24 106:25127:23 130:4148:6,7 154:1199:7 209:17244:16

hamlet 148:8hammer 56:14hand 11:5 89:7

137:18 140:13handle11:23 35:20

36:1 89:10 209:20241:24 248:19

handled23:4 38:1689:21 241:20

handling 21:1525:23 86:11 87:2589:18 93:18212:18 245:3256:23 259:18

hands197:14198:11

Hanover 34:17Hansard 166:1happen65:10 106:7

106:19 107:23157:11 209:1229:11 230:23234:10

happened65:9129:5 151:16244:22 245:1250:4

happening57:9102:24 132:7133:7 135:25154:5 159:4 173:1179:14 241:19

happens54:13 68:998:10 141:17233:2

happy 150:9hard 174:15 189:12hardly 180:4

227:20 234:18hardware 219:19hard-pressed

171:15

harm 156:22,23175:3 233:9

harmful 227:2Harold 237:12,14

237:17,18Harrison 2:16

118:25,25 119:2140:17,18,20141:6,8 154:20

harvested28:4having 11:14 49:5

77:14 81:23 119:2121:13 155:23170:8 177:11197:10,11 203:19210:10 215:7226:17 237:18246:18 252:5,8

hay 28:14,17hazardous94:19head16:7 18:23

107:11,25 215:18217:11,14 221:12262:9

heads262:25health 56:20 57:24

64:7 71:10 87:1787:17 88:1,15,1688:18 89:17,2190:1,8,9 134:16134:24 135:6141:20 144:23151:2 157:3,4174:24 175:5,12175:12 185:17,23194:19 208:18255:8 258:23

healthcare200:3healthiest143:2healthy 88:9 185:19

185:20 202:9hear 11:22 101:19

138:15 142:25158:1 159:7164:23 184:17186:6 187:22189:16 191:1,9,16195:12 214:3262:8

heard 121:8 123:17139:23 190:13,14190:15,25 195:25257:24 258:16260:24 262:17

hearing 6:25 54:2199:4 119:17141:23 154:17

163:16 198:6225:8 228:21230:22

hearings4:8 8:1511:19 80:10 85:6101:3 147:19166:5,6 168:22207:24 229:17236:8

heat13:20 209:15210:4,12 214:21222:20

Heather 181:10183:24

heating210:12heavily 58:17 180:1

183:25 201:13heavy78:17 125:6

127:13 232:14245:23

hectare29:11 257:5hectares28:13,15

29:12heels197:2heightened198:14held 1:17 30:2

48:21 80:10Hello 192:22help 11:2 109:11

144:20 167:19185:5 198:5,9207:22 209:25231:6 238:5

helping 153:13helps176:10 198:2

224:23 255:20hemp211:11hen246:3hence63:24hens238:23 239:17

239:20 240:17247:3 251:8

her 235:9,10herd 18:24 88:15,16

92:18 210:3herds105:11

199:16hereinbefore266:9heritage43:12hidden 194:21hide 158:15hiding 170:15high 12:18 29:18

30:3 31:10 35:1179:22 87:8 129:16210:11 227:15255:1,2 258:15



Page 16

higher 71:1 108:3251:17

highest247:13highlight 11:12highlights 11:15highly 161:7 198:4highway 126:2

127:5 245:7highways43:13high-health 14:11him 185:2 218:20Hipp 219:14Hipp-Anvil 204:17hired 152:2,18historical 144:17

157:3historically 48:8history 21:7 65:16

184:9 193:19hit 104:24 105:2hogs19:16 20:4

21:2,3 26:1027:15 28:25 50:191:17 100:23104:7 120:3,4123:10,20 144:2146:24 150:25153:22 184:19185:9 227:8

hold 5:16 32:2036:24 77:5 101:3105:10 126:24

holding 71:9 77:1,377:7 94:11 177:10241:7

holds132:20hole52:6 53:17

228:13home148:7 247:25homeowners71:13honest108:7 139:6

154:3honestly49:2honey235:20hoop37:24hope21:13 67:11

106:9 116:1135:10 142:7147:24 182:22193:2 222:11226:4 230:5

hopefully 42:14118:12 197:13217:10 254:8

hoping 176:23250:7

hose152:3

hoses108:18host41:18 59:19

85:11 205:24hosted240:18hostility 190:23hot 210:12 260:8,10Hotel 1:17hour 7:1 11:21

229:15hours 6:24 118:9

208:16 215:9house13:12 69:16

211:2 238:22246:23

housed88:8household242:21housing14:23

87:13 88:21193:12

huge39:19 52:1399:24 161:11181:24 183:6187:13 227:23232:1

hugger141:20human 87:20 89:21

90:3 141:20 144:3151:1 175:4194:19 200:3243:4 250:15

humane192:21,23196:22 242:9

humans70:7 83:289:6,14 105:22131:10 200:16

human/animal89:20

husbandry 12:1815:6 35:14

Hutterite 151:15hydrogen132:21

133:13 134:4,10209:1

hygiene89:7Hytek 120:24 121:2

148:2

Iidea12:12 22:14

47:6 72:11 120:15127:22 132:11135:11 196:23206:3 216:20231:8 257:17

ideally 111:24ideas237:24 238:1

240:22

identified 30:11160:1 183:18205:7

identify 58:13 173:7ignored 145:6

147:22 158:5ignoring 186:12illness89:6 135:12illustrate 15:25

50:8 84:23 145:8illustrated 145:17illustrates 146:8ILOs 124:24 131:25

132:1 133:22imagine219:7imbalance26:24

34:1 35:2imbalances206:9imbued 157:15immediate218:21immediately 208:12

214:16immigrants 97:2immobile 30:2impact 19:5 23:5

36:22 68:23 76:577:9,18 78:11,1484:2 88:1 90:1692:2 100:4 101:23102:18,20 103:12104:21 105:5,6138:3 169:16175:13 177:19184:2 186:15201:5 211:21,24218:23

impacted137:24177:16

impacting 61:5impacts81:22

128:23 197:23imperative 156:8implement 60:7Implementation

43:22implementing

114:12 253:18implications 12:8

49:9import 16:5 97:23importance 5:15

193:16important 44:11

46:13 57:11 58:977:3,10,13,2590:10 121:23122:6,15 169:12

170:7,19 193:8,11197:1,15 199:17202:17 239:2243:16 258:25260:19

importantly 68:25142:10 161:20

imported 29:15112:4

importer 103:7importing 97:24

181:22imports 103:25impose187:25imposition 23:3impossible180:25

219:25 229:16impractical 97:20impression109:14improperly 71:7improve 76:1 87:19

87:20 88:17 90:8112:6 207:8258:10 259:1

improved 12:2478:1 87:13 208:18256:24 258:7259:18 260:2

improvements5:1114:22 60:7 150:1

improves87:1688:2

improving 33:878:10 87:17 259:3

inadequate71:15230:1

inappropriate56:13

Inc 203:16 251:25inception 82:4inch 228:13inches125:21

130:25 136:25230:3

include 4:21 28:1480:22 82:20 94:18264:8,19

included 51:2392:25 205:8 218:9

includes5:14including 77:22

81:19 94:22114:24 117:19151:14 200:7212:13

income100:13102:6 114:15,16

124:4 143:11,17143:19 148:10185:10,14,14,16235:21

incomes185:10incoming 224:8incompatible 227:5inconsistency

183:21inconvenience

189:17inconvenienced

188:25incorporated 33:16

203:24incorporating

153:17 260:6,7incorporation

261:12increase20:17

25:14,17 32:1435:4,5,12 53:1291:9,12 92:17,18103:12 104:4107:12 136:8141:18 153:11259:1

increased15:2116:19 30:8 34:574:17 77:1,2103:5 104:13142:9 160:5181:20 210:6216:25

increases76:2392:20

increasing103:8107:19 211:7257:14

incur 23:12Indeed157:11

159:9Independence

123:8independent10:16

130:9 176:3index 3:1 97:14indicated 48:16

54:8 65:20 114:10116:18

indication 49:3196:19

indicators 231:17individual 14:18

71:13 174:22207:3

individuals 5:22



Page 17

151:24 185:24249:4

indoor 88:21industrial 73:16

135:1 166:24172:13,23 193:21194:23

industrialization193:22 194:11

industries 102:2146:7 153:20186:2 205:13237:7 252:25

industry's 92:16106:4 158:7161:24 166:9

industry-driven173:6

ineffective32:18infections87:3infectious89:13

200:8infiltration 32:14

77:9inflationary 183:17influence54:2

156:1 165:14influenza 248:10inform 96:2 170:17

173:2informed 155:13

158:17 169:20170:4 254:1

infraction 151:4191:19

infractions 98:19191:18

infrastructure261:7

ingested24:23ingredients131:23inground 52:4inhabits 154:2initially 186:23

241:19initiated 76:13initiative 85:17

109:23 180:11188:2 226:4251:25 252:10254:15 260:23

initiatives 166:12240:25 264:4

initiative's 253:17254:2,13

inject 152:6 250:3injected 31:2

228:15injecting 152:1injection 33:13

80:22 108:18152:4

injections 132:17injects 108:16injury 135:12innate 195:15innuendo63:19innuendos56:9inorganic 26:13,16input 239:14 242:9

255:1inputs 34:6,21 35:2

35:4,8,10insect13:9insects87:5,6insert 66:11inside38:2 87:13

226:25 246:6248:14

insist 172:9insisting 172:15insoluble30:2inspected37:12,15inspection89:22

122:8 131:25inspector234:15inspectors151:10

151:18 234:9inspiring 231:23install 205:9installation 82:16installed 129:20,23

131:21instance48:8,20

65:6 229:12instances79:21

186:20 188:11,21instantaneously

187:1instead20:19

149:18 158:16228:25 236:4

instinctive 195:19instincts 196:25institute 42:21

200:12instituted 42:20insurance231:2integral 99:23integrate 43:17integrated 205:5integration 212:22integrity 96:4intended51:19

intends96:7intense136:21intensity 83:3intensive134:21

142:22 152:15165:23 177:25185:8 190:6193:23 227:4,12

intent 51:8,10 161:5182:21

intention 149:25interaction 89:20

164:15interest 43:6 44:21

45:16 57:4 62:1695:8 106:2 138:15138:16,17 141:14146:3 157:1,5,6158:2,4,4,11159:1,2 162:4,11165:19 166:9174:21,22,23175:7 187:3191:24 198:14213:8 220:24232:11

interested121:2196:20 246:19261:8

interesting 125:11128:8 169:6244:14

interests41:1843:18 138:9146:21 158:7174:14 196:19232:12

Intergovernmental48:15 54:17

Interlake 101:8127:6,22

intermittent 83:13internal 216:15international 46:21

244:7internationally

103:19internet 151:9interpretation

170:17interpretive 64:1interrupt 12:2intertwine 42:8intervening 236:18intervenor 178:21intervention 146:22interviewing 135:24

interwoven 12:6intriguing 226:3introduce 8:22

10:23 118:18237:16 238:4252:2

introduced 30:13161:3 174:1199:25

introduction 161:1161:3

inundated 52:14invalid 172:19

173:12invariably 55:7inventory 18:18inversion 133:7,7invest110:1 111:21invested10:15

51:12 179:23investigate169:24

172:25 253:14investigation4:13

4:21 5:9 96:23132:4 135:11151:5 172:7

investment99:24124:15 138:10143:16 205:6212:19 218:11,13

investment-driven143:19

investor 138:12investors143:17invite 8:20 99:1invited 7:8involved 45:10

75:15 90:2 155:1248:8 249:25

involvement261:22involves248:6in-ground 149:22

149:23 233:13in-house135:16Iowa 96:24 111:7

133:16 134:5153:16

irreversible 156:23irrigation 73:16

209:20irrigation-type

149:20irritation 87:5issue27:1 30:11

34:3 38:19 65:367:20 74:4,1978:3 79:3,3 83:1

85:23 86:22 93:15104:19 107:14108:25 109:11110:24 123:20127:4 128:21,22128:23 131:2,14137:21 161:6174:2 188:7,10190:4 197:7242:21,23 253:12257:2,22 258:13258:21,25 262:9

issued55:10,1768:15 188:7

issues5:15,23 6:911:18 12:1 18:1940:8 46:8,1455:16 67:2 84:1087:6 108:14110:24 119:25133:20 142:13189:5 191:24193:16 194:18198:13 204:25232:15,16 238:14238:17 253:4,15254:17,21,22

item 25:24 211:3items64:24 207:2

JJanuary 18:23

41:12 45:3,1447:3

Japan21:4 103:23jeopardized176:18Jerusalem85:15Jim 100:6job 10:3 100:24

162:25 163:1169:18 224:11

jobs 250:14Joe66:6 141:12John 175:24Johnson2:7 8:23

118:19 202:14Johnston33:20join 244:19joined 149:24journals 140:15Joyce203:8judgment 191:2

192:15July 19:21jump 202:15jump-started

218:18



Page 18

June7:8 125:5,12143:22 149:4

jurisdiction 45:2546:1,20 93:24

jurisdictions 5:396:17 97:9 99:6

KKarl 2:11 9:2,11,14

108:21 169:7Katherine 197:5Kathy 118:19Kazakhstan102:23

103:10keep13:17 32:24

191:25 205:16224:18,23 226:23241:3 243:18

keeping88:10237:3

keeps17:3 18:19191:7 254:1

Ken 148:18kept 7:22 15:10

40:5 87:7key 16:12 17:2,12

22:2 24:6 25:2427:9 29:21,2532:1,5 33:18 35:735:19 39:17 45:2067:21 68:1 74:175:23 77:21 79:1582:11 87:14 88:1990:4,19 91:24102:3,13 106:2,8110:2 137:9167:24 170:20239:4 253:7,22260:22

kick-start 221:1kill 120:20Killarney 101:18killed 20:4kilograms 14:1

15:15 19:4 29:11kilometers 245:6kilometre 51:4kilometres 51:3

83:18kilos 13:24kilo-pascals72:13kind 57:3 163:18

169:18 193:1195:4 197:13219:18 221:10,17225:17 230:17231:3 245:21

knew 46:5 229:5knock-on 100:19knowledge145:23

145:25 155:7157:3 187:11188:15,19

known 64:13103:20 112:24135:7 148:8 180:5182:20 244:23

knows136:1 144:15Koroluk 2:15

118:13,15,21,21119:1,6,8,24128:17 139:3,4,13139:24 140:4,9,12171:12 177:2,5202:12,13,20

Kot 266:5,17Kowalchuk's

235:13Kraft 182:1Kynoch 2:11 9:2,2

9:11,14,15 169:7

LLa 34:17 126:10lab 219:9 224:13labour 182:17LaBroquerie 101:5lack 29:17 74:9

158:12 173:8lacking 113:3ladder 157:19,23ladies4:3lagoon125:7,13

126:11 128:7132:13 139:10,18149:4 152:3233:22 235:3245:4,5,19,22

lagoons126:1129:20,21 134:8140:22,24,25233:18 234:17

laid 219:16lake 29:5 66:13 70:9

127:9,9 128:19130:13 131:24144:12,12,13150:19,19,20,22164:11 167:15168:20 192:7,8201:9 229:13233:7 235:13243:2

lakes67:7 144:11

153:22 226:24landing 72:19lands49:14 113:2

248:21landscape61:24land-based39:19language157:16large 31:7 52:11,11

66:1 77:4 90:2294:11 102:4103:11 108:6132:19 142:5170:13 182:4194:20 221:13227:14 228:1235:7 249:22

largely 205:3 207:3larger 22:10 36:25

62:13 104:11105:4 110:7 117:7143:13 155:3166:10

largest20:11 104:1121:13 182:15199:14

last 13:12 15:2148:21 52:14 53:1360:3 87:14 102:8104:19 105:8106:22 110:19111:8 146:10170:9 179:16183:7 196:4,13199:25 213:19228:17 233:15234:12 254:12262:4

Lastly 61:23 205:24late 7:7 148:18

182:1lately 254:25later 29:22 31:22

37:20 74:21 86:7123:6 206:18225:20 246:8

latest12:20latitude 47:19latter 145:10law 189:1laws133:12lawyer 150:4,11lawyers65:2 93:2laying 239:17,20

240:17 246:3247:3

leached79:7leaching31:6,9,15

32:1 245:21 255:5257:7,14

leader120:2leadership165:8

261:24leading133:17

137:6Leaf 107:2 120:18

146:16,18 196:16199:13 201:3

leak 225:1leakage36:5 74:7leaking 71:15

187:12leaky 128:6learn 244:20 263:2learned83:13 240:7learning 194:20

204:5least36:25 49:7

51:2 52:5 53:16107:4 121:20126:5 154:1184:22 191:6196:3 247:12

leave8:13 24:5245:9

leaves94:11leaving143:20led 180:2 236:6leery 186:6left 46:25 94:10

126:19 127:6165:19 216:3228:20 262:19

leg157:21legal62:1 92:24

161:10Leganchuk235:8Legion 265:3legislated96:19

167:3legislation71:17

93:11,23 111:10158:8,21 201:7

legislations261:16legislature169:23legitimate 178:1,12

190:15,19legume181:5lend 102:2lengths81:25lengthy 78:13lenses229:23leptospirosis88:22lesions208:20less18:14 19:3

25:14,21 53:3,1562:12 68:11,1276:25 82:13 87:18143:17 148:17197:11 207:7213:2 223:8241:25 255:22

lest146:21let 42:15 51:21 53:7

57:8 59:15 86:5128:24 154:7,12203:8 217:25230:21

letter 153:4 175:22letting 86:4let's 147:24 154:9

200:19 214:11,12231:23

level12:18 30:632:2 36:7 41:242:4 49:20 57:1657:16 58:17,1771:1 74:16,23100:17 130:18183:5 186:1,7187:25 255:12256:19

leveled126:7levels30:8 31:10,12

31:13,14 33:3,434:23 75:7 76:1483:16,18 107:25131:7 160:20209:9 220:1239:11 256:13,16256:24 257:5

levy 17:11liabilities 94:1liability 65:6 92:23

93:4,9,16,19 94:294:6 187:13,16

liable 94:17licence55:12 68:8

68:10 69:11 70:1372:4,8 169:1227:22

licences55:16,1859:19 68:16,1969:10 188:7,11

licenses73:12licensing68:2,4

73:10,18 231:25lie 15:11 149:14lied 145:7lies160:24life 13:7 190:18

244:23 255:9,9



Page 19

lifeblood 175:1lifestyle 64:11,15lifted 121:17 219:10light 213:21 241:1likelihood 179:25

181:16likely 7:1 63:22

79:21 106:7,19158:1 260:20,21

likes 165:4lime 215:3,14,24limit 73:14 147:13

147:14 153:23154:4 257:4

limited 6:1 80:583:10 109:17141:15 156:12255:3

limits 30:16 47:1447:15 156:17241:1 257:12

Lindy 157:16226:10,12,16,17

line 8:8 49:5,1751:6 65:5 172:21233:18,22

liners 233:13,15lines124:20link 8:9lip 165:11liquid 31:2 33:13

35:21 36:24 81:485:6 86:5 126:20197:19 214:12,24241:20

Liquids 209:14Lisa 266:5,14list 59:15 70:19

111:12 131:22189:21

listed 40:9listen 195:11literature 255:24litigation 157:16,18

167:1 211:17litre 129:12litres 68:12,13little 13:3 18:10,11

21:25 24:16 32:537:10 41:6,1042:16 45:18 47:451:4 69:21 73:2374:21 77:5,1684:2 91:25 98:17104:14,16 105:4106:6 108:14111:5 116:2

158:13 166:15173:13 192:9193:19 213:25216:14 220:2,5222:1 224:2,22225:2 226:6257:25 258:16261:8

live 64:10 141:17144:13 146:24149:10,13 155:23158:1 173:20174:24 190:22192:6 225:4242:25 244:20

lived 166:7 227:6,9227:11

livelihood 202:7lives144:24living 142:15

166:15 172:18174:16

LMMMR 257:4load 179:2loading 78:2 113:2

131:24 256:8257:18 263:25

loadings78:1779:16,19

loan 178:5 182:25184:1

loans124:20locally 59:1 66:9locate156:20 211:1located17:24 18:4

122:14 188:19230:13 246:13

locating 161:15location 17:6,22locations132:12logical 189:20long 14:12 22:22

31:4,8 68:24 69:373:1 78:13 80:881:10 86:17163:14 176:11184:9 191:16194:25 199:11201:15 202:6204:4 207:14225:18 234:12,12244:18

longer 52:15 116:3152:17,21 176:13211:5

long-term 76:6,2178:1 188:24

199:11 202:2206:6

looked14:14 15:381:14 100:6 102:8102:17,21,24103:15,16 113:16130:2 247:9 249:7255:23

looking 14:24 18:1549:2 81:18 98:24113:5 114:2136:13 164:12181:6 191:4194:17 195:17201:14 210:18222:10 231:4234:3 239:13256:2 258:5,10259:7 264:3

looks257:19Loose14:22Lorne 150:4 164:11lose222:25loses235:18losing236:4loss87:9 97:16

152:14 181:2197:12 216:5

losses34:21 97:15206:6

lost 143:10 146:9181:13,16,18182:10,25 184:11

lot 12:23 13:2 18:1122:16 65:21 69:1973:24 74:12 78:2486:18 95:3 96:1896:23 97:19,23102:18 106:3113:20 128:18136:14 138:7,15143:19 152:22156:2 188:5194:17 195:7,16197:8 198:2,9,18198:20 199:22213:9 219:10231:18 242:1244:4 250:9 254:5254:25 260:10262:13

lots 187:10,22194:22 227:10

Louise65:11Lourdes 150:6lovely 235:20low 13:6 31:15 32:2

79:24 89:19130:15 133:6208:17 257:12

lower 82:21 208:19228:10

lowering 98:8lowest168:6Ltd 204:18Lung 208:20Lupicin 148:8,9Lyle 149:20

MM 130:21Macdonald 100:8

246:21 248:25249:13 250:23

Macdonald-Richot249:1

machine8:16made6:2 10:5

24:19 70:6 80:1283:6 85:4 155:9159:22 177:12180:16 206:4,17243:19 247:10,11

made-in-Manitoba172:16 173:2,8234:25

MAFRI 240:19magazine120:14magnesium215:21Mah 2:12 8:25,25

9:10 10:24 40:1540:17,19 62:1963:11 65:4 66:2367:9 114:18

main 133:25 134:1150:11 180:12181:6 188:15235:20 242:16254:22

mainly 29:18 32:17173:16 227:17

maintain 32:2 33:335:7,14 45:4 96:3135:16

maintained 31:1371:7

maintaining 68:789:7 210:7

maintenance227:20 243:15

major 19:16 22:523:1 32:11 41:2544:8 52:14 85:2388:1 92:2 96:25

101:23 103:9104:21 105:5,6111:25 120:20147:20 164:4206:24 208:3,23211:3 233:2 249:9

majority 67:2184:11 151:1 173:4

makers109:15227:19

makes67:3 163:24198:9 204:11261:18

making 6:5 56:1567:11 143:18156:7,21,25158:16 223:3

malfunctioning71:8

mammalian 24:24manage5:4 154:13

263:25managed89:1

253:10managements

213:13manager9:5,7

10:24 11:2,7148:20

managing4:19mandate6:8 226:23

253:3 254:13mandated45:14

142:6mandatory 9:22

23:18 41:14 45:1247:3

manipulating 81:18manipulation 35:9

81:3Manitobans 4:23

5:15 10:3 141:24145:15 171:2176:19

Manitoba's 18:13169:15 173:16,17173:17

Manitoba-produc...183:11

manner 4:20 5:438:17 77:14

manufacturing212:19

manured 127:13manures28:2 34:13

37:16 75:7 76:776:16 77:14,22



Page 20

78:2,6,19 79:1479:16,22

Manure's 77:9manure.mb.ca

261:10many 7:16 12:25

17:7 29:16 36:937:18 40:25 41:241:25 52:2,8,857:6 62:14 65:876:14 100:2 108:9122:4 126:4144:15 145:13147:23 148:12159:21 160:24190:13 193:25,25194:19 195:11219:25 238:17241:15 242:11243:18 244:8245:2 249:5264:20

man-made144:13map 18:2Maple 107:1 120:18

146:16,18 196:16199:13 201:3

March 1:19 4:15:19 122:25138:21

margin 231:5MARKED 3:3market 13:25 16:16

19:23 22:21103:17 104:3,11106:25 107:4111:20,25 123:11147:1 182:9,19197:1 199:8208:21 210:17211:15,15 212:23216:22

marketed 100:23120:3

marketing 9:719:21,22,23 23:23238:12

marketings 19:19marketplace182:11markets 102:22

103:17 107:17112:12

marsh 164:9mass219:16 221:4

263:21massive221:11match 24:20 25:19

matched110:2matching 234:18

261:4material 26:19 67:2

219:23 222:22materials 76:16,17

212:12 225:16Matt 235:13matter 18:16 74:17

76:9,11,14,18,2483:9 85:7 170:16212:8 217:20224:5

matters 8:1 169:24maximize35:12,14maximum 48:7 63:3may 5:12 6:1,16

7:15 8:4 23:1726:18 32:18 44:648:19 63:2,366:20 98:4 118:11119:4 122:3142:18 149:1173:22 174:2198:23,25 203:21210:1 211:9,17214:8 216:20,21217:8,17 226:19237:20 241:5,5252:12,12

maybe31:9 42:1342:16 60:14 62:1175:16 116:19123:19 133:6146:2 187:19257:11,12 258:23259:3 262:14263:15 264:4

McMillan 100:6meal235:11mean59:21 65:2

66:19 67:1 72:1186:16 90:25 99:9101:9,22 113:12116:16 118:11122:16 123:15,25130:10 131:2,13132:21 135:11,23136:25 138:2,12168:18 195:3198:23,25 228:12230:17

meaning166:15meaningful 155:13

158:17 164:21165:14,16

means4:23 32:14

59:21 61:15 75:1886:10 87:18 98:11122:18 171:25193:25 195:5,6208:17 231:4234:21 250:14255:13

meant163:14205:11

measurable218:21measure234:5measured78:25

133:11 134:13212:8

measurements140:6 216:1219:22 220:8

measures4:1746:24 70:21 78:13110:18 194:9,13

measuring83:4168:12

meat21:2,2,7102:24,25 103:6103:11 104:2,3112:7 211:21

mechanisms105:19media18:19 61:13

61:17medical71:10 131:5

134:18 200:7medication87:18meet7:20 16:18

27:2,20 57:17,1857:20 58:21,2273:19 84:12114:16 169:4241:5 256:16,19

meeting5:20 57:1363:6,18 96:22134:20 149:11

meetings4:24 5:165:18 7:3,21,22 8:341:1 51:25 85:5119:11 144:16241:8

meets55:6 242:4mega82:22 233:5mega-hog141:18melt 127:12 233:24member2:5,6 39:15

155:2 162:23176:13

members6:16 10:697:1 145:9,17151:13 158:1,14158:24 161:12,20

169:24 171:13177:8 204:19

membership9:18membrane209:14

214:19 223:23224:4,7,17,21,25225:19 233:17

men235:9mention 248:23mentioned55:21

64:6 93:2 108:21112:24 133:16135:18 136:6143:15 145:7177:22 223:22,23239:7 245:7,19246:11 248:24251:3 263:17264:7

Menzies228:1merits 162:18message174:23,25

175:2messages244:11met 30:17 48:5

58:25 59:13 61:2563:16 97:2 196:13

metal 37:24metals78:4,6,18,19meter 139:5metered132:1methane91:25 92:3

136:6method40:4 53:23

168:3methodologies

263:24methodologist

141:16methods28:2 33:16

35:7,22 81:2286:1 88:13 256:25258:8 260:3

metres50:19,2252:5 53:9,1683:17 137:18,18

metric 16:3 28:1228:24 104:5

Mexico 21:4 173:20Michael 159:23microbial 76:20

77:17,23,23 83:16micronutrients 78:4

78:5mid 16:21 111:2middle 8:14midwest96:23

mid-1980s238:10might 18:21 36:20

49:2,4 60:1462:10 74:14 85:1993:15 99:11,18,19111:6 125:19128:24 132:14153:11 191:7216:17 225:19236:1 244:24264:2

mile 50:22,22 51:251:2,5 148:7150:22 244:16246:14

miles148:6 149:21229:15 247:10,12

milestones217:17mill 102:8 211:2milligrams 129:12million 10:16 16:2,3

16:7 18:20,2319:2,7,11 20:4,6,720:14,20 21:1428:13,14 70:10100:10,11,14,16104:5,7 106:25107:3,4,6,8,11,16107:25 108:22114:11 120:4121:9 123:16,16124:10 140:6144:1 146:10153:21 169:4213:1,6 238:23261:1,2 262:18

millions 228:7,18million-acres 186:9mills 101:7,13 116:2mind 12:3 47:14

115:12 149:14207:15 263:4

minds 259:12mineral 43:13 112:4minerals 78:11,14minimal 90:4minimize 32:1

35:13minimizing 167:24minimum 44:10,17

49:11 50:12 52:553:9 57:18 230:15

Minister 4:12,155:11 6:9 98:22116:17 119:14159:10,11 165:8165:10 172:20



Page 21

175:20,23 187:2ministers 240:4minister's 175:21Minneapolis 200:13Minnedosa47:2Minnesota96:24minor 42:12minute 42:14 55:3

71:23minutes6:1 40:21

117:24 159:23215:10

misleading185:12misled145:6Miss 176:25 226:13

237:9 252:1 262:6264:24

missed232:4mission9:25mist 81:15mitigate 177:20

194:10 233:9mitigated 90:22mitigation 90:25mixed 13:3 69:13

154:24 197:13215:2 227:17

mixes220:3mixture 59:5MLMMI 252:11

253:13 255:15260:18 261:2,12261:23

moats233:22mobilize 128:5model12:25 24:12

97:14 99:20193:21

models97:17 219:5moderate28:15modern 12:17 88:24

101:14modest111:5modify 82:7modifying 225:17moist 209:11moment207:4Monday 1:19 4:1money51:12

114:13 136:2143:18,18,19147:24,25 149:7168:22 172:1211:16

monitor 46:2361:20 89:23209:24 234:13

242:2monitored 37:4

40:5 205:16234:20,22

monitoring 40:657:20 61:13,17122:8 129:19131:21 209:23237:3

Montcalm 100:8month 52:23 60:23

199:25months84:1 119:13

120:12 146:25216:20 220:13

mood148:22moratorium 121:17

121:18,19 135:4154:10

morning 117:19Morris 100:8 247:6

250:24mortalities 36:12

38:14,16 51:2459:18 70:22239:22

mortality 126:25127:2,4 132:1166:25

mosquitos87:5most5:25 7:7 18:1

20:3 23:10 24:1726:9 29:25 34:634:10 36:24 44:546:19 68:25 79:2180:7 81:22 84:8112:12 137:22,24138:10 140:12142:10 158:5161:20 196:9234:14 241:12243:19 258:14264:17

mostly 21:2,3140:13 165:11

Motheral 2:6 4:923:16,20 24:271:22 72:7,10,1872:24 73:9,2185:3,22 86:12,23116:4,21 117:3,7117:12 221:25222:4,7,10 223:8250:22 262:7263:13

motions164:23motivation 174:19

motivations 174:20motives231:9Mountain 164:3

226:25 232:17Mouth 104:18move14:16,25 15:8

16:16 20:20 23:1423:14 31:24 35:1840:10 42:15 53:1955:25 60:7 75:1975:21 108:24128:12 134:5167:22 193:3196:12 204:10208:11 213:23

moved13:24 32:743:20 64:12 87:22103:15 215:17

movement30:8moves145:22moving 19:12 25:1

32:24 52:10229:14 234:1

MPK 222:18mulch 235:2multi 44:15multiple 87:23

177:23 254:14multiplier 29:7

100:18multi-faceted

253:19municipal 45:23,24

46:1,2,16,1948:21 57:22 78:2385:12 114:2 116:5145:4 150:3 155:4232:25 233:2243:3

municipalities34:17 42:23 44:2145:9 47:11,2148:16 49:6 62:280:10 81:25 100:7101:21 161:8168:23 249:3,8

municipality 36:2045:12,15 47:763:8 71:5 101:5232:18 249:16

must 6:3 8:12 45:1645:17 47:16,1751:2,4 55:5,2159:20 61:8 64:16154:6,8 156:9157:9,20 162:15171:8 176:6

182:20mutual 44:10 51:10

51:20myself66:6 142:12

143:3 152:13163:3 164:2230:18 238:4254:5

myths 82:10,2084:7

Nname4:5 141:8

154:23 176:20203:12,17,23226:13,16 237:17252:8 261:7

named226:21narrow 37:1 172:6Nation 164:12national 109:10

227:1nationally 101:22

248:9nationwide 242:8natural 43:11 47:24

90:24 156:13180:15 192:6,13192:16 196:24247:21

Naturally 152:10nature 83:13

156:15 184:12,18202:4 255:23

Nay 232:17NDP 138:22 140:19

141:10 149:24160:12 165:4

near 41:21 125:14144:13 150:19254:8

nearby 228:11258:19

nearly 261:2necessarily239:12

264:19necessary5:12

187:24 214:19234:9

needed35:4 104:6,6104:7 205:4,18227:21

needs6:2 51:1459:6 65:23,24,24110:10 116:6161:22 183:22184:20 190:5

194:5,9,12 195:2196:6 201:18202:3 217:13261:25

Neepawa21:11negative68:23

113:22 147:16177:20 189:19211:24 259:8

negatively177:16negligible76:8negotiated60:8

217:16neighbour 141:14

151:25 210:24neighbourhood

148:3 149:13153:25 249:14

neighbouring 151:6228:8 248:20

neighbours63:1564:8 81:23 83:2384:14 142:21145:11 148:22247:1,18

neighbour's 84:3147:15

Neilsen218:1nest16:13 195:19net 23:6 42:7 59:22

62:18 103:7106:19 114:13,15114:16 185:14,14212:23

network 138:8networks 138:12never129:4 149:14

153:9 163:21185:2 192:2244:23

nevertheless61:16142:5

newborn 19:3news174:5,5

196:14 201:5254:24

newsletters254:8264:7,16

next 8:3 10:1811:21 14:12 33:1140:11,21 60:2464:22 74:25 75:1987:22 102:12104:8 114:12125:2 141:5149:22 152:11161:16 168:24



Page 22

188:6 196:18198:21 199:7201:15 216:20220:8 234:24

nice141:11 173:13206:20 226:8

night 151:24 265:4nightmares185:4NIMBY 56:24

141:14nine 43:4,8Ninga 233:3,4nipple 87:9nitrate 32:2,3,6

129:12nitrification 130:13nitrogen 24:7,15,17

24:22,23 25:1,4,825:12 26:23 27:2528:8,11,12,16,1828:22,24 29:1,2430:20,25 33:934:20 91:12 98:1113:24 206:6216:1,3,5 222:14223:2,17 257:2,4257:8,13,19,22264:1

nitrous 30:23 92:8136:6

nobody151:20187:14 214:6

none264:25non-earthen50:20non-existent88:24non-starches25:16non-therapeutic

131:7,9 190:7199:23 200:4201:8

non-vegetated53:25

norm 6:21 176:12177:18

normal 8:6 111:1189:23 215:2,6

normally 26:14north 65:9 111:16

117:9 120:10121:7,14,18 125:1133:17 173:20,23182:9,19 189:25204:18 217:3224:15 246:14

northeast101:8northwest 189:23

189:25

nostrils 227:7notch 47:11note56:6 94:4

137:14 166:4169:6 170:19177:2 185:5 193:1197:16 199:12

noted21:12 139:9143:12

notes251:7 266:8nothing 40:12 128:5

205:22notice142:1 164:4

164:9 253:7noticed86:12

112:21 141:2254:10 264:6

Notre 150:5 152:14November38:25

52:13,21 116:10NPK 215:20nuisance36:22

80:20 108:15258:24

number 17:6,1319:4 30:12 44:748:19 49:6,1850:4,4,6 66:1167:24 68:14 69:1774:23 78:3 84:297:1 121:6,10,22122:11 129:22139:8 141:18143:13 152:21155:11 170:21199:3,7 220:20238:12 254:19256:9 259:13262:12

numbers15:2017:23 18:15 20:1821:11 100:18108:10 120:7121:5 123:3133:18 194:20221:24

numerous76:22143:6 251:15

nursery 13:22213:4 228:3

nutrient 12:8 24:4,624:11 27:2 32:1732:19 33:3,10,1233:14,19 35:7,835:11,17 39:1160:24 73:25 75:1077:24 86:21 97:15

97:16 108:25110:12,21 112:21113:2 115:1,9128:19 131:24179:18 180:18,19181:1,2,3 186:7204:8 206:9 210:7230:2 239:23240:2 252:13256:15 263:19

nutrients 24:9,1128:3,3 29:13,1529:16 30:6 32:932:21 35:3,4,1135:13 74:2,775:12,25 76:1777:12 84:22 88:697:24 98:3 106:16112:22 114:19130:11 167:18,21167:25 174:3207:12 210:6,8211:7,19 256:15256:19 263:20

nutrition 89:1nutritional 88:4

196:6

OOak 238:7 246:12

246:15oath 6:6 8:24

118:20 203:14226:15

object 57:5 63:23objections213:20objective66:21

68:4 112:13156:16 159:14

objectively 165:2objectives46:6 58:8

109:19observation179:6

185:18observations84:5observers192:11obtain 67:22 68:5obtained59:12,20

204:14 216:23obtaining 217:2obvious178:15obviously128:14

146:14 168:18182:20

occasions190:3occupier94:21occupying186:17

occur 77:19 80:884:25

occurred 16:12101:17

occurring 89:6occurs31:21 216:15October 48:22

146:22Odanah229:4odour 36:7 64:13

81:8,16,19,2282:5,8,14,15,2583:1,5,14 84:386:21 97:17132:21 133:8141:15 189:17190:2 197:11205:2 208:6,24234:25 235:3,4258:15 259:7,9,16259:21,24 260:7260:10,14,16261:6

odours36:22 79:2580:8,13,20,2382:20 83:12,2484:21,24 108:15134:4 207:8,19208:2,3 211:19,22211:24 241:24258:22 259:11

odour-destroying209:7

off 8:11,12,14,189:22 23:17 42:1242:18 45:15 62:1174:19 86:15 92:398:2 104:15127:12,15 132:12138:1 146:2157:19,23 188:11205:18 223:2228:16 235:18254:3 256:11

offensive165:3offensiveness83:4,8offer 236:10office 170:5officer 71:10officers 90:1official 96:23officials 48:25

109:7 110:22offset92:19off-farm 185:16often 80:12 140:23

145:3,15 194:13

213:20 234:1Oh 225:10 251:2oil 81:16 102:20

112:8 133:12oilseeds249:24okay 119:24 139:17

140:9 192:22214:7,12 251:14251:20 252:7263:13

old 205:20 211:25older 25:20 229:4

241:17Olson168:3Olymel 146:7,9Olywest146:6ombudsman158:15

169:22 191:7Ombudsman's

170:5once13:22 88:2

141:22 142:16221:3 230:4234:17 246:10

ones36:25 66:3,4,591:24 137:24

one-eighth50:22one-third 49:7one-time218:18ongoing81:14

138:20 255:17only 36:17 51:17

54:19 61:1 66:771:3 73:6 76:1479:20 98:5 101:24103:18 106:13114:20,22,23133:25 142:14145:20 148:2149:1,5 153:11158:4 171:8178:10 190:2,17196:20 199:6206:25 209:12225:21 231:21233:15 234:14242:14 245:24250:7

Ontario 22:11 97:197:18 105:6,7120:7,19

onto 75:19 125:15onus114:24 115:5

236:6,9On-Farm 248:5,19

259:21on-site40:3



Page 23

on-the-ground139:14 170:7232:7

open5:21 6:1316:16 19:23 262:4

opening4:10 6:238:20 12:9,15102:22 119:10

openly170:25operate205:14operates82:3 155:8

155:20operating 167:1

205:15operator 51:11

54:10 94:7 95:196:1,3,7 128:9205:11,16 207:1217:11,15 218:19

operators121:10122:3,5 124:19152:16 153:16209:25 217:19

operator's 206:3,15206:21 207:25

opinion 84:4 165:12opinions41:23opponents54:25

84:8opportunity 6:18

37:2 47:11 104:10119:9 207:24210:23 237:22245:10 246:4,9

opposed131:6167:1

opposition160:16161:15 180:18236:20

optimum 68:5option 19:23 144:21

236:3options5:10order 4:5,18 6:13

6:14 73:12 118:7132:3 135:10146:25 156:4173:2 179:15,15202:2 203:4,5221:21 224:3252:19 253:12255:16

ordered 71:13 82:7organic 49:15 74:17

76:9,11,13,16,1776:18,23 77:5,1491:1 210:11

235:20organization 85:16

131:14 239:3organizations

117:25organized19:20origin 41:6original 231:14others144:15

147:23otherwise12:3

139:23ourselves222:20

245:25outbreaks104:20

184:8outcome156:1outdoor 83:25outdoors13:5outfit 128:15outlay 213:8outline 30:24 41:24

82:5 106:24outlined 38:9outlining 25:6output 224:8outputs 34:7,21

35:3,4outright 48:5 49:13

49:15outset218:3outside238:8outstanding124:21

132:2 135:9overall 35:10 91:10

92:12 115:9 201:5248:21

overcome105:21overhaul 254:4overhead128:14Overloading 174:3overseas104:15oversee10:11

227:19overstated80:13overview9:16 11:4

123:5overwhelmed

191:12over-application

189:6,13own 39:12 41:23

61:20 121:3146:25 147:15,16150:5 154:8 192:7192:14 197:18234:3 236:5 238:2

238:3 240:15,22242:15 244:3245:3 248:2

owner 94:20 148:18227:25

owners150:25188:24,24 227:19247:20 248:21249:21

ownership123:13owns94:23oxide30:23 92:8oxides136:7

PP 130:21packing 15:17

211:2page2:10 62:21

113:11pages86:16 218:2

266:7paid 100:13 191:14

198:18,21 231:1panel4:7,8 5:15,22

6:6,7,16 169:14176:13 177:8

paper 75:22 80:292:25 153:5

paragraph 27:18parameters63:9

130:2parent 250:6parents244:17park 227:1,1parroting 172:21part 5:25 7:7 13:18

18:5 23:22 33:1835:1 38:11,1752:11,11 65:2272:7 73:9,1880:10 99:23 101:8111:25 112:16,16113:5,6 125:21139:1 140:6 147:9148:19 194:13196:25 202:17210:19 212:9225:3,4 234:14238:1 241:8242:14

participate 191:11participation 4:25

6:10 158:17164:20 165:23187:19 192:2

particle 77:4

particles 233:17particular 33:25

41:12 49:3 50:1950:21 76:4 138:7138:13 141:24144:11 145:1,14145:25 151:15161:15 166:21202:20 221:15243:20 244:13262:8

particularly 77:394:11 142:23145:18 165:3185:9 191:13

parties 6:25 7:893:8 160:15239:15 247:23

partnership 45:7239:8,10

partnerships 109:6parts 16:4 22:4,17

74:24 100:2104:20 116:25117:10 138:16172:17,18 244:9262:17

party 37:15 93:7165:25

part-time 148:14pass16:13 149:1

152:1 163:10217:17 239:25

passage161:4passed131:5

134:21 214:18,24passion250:12past10:4,17,20

84:16 111:13150:6 151:12242:18 255:16

patent 217:5patents204:14path 215:7 234:3pathogen-free

209:16pathway 24:9,10pathways32:11Paton130:1pause57:12 154:10pay 136:2 187:8

193:12 199:18201:2,19,21,25

payback213:1,7217:21

paying 201:22pay-outs124:19

Pediatrics200:9peer65:23 66:4

67:2,7 131:1140:14 261:19

peers261:20pellet 212:9,13

215:4 216:1225:16

pelleted215:16pelletize223:4pellets210:2,10

211:7 215:17,19222:2,2

Pembina142:17233:6

pending204:15penetrates233:17penetration 229:23perceived83:2

145:15percent123:10,11

123:19,20,23,23125:17 129:7,10146:11,24 154:2163:19 168:13,13168:14 189:19212:6 216:6,11218:10,14,15241:21,22

percentage17:872:1 116:22234:17

percentages22:12129:16

perception82:2584:3 258:17 259:1

perceptions84:3perennial 32:13

257:15,20perfect 177:10

209:3performance60:12

84:18 230:23231:3,16 232:1

performers 261:4performs 22:7perhaps46:3 56:9

58:18 60:13,1563:20 115:1176:10 178:19186:3

peril 154:9perimeter 244:15

244:16,18 245:5,7period 7:1,10 16:21

21:13 31:8 44:1952:16,21,23 75:2



Page 24

105:15 107:9126:13 145:21219:21 240:5

periodically 184:9permanent154:10

166:23permit 55:9,13

58:24 80:11149:19,19 158:11228:1 231:15236:17

permits 36:14,1555:17,18 59:12,19

permitted 131:25permitting 207:18

207:22person7:23 94:18

94:23 95:16100:21 141:13,16203:10 226:20

personal89:7 143:5152:14 197:18238:2

personally153:9persons63:21 94:16perspective22:16

28:21 87:20 97:21156:22 168:5238:6 244:12

perspectives237:23pertaining 97:5pesticides131:8Peter2:12 8:25

9:10 10:24 11:340:15,17 81:24196:1

PFRA 240:19pH 76:3,8 209:15

214:21,25 215:3,6225:17

phase25:18 27:935:9 196:17256:18

phased131:11phasing200:3

201:4,8phone7:20phones8:11,14,17phosphate26:13

29:6,7 34:14168:4,7

phosphorous74:1674:18 75:6 98:1109:12 128:20144:11 154:22158:10 166:14167:16 241:1

photographs140:21 141:1,4

phrase94:13 109:4physical76:2,10,19physiological83:11phytase27:4,16,24

115:14,18,20255:18,19 256:17

phytate 26:10,15Picardie 148:21

149:19picking 54:10picture 125:16

127:23,24 139:17139:20 153:12185:16 242:15

pictures 131:17132:9 139:8185:22

pie 123:18piece93:23 106:22

148:5pieces93:11 219:13pig 16:6 17:6 18:7,9

18:13,18 19:13,1921:19 24:18 26:1481:18 89:2 121:8122:25 132:1228:5

pigheadedness147:9

piglet 15:5piglets13:7,19,21

15:4pigs13:5,5,8,14

14:6 15:9,1016:19 17:8 18:1018:11,12,20 19:119:3,8 21:14,2021:22 22:19 23:24100:10 104:12,14105:4,4 107:4,6107:14,16 108:9121:6,9 126:24128:2,2 154:16173:16,21 193:10195:5,15 196:5199:3,7 213:4

pillars 239:4pinch 108:6pioneer253:14Pip 173:15pipe 128:6 149:20pipeline 214:16pit 148:25 149:22

149:23pitfalls 177:13

pits 54:25place4:17 14:8 33:5

41:4 44:10 49:1149:19,22 50:1551:6 52:1 54:157:15 59:2,1261:4 62:18,2463:9 78:22 89:24105:16,19,24114:8 122:11125:13 128:3132:24 138:24157:24 160:25162:15 172:2187:6,7 193:13212:25 213:5221:3 229:3230:17 231:18,21244:19 246:21252:15,16 255:1266:9

places13:1 127:3156:17 160:24212:23

plan 39:8,13 50:2495:15 98:5 165:20176:5 184:10,15231:20 239:5240:18 247:15248:3 251:4,9253:13 254:3,7

planet 175:2planning 40:11,15

40:23 41:7,1142:19,21,24,2443:2,18 44:2345:4,6,9,10,11,1245:21 49:19 56:358:4,13 59:1761:3,6,7 81:21150:1,10,16 158:9161:1,4,5 162:19164:22 166:21180:3,11 187:22187:24 188:1191:11 239:4243:12 249:1,6

plans38:11,18,2139:2,17,23 43:147:24 61:8,9,1075:3 131:18177:12 184:4230:16 231:21

plant 21:8,10,1228:3,3 36:23107:2,11,20120:20 121:3

146:15,17plants 15:17 16:10

19:25 20:5,9 21:721:9,16,21 174:4217:25 218:3,12218:13 263:5

plant-soil 24:11plastic 26:4,7 81:1play 32:6 88:19

106:2 110:2122:10 178:11

played27:9players120:16playing 177:23plays22:5please8:13 118:7

141:7 195:11197:2 203:4,8,11214:2 226:14237:6,15 252:3

plethora 96:21111:10

plumes97:20plus 16:4Plymouth 196:1point 11:14 17:2,12

24:6 26:21 27:1728:1 32:22 33:1239:17 40:12 42:2045:11 50:7 51:753:25 55:19 57:2258:19 60:6 61:2370:19 72:22 74:190:19 91:14 99:22102:3 114:6,18115:24 132:3164:24 199:13221:17 223:7225:22 226:8229:6,21 247:13257:17 260:19

pointed 120:5137:21 143:24183:24

pointer 42:16pointing 31:1 63:12points 9:23 11:13

11:16 42:12160:18 167:15253:22

policies41:16,1743:4,5,8 47:2,1048:18 51:9 56:457:15 58:10,2060:20 62:23,2563:7 175:9 228:24

policy 41:13 44:4,6

45:17 47:16,1849:11 50:6 60:2263:9 109:13,15,18109:19 110:16160:11,13,20,23165:15,22 167:4,5200:12

political 160:17161:11,11 165:1172:6 173:13179:23 231:12

politically 162:5politicians 46:5politics 146:12

176:15pollute 169:1 234:8pollution 89:11

133:3,9 144:10227:22 229:21231:16

polyethylene37:25poor 258:17populated148:14population 58:16

102:17 144:3148:16 186:11

populations211:8porosity 37:13

97:11porous257:9Portage164:7portion 28:4 143:11

144:6 241:19243:10

portray 165:5pose51:17position 113:22

145:23 172:6174:2

positive35:2 193:1197:9,23 207:24226:4 239:24240:10 245:11248:22

possession94:24possibility 23:21

179:14possible35:16 58:6

231:10 233:11257:12

possibly183:13185:19 195:17

posted6:11 7:6post-closure122:16potassium223:18

224:23,25potential 19:5 32:15



Page 25

39:4 74:6 77:1189:21 92:20103:17 134:16206:16 207:20212:4 249:11253:1

potentially 51:1794:16 226:4

potholes227:16poultry 91:11

103:12 184:19pound 222:14pounds14:1 15:15

168:4,7,8,10189:9 262:16

power 11:14 67:1167:12 81:13

powerful 227:8Powerhouse120:14powerhouses

120:10Powerpoint 117:19powers148:1practical 95:5

253:16,20practice 8:6 74:20

88:9 92:19 112:24231:6 234:18235:2 239:17242:7 247:19261:21

practices44:1380:7,17,18,2181:2,5 82:2,7,1284:15 87:13 89:489:16 135:21136:1 149:2252:19 253:6256:8,22 257:20258:4,10 259:11259:14

practicing 89:3prairie 76:11,22prairies 76:13precaution 167:2precautionary

157:8precautions230:16preceding85:5 96:9precipitation 69:20

70:1precisely24:20predict 199:2predictability 56:1predictions 198:7predominantly

229:22

prefer 153:10pregnant 13:17preliminary 184:23premises236:15prepare 39:22

45:16 63:14prepared 5:6 54:9

171:12preparing 54:11prerequisite 156:25prescribe38:13presence228:24present25:4 69:21

83:5 119:2 210:24219:3 237:22,23237:24 238:1241:25

presentation5:226:4,12,18 8:211:15 22:4 33:1886:13 117:15,17117:20,22 118:8120:6 123:6 139:2153:11 189:18196:2 203:8207:23 217:25218:25 264:25

presentations2:105:25 6:5,7,14,247:17 189:16202:16,22 203:6

presented69:21134:25 150:8172:11 173:12236:24

presenter6:2,17presenters6:19,20

8:15presenting174:20presents137:11

203:19 226:17237:18 252:5

preserving208:15Press143:23 169:8

176:12pressed189:12pressing204:3pressure16:15

63:25 64:20 165:1183:14,17 216:25259:8

pressures57:3pretty 19:12 61:2

75:11 188:17219:18 220:12262:3

prevailing 189:22

prevent 36:5 89:6157:23 170:2227:22 231:16

preventing 89:13192:16

prevention 160:23167:2 231:2

preventive157:8234:4

previous16:23 84:1120:6 121:25142:16 177:24257:23

pre-heat224:20pre-treatment

214:18 223:24,25price 86:20 102:20

216:22 221:4223:9,10,11,17,18223:18 226:5

prices22:13,25 23:8102:19 103:14106:18 183:17212:23 215:23223:16 236:19,21

priding 153:12primarily 109:15

161:6primary 34:13 83:1principle 167:1,2

234:18principles 43:24

157:9 160:23printed 129:4prior 6:4 39:18

111:2 169:13214:23 223:23

priorities 254:14260:18

priority 73:12,15159:17

pristine 142:16226:25

private 131:22158:3 175:6203:24 234:22

privy 164:1proactive 90:7

108:13 109:3239:14 240:13,23254:20 261:24

probably 11:2523:10 26:22 59:485:13,23 97:8106:23 120:21126:19,23 132:19199:2 221:5,25

222:14,15 225:20238:4 244:14246:22 262:22263:1 264:17,18

problem 29:16,1771:6 74:15 81:1097:22,25 98:3113:16 116:15132:16 161:11,12204:3 224:24233:19 247:22255:17 258:5,24

problems66:1479:2 81:12 121:15125:7 129:16136:9,16 137:4147:10 167:23194:15 204:8205:21 217:13221:9

procedures15:688:4 248:8

proceed8:21 45:1855:19 58:23118:14 119:5203:21 207:23214:8 226:19237:20

proceeded228:22proceedings1:9 4:4

118:2 203:1 218:2265:5

proceeds55:20167:6

processed219:23processes59:9

76:21 77:17,24,25155:25 158:19205:12

processing19:2420:22,24 21:7,921:10 112:7 142:5146:19 256:12,13

processor147:2183:10

produce17:8 19:121:19 90:13,2597:23 120:13144:2 173:1 207:8215:13,19 235:11235:11 241:13242:17,21

produced27:1528:9 90:12 107:16199:6 208:8,24219:16 220:1221:4 222:1,2,4

240:16producer 23:25

54:20 62:10120:18,21 133:17147:2 151:11241:8

producers9:19,209:24 12:21,2218:9 19:20,2222:22 23:11 37:1837:21 52:25 61:2475:2,17 80:1789:5 104:10 110:5110:9,13 123:11143:9,13,14146:25 147:8151:4 152:24199:10,14 234:7237:14,25 238:9238:19 239:2,9240:13,21 241:3241:12,15,22243:6,9 247:4248:5

producer's 114:16producing 96:25

100:9product 23:24 90:6

90:12 112:9,11199:9 217:2222:18 225:23235:1,20 253:9

productive 184:13productivity 12:22

13:6 78:10,20224:6 258:11

products 21:2134:11

professional36:1039:15

profile 32:8 92:15profiled 101:22profit 213:18 231:4profits 201:15

232:17 237:1profound 144:16program 68:4 89:24

89:25 185:15186:1 248:6,20

programs 14:888:15 124:3,4248:10

progress48:1361:19 83:9

prohibited 49:13,15project 68:22

102:12 172:12



Page 26

261:3 264:2projected 104:4projecting 102:15projection 107:10projections 108:6projects 178:7

253:21 256:1259:12 260:24261:5,9 264:9,11264:14

proliferation 237:7prolonged134:17promise148:24

160:19 217:15promised129:6promises253:3promising 6:6promotant 130:19promote 153:15

182:8 183:4254:15

promoted 183:16218:7

promoter 145:16promoters 131:8

161:25 177:25promoting 253:4prompt 205:15

208:24prompts 209:25prone 117:4 257:7proof 162:17 236:7propagated84:8proper 89:1 127:3

135:11 243:14,14249:6

properly 36:3 71:1295:13 130:3195:22 253:10

properties 76:2,1076:20 83:1 188:22

property 53:9 64:982:21 95:7 100:14133:4,9,10,14149:17 228:2229:5

proponent 36:1958:1 150:19 153:2159:24 162:19229:18 230:24231:1,4,14 232:9233:9 234:2

proponents54:25148:25 172:12228:4 233:19236:12

proportion 18:4

proposal55:18 57:664:2,7 155:14162:18 164:8,10165:2 228:22230:25 232:21

proposals155:11172:14 264:13

propose217:14proposed58:22

60:9,24,25 62:985:14 114:7143:25 155:13164:5 166:8 201:7229:18 230:10240:8,20 241:2,6256:4

proprietary 224:2pros 67:13 86:17prosperity 10:1protect 36:16 69:5

70:21 146:25159:1 174:25180:14 232:11

protected15:4 26:742:11 59:24 87:4157:7 230:14

protecting 153:16232:10

protection 4:1646:12,24 51:1480:7 82:3 84:15136:1 140:1 142:9157:7,10 158:18160:22 166:13176:5 177:15180:17 184:23186:24 192:2239:5

protein 20:16 24:1825:13,19,21 104:3

protest 245:9protests138:23protozoan87:3proud 254:6prove 151:7 154:11

154:13 189:1231:11 236:9

proved 153:7proven 175:16

217:21 221:3provide 5:12 7:8

12:10 33:5,11,2036:6,8 37:9 38:2240:1 41:9 42:2,854:19 68:21 70:1571:17,21 75:2076:5 80:21 92:22

92:24 93:13 97:10100:1 101:3102:11 111:25140:5 159:9 171:2205:4 207:24211:13 235:19260:16

provided 15:1917:5 18:8 19:1320:22 24:5,1627:10 29:23 35:2144:12,16 45:374:11 80:1 85:990:15 93:3 98:1698:17 148:10159:11 163:3,11167:7 171:22188:12 205:6210:3 250:9264:15

provides94:14163:7 169:14

providing 20:1234:7 211:15218:21

provinces21:2322:11 96:25238:16

province's 68:6176:5 188:15

provincially 58:25provisions44:9proximity 32:12

166:7Pryzner 2:16

118:23,23 119:1154:21,23,23177:1 180:6

pseudo65:22PTO5 189:9publication 80:16publications 110:15publicly 122:2

173:5public's 159:1

190:20 198:14232:10

public-private218:8

published71:384:13 140:14181:9,15 182:2

pull 152:4 223:1pullets 239:18

240:17pulse46:5pump 86:6 149:19

152:2pumped189:2

216:4pumping 216:11Puratone120:24

121:1purchased29:15pure 151:1purpose4:19 38:12

170:3pursuant 93:7pursues147:10purview 193:7pushed157:19,23pushing81:17

166:5 183:8put 14:12 15:5,22

18:2 20:1 21:6,2422:7,13 25:2128:7,15 29:2030:5 54:7 59:263:24 69:18 73:1782:23 84:19 88:392:1 108:17 111:5126:20 132:13133:19 139:16143:23 158:6163:18 168:5178:16 183:14190:10 195:1198:1,4 202:4,16207:16 220:8228:1 231:6,21249:3 255:11,19

puts 64:19 179:2183:18

putting 202:20206:22 254:25

puzzled161:24162:1 183:2

p.m 4:2 118:2,3203:1,2 265:5

P2O5168:4 263:5

Qqualifier 93:1quality 10:13 12:7

12:23 65:18 67:2068:8 69:5 70:2071:2 73:23 74:475:20 78:20 89:2590:11 129:9131:20 133:20137:12 147:8175:1 194:18,18197:9 207:9235:24 255:8

261:6quantifiable 207:2quantity 69:5quarter 50:21 148:5

264:18Quebec22:11 97:1

97:22 104:24105:2,5 112:25113:1 120:7,11121:16

Quebec's105:7quest232:16question6:19 58:2

62:20 70:25 71:2385:3 105:23112:20 121:23133:24 134:1157:20,21 171:19172:5 174:18180:10 182:5183:22 188:8,9200:18 223:21236:15 251:2261:18

questioning223:9questions6:17

11:22,23 12:318:6 40:11 67:1768:19 119:18139:7 244:2250:18 262:5263:15

quick 222:13 251:2quickly 11:21 19:12

53:19 54:6 113:21quiet 148:7quite 15:2 49:2

63:12 77:18 93:13131:13 254:4

quonset37:24quote217:25

232:24quoted263:8quoting 223:11

RR 119:1Radcliffe 159:23radiation 209:15

214:25radio 184:17railway 101:10rain 72:19 125:20rainbow 235:14rainfall 69:23 72:15

127:8,13rains 125:6



Page 27

raise12:1 13:5194:20

raised13:14,22,2514:6 193:11,14199:1,4,6 213:20227:8

raising 51:13193:25 196:22200:21

range26:4 215:6235:5

rank 12:21 120:21ranked 121:12rapid 141:17

184:13rapidly 103:7rare 88:25 190:3rate 17:1 73:4 76:18

77:10 97:11107:19 111:2127:2 167:25

ratepayers57:5rates22:3,25 29:11

31:5 32:14 78:287:9 92:4 106:2111:1 132:2135:12 168:2169:2 255:14257:18

rather 7:21 18:1550:6 143:8 146:20146:22 160:19211:21

ratio 33:9ration 16:5 26:18

27:5,8,17,24 78:978:10 79:18

rational 186:11rationalization

21:15rations 26:14 79:24rattle 188:11ravages87:11reach13:23 15:13

114:1 115:24197:14

reached153:23154:5

reaction 197:18reactions30:1read 95:18 96:13

116:7 137:18159:23

readings168:3ready 61:2 112:9

118:13,15 126:11253:20

real 131:2 132:4142:9 159:14160:15 224:13

realistic 171:3realities 82:11reality 84:6realize7:16 57:11

72:18 242:20250:22

realized252:11really 42:21 45:15

60:6 92:24 115:6119:15 124:2,22124:24 132:4,6136:13 145:2146:3,4 164:16178:10 192:2193:2,4,8,9,12,25194:24 195:3,9,9197:16,21 198:18199:17 200:17201:10,14,19205:22 244:10245:7 257:23

reapplied 231:14reason87:1 94:8

197:10 217:19236:22 241:9246:24

reasonable7:1047:16 162:16

reasonably217:12reasons7:18 48:20

56:13 57:22169:11 181:19186:22 194:19195:12 196:11205:25 236:18246:16

reassess60:16recall 44:6recap260:11recapitalizing

241:16receipt 7:7,14receipts20:10,12receive210:16receiving124:24recent122:23

123:22 149:2199:20 200:10201:3 257:10

recently 44:5 48:15137:5 170:4 196:2197:5 198:15199:24 264:17

RECESSED118:2

203:1recharge31:21 72:1

72:14 73:1,4,6,14228:19 229:24230:13

recharged72:4,673:8

recharging 73:8228:20

recognition 195:1recognize74:22

156:10,18 171:7197:2 202:3

recognized134:11141:11 198:16204:22 206:10

recommend58:12143:2 145:21237:6

recommendation54:15 170:21179:21

recommendations5:10 14:19 142:8147:20 159:10167:7 242:12,19

recommended44:15 74:20233:10 239:17242:7

recommending102:15 134:5

reconvene265:2RECONVENED

118:3 203:2record 8:22,25

118:18 202:16203:12 226:14237:16 252:3

recording 8:7181:25

records40:5 69:7122:20 131:25

recourse84:15188:25

recovered32:8recovery33:15

204:6 210:20211:16 213:13

recreation 48:1150:24

recreational 43:11recycling 28:3

29:10 212:11red 52:12 110:5

116:6 199:20233:6 241:1 243:4

redirected 211:17rediscovered

205:23redress158:13reduce25:7,12,17

26:2,21 27:528:19 30:24 31:2532:15,16,25 35:335:8,10 37:5 75:576:18 78:16 79:1581:19 82:8 87:2112:1,3,5 113:19115:5 207:13209:18 211:2216:10 221:16235:23 250:8256:8,24 259:11260:7

reduced27:7197:12 207:19208:2,20 209:20211:4,24 216:11216:14 218:14,15218:22 260:17

reduces31:3 81:1688:6

reducing 32:16,1833:8 74:6,1577:10 81:22 88:20101:15 165:22208:15 212:5258:1 260:12,13

reduction 27:12137:11 143:12205:2 211:13216:19 218:18259:21 260:14

reductions26:5refer 42:6 142:24

168:22 191:25198:11

refereed140:14reference4:15

41:13 98:22119:15 159:12,13162:20

referred 139:21165:25

reflected167:5reflection 78:6reflects206:12refocused211:18refuse230:6refused230:8regain 182:18regard 134:24

175:11

regarding 80:4,8,1282:5,14 140:20

regardless37:22165:18 174:1257:6

regards262:1regime62:3 129:2

179:12Regina137:8region 17:24,25

34:1 100:16133:20

Regional162:24regions4:24 18:1

33:21,24,25113:20

register 8:4registered23:25

38:7,8,23 39:6122:3

regrettably 48:18regulate41:5 84:21

84:22regulated23:24

48:6 49:23 60:20regulating 134:6regulation 27:23

36:13 38:12 44:1662:7 70:22 75:193:12 95:2 111:11114:17 122:10158:9 166:14,25167:11 168:25176:8,12 178:14180:19 182:15186:24 239:22

regulator 162:3178:11

regulators 162:1regulatory 39:10

62:3 96:19 109:7134:3 178:21179:4,8,12 207:18209:10 229:1

Reid 266:5,14reimbursement

171:25reinforce 11:16

207:25reiterate 201:1reject 173:11

186:23rejected164:7

187:1relate 136:22related 5:23 76:10

88:13 193:2



Page 28

194:18 198:13258:7

relating 4:17 155:1158:22 223:18

relation 114:15158:7 178:23

Relations10:2540:17

relationship 156:16174:8

relationships156:13

relative 41:23 43:744:9 53:10 91:15114:19

relatively 30:262:24 162:15

relevant 6:8,12 65:765:12,14 135:15170:23

reliable 58:5 64:2465:1 171:7

reliant 201:13relocate210:23reluctant 7:17rely 66:1 102:6relying 194:2remain 57:6 82:18

88:9 113:22 215:8remaining 215:16remains107:3remarks 75:13 93:1

111:9remedied135:23remember107:5

125:20 129:21213:9 214:10

remind 201:24Reminded159:25reminder 202:17remission216:21remotely 205:16

209:24removal 29:11

158:19 208:25remove42:3 70:9

214:21removed15:12 28:4

151:8 165:13removes80:23

168:6rendering 164:20renewable43:10

183:9renewed109:25repair 71:14 205:20repeat33:7 66:7

repetitive 6:15replace29:14 71:15

225:21replaced165:16replacement34:5report 2:8 5:6,11

29:8 30:16 54:1454:19 79:11 129:4129:5,17 133:24135:18 147:21170:20 181:9,12181:15 182:3190:11 191:22192:4,5,7,8,9,11200:10,13

reported 40:9 76:2383:24 218:2

reporters 266:5reporting 113:14

139:6reports 7:9 111:11

172:14 264:14represent9:20

226:20representative

140:18 141:10165:18

representatives160:4 162:3

represented91:1992:13 249:4

representing119:6154:21 192:21203:15 226:10237:14 251:24252:9

reputable 131:13reputed 146:11request163:13,13

203:6 236:17requested4:12

129:19 169:11170:9

requests132:2135:9 170:13,18

require 12:18 27:1959:9 90:24 263:5

required 6:6 29:1038:6 46:22 55:1562:24 68:21 69:1156:8 162:18,21183:10 209:25210:4 228:4

requirement 27:627:13 28:19 39:1972:8 73:19 95:1598:7 251:19

requirements24:2125:19 27:3 36:1136:15,19 38:1339:10,14 40:2349:12 52:3 55:1457:13,14,18,2158:25 62:1 63:1771:16 93:10,20196:5 209:10256:16

requires 157:6research7:5 10:12

10:17 33:2 66:374:9 78:17 81:1499:6 108:20 109:7110:1 130:24166:18 171:23197:6,8 198:10218:9 253:16,18253:21 254:13255:16 256:7257:11,18 258:1259:3,6 260:11261:13,23,25264:3,9,11,13,13

researchers137:7Reserve150:22reserves150:23residence50:14,15

50:17 64:11250:11

residences51:19250:13

residential 50:25210:13

residents51:1556:21 80:14 83:2183:22 134:17144:25 145:5148:13,14 150:24172:3 189:21190:15 242:24248:24 249:19258:19

residual 34:23257:4 262:18,21

residues225:5,11225:12

resistance200:3resolution 131:5

134:22resolved82:15

170:16 183:23resolves204:8resolving253:3resort 110:19 187:9resource43:17

47:24 58:5 64:2465:19 68:7 69:2253:11

resources43:10,1143:12,14 68:669:16 166:18169:17 172:25186:3 218:23234:11

respect8:10 40:2343:8 57:15 60:5202:4

respectfully 197:16respective47:9respond11:17,18

155:18 210:1responding191:17response83:13

105:19 133:24191:20 241:18

responses12:583:11 133:25

responsibility 45:2246:11 115:8243:10

responsible77:691:16 93:15 94:794:10,18 103:22154:22

rest 15:12 19:1446:12,13,15 208:9212:10 214:15222:21

rested231:10restore175:1 176:6restoring 175:3restrict 166:5

255:14restricting 255:12restriction 62:8restrictions 227:2result 11:19 24:21

43:21 88:21 142:9160:8 167:9 250:5

resultant 147:21resulted33:14

76:24 100:16193:23

resulting 91:10240:8

results7:5 49:499:1 129:3 155:22179:12 213:16218:22 230:8264:12

retain 198:9retained 106:5

retention 30:4198:2

retool 242:5retooled241:23retooling 241:16return 210:17returned 28:5

110:25 215:1returns 22:14 23:6

96:5 106:20114:13 205:4,6,8

reuse209:16revenue124:8

211:12 212:20213:10

reverse179:15reversed211:25review 1:3 4:16 5:5

5:14 6:11 7:5 54:554:14,18 66:596:19 135:19142:7 159:13,15162:9,10,13,24163:6,12,22,23166:22 167:6170:3 172:14175:18,22 176:3176:14 178:21179:4 227:21232:3,19,23

reviewed65:2467:2,7 131:1140:14 217:6261:19

reviewers232:1reviews111:11

255:25revolt 138:20re-evaluate60:11rhetoric 65:21

160:17richer 147:8Riding 226:25right 22:24 23:5

27:14 44:17,2047:3 48:24 54:1072:9 73:11 75:2196:16 120:2121:12 127:24136:10 141:3142:2 150:21152:7,11 175:25198:10,11 199:5,8219:11 221:19223:11 225:16232:5 236:7,13247:8 257:3



Page 29

258:14,15 262:23rights 55:12 68:1,3

68:16 69:10,11rigorous 60:17ring 8:12 11:11rise 176:22 200:15rises235:8rising 74:17risk 31:14 87:2

89:17 90:2 131:12134:24 137:11217:19 218:22233:20 257:14260:13

risks 135:6 260:12river 52:12 110:5

116:6 125:15127:18 192:9226:22 233:6,6241:1 243:4

rivers 72:16 144:7154:24 226:24232:6,25 249:9

RM 54:7 65:11RMs 62:24road 152:9 227:19

228:1 236:6248:16

Roberts33:20rock 34:14Roger235:17Roland 34:18 100:8role 27:9 32:5 45:4

45:7,22 59:2588:19 102:25106:2 110:2111:19 115:8159:9 162:8166:21 178:1,3,6178:9,10,11,12,12178:14 261:24

roles48:25 177:23178:15 179:9238:13

roof 139:21 200:22room 7:25 8:5,13

13:19,20 203:9root 195:7,8,15rooted 174:10,20,21rooting 79:6,9Rosann172:20Rosanne165:9rose172:11Roseisle142:17

151:6,12rotate 247:19rotated 215:9

roughly 45:10238:25 251:8

round 119:10231:15 235:12

roundabout 15:15route 246:24routine 200:14Rude182:2rule 6:12,13rules 41:4 42:7

61:21 62:3,684:14 100:22111:19 133:11158:10,15 206:8246:21

run 22:22 26:22,2454:6 84:11 118:9194:25 225:18228:16

running 16:25127:12 165:20205:17 224:19

runoff 149:21runs 213:1 232:5run-off 31:15 32:10

32:11,15 72:15,2374:8 77:11 97:16125:6 126:11232:13 233:5235:15 255:5

rural 50:25 51:1551:18 71:5 80:14134:16,25 138:16140:18 141:9,24143:20 144:25153:13 155:17158:2 172:2,10,18172:24 187:24188:1 190:22242:24 250:6

Russia103:24Ruth 2:16 118:23

154:21,23 180:6R.M 126:10 150:3

150:10,11,19159:21 160:6164:3,7,10,14246:20 248:25249:13 250:24

Ss150:10,11 218:1safe40:25 202:9safeguard59:14safely15:16 228:18safety10:14 42:6

59:22 62:18 78:20

87:19 88:3 135:14209:1 212:23248:5,19 258:23

sake233:20Salaberry 250:25

251:1sale20:2 95:8

104:12 213:11,12sales28:22 110:3

211:13 218:5salmonella88:25salt 79:4,5,13,16,17

79:19,20,23,24108:6

salts79:4,7,7,22same41:15 42:22

47:20 49:1 65:1483:18 84:21101:16 105:15,21113:23 125:8,8152:8 173:19,21179:11,12 180:16182:2 183:21186:12 210:7224:20 228:9

sample129:1,3sampled129:8sampling40:4

129:1sand229:22Sandilands188:17sandy31:19 32:7

77:4,6 257:19sanitation 81:2 89:1Sargeant2:4 4:5Saskatchewan98:4

107:14 146:12,14192:9

Saskatoon146:17saturated125:17,25

126:10,14,16,18127:19 128:4228:12

saturation 167:20256:2,3

Sauchin137:6sausage227:19save12:3 144:22saw16:19 131:17

143:12 189:17saying63:7 64:18

65:13 74:8 75:13113:3 157:25173:16 189:8,18236:13 257:11

says47:16 50:8,852:2 59:11 61:7

83:16 89:5 121:24121:25 122:24124:7 133:12152:11

scale53:11 219:8236:15

scenario107:22108:2

scenarios106:24Schedule52:9scheduled5:20

118:10scheme64:18schemes124:15

138:11school246:15science56:11 58:6

63:21 64:25 65:165:20,22,23 66:866:19,22 67:1,567:13 83:4 113:6156:11 171:19172:7,12,16,16173:2,8,11 174:2197:14 261:17,19261:20

science-based156:9169:15 171:18172:10 173:10252:19

scientific 66:2 83:9135:5 173:25197:10 253:19

scientifically 131:12scientific-sounding

195:4scientist66:7,17

67:3scientists65:2

66:15 67:3,5133:19,23 167:16167:20 168:17

scope127:23 172:6scoping11:19scoring160:17scraped208:14

215:10screaming144:19screening58:18screens86:2screw86:7scrutiny 71:1search156:20searching217:10season174:5seasonal220:11seasons220:10

second64:23 86:6119:10 121:12174:7 202:15236:17 237:25

secondly56:19205:9 253:17

secret237:3secretary2:7 6:4

8:23 118:20203:13 226:14

section11:13 12:1521:24 22:13 23:1424:3,14 31:2433:11 39:19 40:959:11 69:20,2373:24 74:25 75:1075:20 80:1 93:1796:10 113:11127:15 128:1,3148:5 230:1

sections11:12,2012:6 14:12 15:2470:1,3 72:2096:17 109:2 230:4

sector19:17 20:2523:9 61:14 91:22102:12,24 103:16110:10 114:21,21218:24 254:18261:14

sectors91:4 254:15254:19

secure163:4seed168:7seeds112:8seeing48:9 129:17

136:20 264:25seeking156:5seem98:17,19

164:9 185:9seems153:14

205:22 224:25253:8 258:19

seen32:7 54:24122:20 136:20145:13 146:17151:25 179:16187:10,24 245:20245:24

seepage233:4,17segregating87:23selecting89:8self-monitor 137:17

139:5Selkirk 117:10sell95:11 104:15

215:21



Page 30

Seminar218:1Senate200:1send22:20sense41:8,15 46:5

86:20 96:22 132:5156:4 182:22,23193:1 198:10244:4,15

sensitive32:4 84:9separate75:6 87:15

93:23 208:10separated185:15

224:24separately225:7separating85:6

86:11separation44:10,17

50:5,12 51:10,1651:20 57:17 81:481:23 85:25

September170:6,11septic71:8,8,15series16:14 25:6

29:20 80:21 241:7serious179:19

201:11servants190:17serve174:23,25

175:3 187:3served249:1serves75:24service95:25 96:6

165:11 190:16,18190:20

services100:17110:4 111:22124:22

serving155:4sessions8:7set41:16 43:3,24

44:10 47:7 62:2575:1 89:4 111:19125:8 138:24199:5 204:20,25219:21

setback49:12 57:1889:9

sets49:11 111:15setting104:17

110:22set-back135:17

150:10 164:12set-backs47:8

53:20,23 63:1150:7

seven8:3seventh120:22

Seventy-five83:22several85:5 220:10

247:4,10severe101:9sewage233:5

242:22Shale229:4shape214:14shaped37:24share98:25 104:3

104:11 155:16228:9

shear86:19sheets254:9shelf205:18shelter36:23 81:2

194:7 211:15259:22

sheltered14:8shifts 107:2ship 18:11 20:5,7

104:13 224:16shipped21:22

146:24Shoal70:9shock209:15shore43:11short 68:24 73:23

75:8 80:2 166:7189:17 209:19

short-listed 217:3shot133:1shots128:14show10:18 15:22

16:8 18:3 24:1737:10 39:21 83:15130:5 146:5

showed35:1 129:7139:8,20 181:23182:3

shower88:12 236:1showing29:24 30:6shown26:2 78:17

115:16shows17:23 50:4

165:10 181:12shredding8:16shrink 99:19sick 87:21side17:20 65:3

127:24 136:11183:3 221:15222:1 224:2250:15

sides145:20Sifton 34:18sign152:11

signage248:14signals55:18significance15:25

144:17significant 18:3

19:4 23:5 31:7,1639:22 51:5 110:6116:7 143:11144:6 155:19156:23 167:23168:18 173:7217:20

significantly 66:1876:12 80:23 156:1199:15 240:24246:13 251:16

silage168:10silencing164:19silent 57:7similar 238:15simple67:9 73:2

81:14 86:3,19242:25

simplest193:24simplified 207:19simply 23:11 34:10

42:6 46:15 86:8114:14 159:4169:1 200:23204:25 217:19253:9 259:23

simultaneously183:7

since16:24 38:2476:12 79:23 80:1582:3 142:13145:13 148:15155:2 193:20196:13 234:8,14238:9 261:11

sincere161:14single50:14,14,17

114:25sink 52:6 53:17sit 60:11 150:16site14:5 54:10

87:23 89:8 186:8186:14 217:10220:7,15,18 233:6

sites48:11 106:3187:13,14

siting 47:7 49:1252:2 54:2,1057:17 60:18 62:163:1 70:16 97:18162:12 232:15,16243:14 247:10

situation 22:1132:24 236:3238:2 240:22241:4 242:15243:2 244:3248:11

six 8:3 125:20130:25 136:25146:25 148:13,14228:13 235:5249:14

sixth 120:21sixties142:14size18:12 37:22

48:4 50:9 63:377:5 84:1 121:11123:13 125:25126:1 127:23199:16 224:5,18238:24 251:7,12

sizes17:16 221:11Ski 146:7,11skied142:19skills 12:19skip 55:23Sky 146:7skyrocketing 147:4slapped146:23slaughter20:8

21:10,15,18,20106:21 107:7146:15

slaughtered107:15slaughterhouse

121:3slaughtering16:10

16:17 20:21 21:9107:3,13

slide62:20,21 64:22257:23

slides125:2 135:8136:21 254:11

slight 118:11slip 128:24slope32:12 53:10

53:13,15 214:14slopes227:15sloping232:14slow47:6 48:19

111:1,23slowed16:25slowing161:17sludge215:14slurry 207:6 259:19Slyke2:19 203:11

203:11,15,17,18203:19,22,23

214:3,7,9 219:2,4219:7 220:16,19221:5 222:3,6,9222:17 223:10224:1 225:8,12,14225:25 226:1,7

small 35:1 67:2469:14,17 76:790:20 91:22 98:12126:3 128:21143:10,16 154:24167:23 188:18194:3 217:12219:8 221:9227:18 231:5234:17 245:2250:13

smaller 17:20 20:953:2 110:5 143:9221:13,19 227:11

smell64:12 190:1227:7 235:6,18259:25

smells209:3Smith 2:8Smithfield 120:17

196:16Smithfield's 201:4snow128:10soaking72:16soaks72:23soap243:1social44:2 99:16

177:15Societies242:10Society192:21,24

200:8socks229:9soils30:3 31:11,18

31:19 32:20 34:2049:15 76:11,14,1576:22,24 77:4,1377:20 79:6,8167:20 168:15173:22 174:3,5198:3,4 229:22,24230:1 232:14245:23 251:3255:2 256:3,9257:7,7,13,19260:13 264:1

sold16:9 20:3solely254:17solid 35:20 37:16

81:4 140:10 220:1222:21

solids86:8,11



Page 31

209:21 212:11214:23 222:25

soluble30:9 32:1974:16,18 79:4255:12 262:21

solution 161:10204:1 206:14,23208:5 217:13

solutions239:13243:7,11,19,19245:12 253:15

somebody23:2139:14 64:9 133:10145:22 189:2263:7

someone133:4someplace182:16Somerset152:15

153:1something12:7

65:10,15,17 93:1293:19 98:11 108:4113:2,4 149:8180:8 182:20195:7 198:8,18200:17 253:23261:20

sometime181:17sometimes46:20,21

84:20 184:4 194:1somewhat98:25

113:3 222:19244:3

somewhere223:14246:8

son246:18soon61:2 62:25

188:22 200:25215:14

sooner225:20sorry 17:17 23:15

40:11 104:25121:2 142:25143:4 201:24214:3 220:16225:10 256:21

sort 42:15 67:1769:18 85:18 120:9132:11 133:7187:10 223:2,24255:20 257:3258:13,20 264:9

sought60:8 110:13sound63:20 88:9

131:12 156:5159:13 210:16217:18

sounds69:19195:24 213:8226:3

source20:11 26:1333:17 34:13 71:675:25 79:22110:11 180:10,23235:20 241:10247:21

sources32:22 67:2593:5 115:22183:22 211:12212:4 213:9226:25

south148:6,7189:25

southeast125:19southeastern125:5

125:21southern249:15southwest162:23

189:23 190:1232:19,23 234:15

southwestern154:25 227:3

sow13:17,19 15:3108:10 199:16201:5 228:2

sows13:6,14 17:1417:15,18 18:24,2487:9,19 121:1213:3,4,5 220:4

soybeans103:8,9so-called154:11

176:20sparse58:16speak7:21 9:23speaking46:9special8:16 44:21

52:12 57:4 141:14149:19

specialists54:18specialized13:13specially15:16species257:6species-specific

194:8,12 195:2202:3

specific44:7 47:870:13 84:5 85:21186:8,14 240:22

specifically98:23149:6 171:24195:5 249:12

speculation181:20speeded75:17spell96:9

spelled70:23 95:17spend16:1 41:10

99:4 149:7 195:16spent108:22spite64:12 148:24

183:5split 176:18spoke197:5 213:16spread37:2 52:15

52:20,24 53:1886:10 134:20139:12 163:1,8,20164:5,5 229:20232:4 235:6241:14 242:1,3245:16,17 247:18249:20 260:4

spreader152:1spreading52:10

53:6,8,12 105:13116:12 117:2151:5,23,23170:10 186:12235:2 241:2 243:3247:20 260:5,5

spreadsheet206:12spring 37:2 52:6

53:17 126:10127:12 140:22149:21 233:24

springtime 97:17126:9,12

St 145:1 148:8,9159:21

stability 112:7184:2

stable211:14stack130:25stacks132:18

139:21staff 88:11 191:13

191:15 208:18210:20 240:4

staffs204:19stage87:22 256:19stages13:15stakeholder44:15

165:17stakeholders5:1

110:17 242:11stall 14:18 48:23stalls196:18 201:5Stan165:10 175:23stand42:14,17standard 26:24

44:11 47:18 84:18standards27:21

44:17 47:7,1248:5 56:4 58:1058:21 62:25 74:2578:25 84:12110:15

standing125:9,12standpoint 34:5stands12:11Stanley100:8start 23:17 30:8

34:12 58:9 61:1965:5 99:21 134:6244:17

started 108:17113:9 172:8203:25 220:22221:8 229:7230:20

starting 49:2461:10 105:10118:12 214:9,13

starts 48:23 56:25state76:15 95:8

144:19 146:1203:12 204:18217:3 224:15226:13

stated71:5,10234:18 243:22266:9

statement89:15statements42:25states16:9,18 20:4

20:7,8 21:4,2322:6,21 96:24102:14 103:5,21104:12,14 105:14106:15 107:1170:21 199:21200:6 201:7

Station 197:6statistician 102:10statistics15:19

18:22 20:1 22:1739:3 40:8 80:498:16 100:12108:9 111:18182:1

stats15:20 120:5121:24

status87:17,17 88:288:16

statute93:5statutory 93:9,10

93:20stay53:8 62:4 146:4steady111:23

steepness32:12Steinbach101:21

102:7 223:13Stenotype266:8step176:1 220:7,9Stephenfield144:12

192:8stepped240:24steps93:14 177:14

235:1sterilized 210:4stewards10:19

175:15stewardship29:5

54:16 69:7 110:20115:7 147:19167:15 208:1239:24 262:1

still 21:8 49:21,2149:23 55:10,2059:6,9 63:10,2263:22 94:12109:18 117:1121:2,18 122:12132:2 142:25162:21 209:5262:13

stimulants 78:12stink 210:24stock16:5stocked235:13stockpile223:3Stonewall265:3stop71:22 162:6

200:25 208:6248:15

stopped143:4stopping161:18storage25:5,23

26:8 35:23 37:937:18 38:5,1450:14,20 52:355:13 80:24,2582:16 86:4 89:1992:1 95:9,12,1695:19,23,24 97:12116:16 125:24126:17,18 130:4149:22 187:11206:6 207:5,21211:6,23 212:3215:17 216:4233:10,13 235:25258:6 259:20

storages116:8259:9

store37:4 38:2



Page 32

89:10stories138:5,15storing 258:6storms233:25story 138:4 227:25straight 118:9

148:6 204:13262:25 263:4

strain 223:22straits 201:9strategic239:4,5strategies25:7,9

26:20 27:11 30:2431:25 32:24 35:335:6 78:16 79:1587:25 91:23259:21

strategy32:1 254:1264:7

straw 26:3,7 81:1149:5 168:8193:14 195:8196:8,23 197:10197:11,13,20211:11 235:2246:6

straw-based195:13195:20 196:12197:7,24,25

stream127:17,17214:12,13 224:8

streams141:2212:20 214:10224:8 226:24249:8

Street2:21 251:24252:1,2,4,4,5,7,9262:6 263:11,14264:12,24

strength 88:5stress148:19

184:25strict 248:7strictest 111:15strictly 111:17

248:1strike 153:19strips 53:24strong 100:1 102:1

142:7 207:23239:16 253:18

strongly 62:17242:6 243:14

structural 96:4structurally 176:22structure 25:5 37:8

37:9 77:2 82:17

155:25 187:8structures 36:16

37:24,25 38:5,880:25 97:12 110:7124:14 126:1

struggle145:13150:2 221:13

struggled182:6Struthers 165:10

175:23student7:19students168:17studies66:5 67:6

76:22 79:12 83:14100:3 113:5135:16,17 140:5173:6 216:7 229:3255:17

study 34:16 35:183:20 100:15,23113:11 114:9134:2 177:19180:9 181:23186:25 258:9

stuff 9:17 12:2423:7 33:11 83:696:21 130:14,25131:1 132:6140:12 187:11195:17 196:8221:9

stuffs 109:11style194:23subcommittees

10:11subdivide161:8subdivision42:21subject55:10 56:23

61:12,16 141:25subjective63:25

64:4,5 66:21156:15

submission238:20submissions7:11,15submit 7:12 156:24submitted 170:7,9subsequently44:25

148:1 180:4subsidies123:24

124:3,5,14subsidize146:15subsidized173:5subsidy16:13

123:24 218:12221:22,23

substance94:19139:25

substances134:2,6substantial49:25

138:9 216:5substantially 34:6

216:14subsumed158:3subsurface67:23sub-surface137:23sub-therapeutic

130:18 193:15200:21

success60:12 191:3192:15

successful81:22111:14 120:15186:4 249:7

succession246:17sudden233:24suddenly184:11suffered152:13suffering 147:7Suffice204:4sufficient 36:7

68:21suggest60:14 97:7

174:18 221:20suggesting153:18suggestions7:13

231:15suitability 114:4

162:25suitable31:13suited111:24sulfate214:22

215:15 223:2sulfide 132:22

133:13 134:4,10209:1

sulphur 215:20sulphuric 215:5,24sum131:16 135:8summaries264:10summary 24:5

75:21 76:6 111:9212:1 264:14,17

summation85:10summer87:7 97:15

147:18 150:6summers198:7sunburn 13:9sunburned87:9sunny260:9,10supper118:10,12

177:3 202:24supplanted42:25supplement26:16supplemental13:20

115:11supplemented

210:3supplements20:16

81:19supplier 103:9

223:14suppliers205:18supplies74:2 228:9

252:13 255:7257:8

supply 31:23 39:867:20,22 68:2069:1 90:25 137:12183:15 209:19215:3 217:4 229:1255:10

supplying 256:18support 11:3 124:4

124:9,11 145:11149:17 185:15186:1 205:19239:21 240:9243:14

supported67:4165:24 166:17200:5 207:14

supporters54:2557:6 58:1 239:16

supporting 124:24suppose225:18supposed47:20

81:13 169:22,23supposedly39:4sure68:9 139:4

140:6 153:25154:1 199:4220:10 245:16247:10,11,17254:24 255:18

surface13:21 32:1032:16,25 36:1652:6 53:16,20,2167:25 69:16 71:1872:23 73:22 74:474:8,8,18 79:897:16 128:18137:2 142:11151:23 164:15167:22 228:14232:13 255:6260:12

surfaces77:11surpassed103:25

120:6surplus 210:5

213:11

surprise 52:8surprised 52:1

176:24surprises206:5surrounding 64:3,8

83:23 84:10101:21 144:14247:18 259:25

surroundings210:21

survey189:20surveyed83:21

189:19survival 189:13susceptibility 88:20susceptible129:13suspect192:17suspended209:21sustain69:1 144:24

241:14 255:3sustainability 4:14

5:8,13 10:1 22:1535:5 36:1 76:21141:25 146:13149:23 150:17152:9 153:20154:5,12 160:22171:4 175:18176:4 180:15199:11 242:13,16250:5 252:20258:11 261:14

sustainable4:20 5:410:21 11:1 22:1838:17,20 40:1843:22,25 44:199:14,19 112:15146:13 153:23154:8 157:11167:14 194:24,25201:12 202:2204:9,23 239:3242:4 250:16253:1,4

sustained261:24sustaining68:6Swan150:19,19,20

150:22 164:11swine20:11 88:24

90:4 91:11 151:14196:3

swings211:15switched145:20sworn 9:10,11,12

9:13 119:2 203:19226:17 237:18252:5



Page 33

syndrome56:24synthetic91:12

112:4 132:13149:6

system12:16 14:2215:13 16:16 24:824:10,11,16 61:489:22 101:10,11105:24 127:21136:12,14,16137:2,2,3 171:1179:9 188:3193:13 204:7,11204:21,24 205:10205:15 206:4,13209:19,23,24,25224:4,18 236:13241:24 257:15

systems2:19 12:1814:17,18,23 15:324:25 32:16 36:536:24 40:2 77:1685:12,13 86:3136:19 137:13193:4,9 194:4195:14,21 196:12196:22 197:7,24197:25 200:20203:15,24 217:4224:25 236:1256:23 257:21258:12 259:19,20

Ttable 7:24 8:4 33:22

50:3,4 75:9,1191:2,14 113:10115:12 228:11

tables227:15tactic 172:15tailor 58:10Tait 2:17 118:22,22

119:1 128:16177:7 192:19

take 5:2 6:6 8:1217:17 18:12 24:1325:24 27:22 59:1273:1 86:8 105:10108:5 116:2117:23 118:8,10118:11 119:25137:23 154:7157:22 174:2176:1 177:14178:13 187:6,7191:23 194:11214:12,16 215:10

217:20 220:6243:9 245:9247:23 261:24

taken 19:22 93:695:6 96:20 108:12127:21 132:10140:21 194:10,13230:16 250:11266:8

takes48:24 116:21178:9 204:12258:20

taking 61:4 73:7110:20 121:8172:5 186:11187:17 223:16

tale 145:3talk 7:20 29:22

31:18,21,22 32:437:20 45:18 55:264:23 66:7,1274:24 77:16 82:286:25 91:23,2592:21 93:9,16104:16 106:18108:8,14 121:22123:4,5 128:18138:2 167:10186:6,8 188:5193:5

talked 47:1 60:181:24 103:3105:25 106:6107:5 109:1243:13 262:24

talking 46:16,17,1746:18 50:21 51:1114:15 123:23130:11,11,12185:6,8 186:14220:22 229:7238:15

talks 55:24 103:10196:4

tall 130:25tallest 102:7tame28:14tangible 213:15tanks 71:8,9 187:11tape127:25tar 85:15targets204:20

212:1tarps 38:1task 39:23 142:5

177:9 185:23190:17

tax 110:3 124:8160:5

taxes100:15 187:8taxpayer 124:23taxpayers146:12

147:23,25 149:9149:12 150:15

teach168:17team254:18,20technical9:17 11:3

11:4 46:14 54:1481:12 92:25 162:8162:10,13,24163:6,12,22,23166:22 167:6172:14 222:1232:2,19,23

techniques14:1533:8 210:21235:24

technologies13:1175:5 81:7 85:4,1085:18,20 86:1,1588:17 90:8 108:11108:19,23 109:4,9109:25 256:7258:7 259:10260:19

technology10:1612:20 86:20 92:19109:7 114:5 116:3205:21 212:15,16218:17,20 221:3259:8

tell 6:7 8:24 56:22153:22 154:9157:13 167:21169:18 188:21247:20

telling 152:16tells 156:4ten 122:16 144:1

177:11 196:18199:7 235:9

tenant 94:23tend 78:18 258:22tends74:18 223:6tenor 110:23term 68:24 69:3

195:5 201:15207:14

terminated 131:11terminology 12:13terribly 8:13 193:11territorial 135:3Terry 2:4 4:5test31:10 54:11

56:18 64:3,4,5,6131:19 168:3,11230:4,8 242:2245:15 247:16251:3

tested14:10 65:25129:10

testing229:24tests54:11 56:16

57:24 65:6 168:12229:25 230:3,7247:19

textbooks219:11texts71:19texture 230:1thank 9:15 11:9

24:2 40:13 67:1673:21 86:23 96:1198:23 112:18117:13,14,21,21117:25 119:4,8139:3 140:16141:5,22 154:19176:24,25 192:18192:19 202:10,11202:18,19,21219:1 225:24226:1,12 237:9,11237:21 250:20251:20,21,23252:7 262:2,6,7264:22,23 265:1,4

Thanks 40:19154:17 237:21

theirs 148:4themselves125:22

132:18 153:17167:18 195:19209:5 234:13261:4,9

thing 22:2 28:2229:21,25 32:2535:19 48:12 51:753:7 67:21 68:174:1 75:23 79:1279:15 83:10 86:1887:14 90:4 97:6,798:9 100:13102:13 106:2,8116:8 117:18120:11 183:2,4187:10 219:18221:11,18 224:20225:18,22 242:23242:25 243:5,13245:11 248:23250:4

things 25:25 31:2036:14 48:19 51:2158:11 59:19 64:1967:6 81:15 82:1185:14 86:4 88:1088:18 93:3 98:1105:20 112:25115:17 141:9158:23 180:22183:12 197:9205:14,19 221:6221:11 239:1240:11 241:17243:2 244:22,25245:25 246:11,17247:6 248:6,17253:13 262:13,18

thinking 43:16244:5 245:1,8

third 37:15 64:2493:6 107:22204:15 258:14

thirdly 68:25253:25

Thompson100:9thorough 175:18,22though 81:8 86:19

149:5 151:7 154:4230:7

thought 179:19242:15 251:9264:5

thought-provoking202:22

thousand17:18thousands144:14

185:1 194:1200:22

threat 112:5 153:24threatened152:16threats 145:9

207:20three 22:17 35:13

55:17 86:6 93:5121:9 132:12133:25 134:1148:17 163:9183:8 208:22233:15 235:9240:4

three-quarters 19:719:10 103:23

threshold 33:4thresholds98:8,13

169:10thriving 101:12

112:14



Page 34

throughout 5:1725:11 196:9

throw 8:17throwing 190:23thumb 100:22thunderstorms

136:21tied 205:14 209:23tight 200:22tighter 174:12tile 31:11till 77:1tillage 32:16 74:13

74:14timeframe 182:2times78:4 97:12

124:12 127:12140:25 146:9

timing 36:8 37:1256:25 260:3,8

tissue25:21title 40:11today 5:18 6:21 8:2

8:4 14:6 41:942:25 44:1 49:2357:12 61:25 142:2144:22 147:3,24148:3 177:23185:6,7 186:19188:8 189:18190:14,25 213:22229:9 243:13257:25 258:16262:16 263:7

today's 99:4together127:25

133:19 202:20205:15 206:23220:8 240:5,19244:21 247:1,4249:3 254:20

told 120:14 149:14157:18 162:23169:21 170:12175:17 204:2229:25

tolerant 8:14tomorrow 117:19

265:2tone8:12tonight 117:18

203:8,10tonne215:22

222:13tonnes16:3 20:20

28:12,24 29:5,9104:5 168:19

tons138:5 163:24182:4 215:19

tools109:13,18110:16

top 12:21 74:18123:23 126:19133:19 150:21260:5

topics228:21tops177:5,6torte 94:1total 16:6 17:13

19:17 20:15 26:1527:8 28:10,2469:8,12 70:2,1277:7 91:19,2192:14 107:16,20114:14 123:17129:9 206:22261:1

totally 63:13 65:12147:12 181:19

touch 31:22 67:19257:23

touched179:7tough 147:2touted 235:24towards 11:24

55:25 115:10196:12 199:11202:6 240:20253:15 256:2261:13

town 101:12,18150:5,14,20152:21,23 155:14249:5

towns150:23152:14 249:9

township 129:3town's 150:21toxic 134:6 139:22

139:25 229:11232:6

toxins 132:22139:22

trace 78:4,5traceability 10:14

248:9Tracey 2:13 9:6,13

11:1track 229:16tractor 152:3,4,8trade 21:24 102:21

104:22 106:21112:5 200:12244:7

traded 103:19traditional 82:23

178:6,12traditions 174:10training 39:16transcend46:19Transcona145:1transcript 1:9 266:8transcripts 8:7,9transfer 31:15,25

32:17,19,22 35:2390:3

transferred 215:12transferring 89:14transfers 30:20,25

32:9,25transformed 101:6transition 52:16translate 166:17

244:11translates104:4transmission85:2

86:25transportation

93:18 112:2 211:2transported 15:14travel 236:5TRC 55:24 162:20

162:21TRC's 162:25treat 32:3 130:17treated 14:10

208:16 209:14treating 34:12treatment 35:23

85:13 206:1208:25 209:12214:17 215:12217:14 223:22225:6,11 256:23

trees36:23tremendous54:1,9

63:24 64:19123:12 179:2184:2,12 193:16196:14

tremendously197:12

trends 102:9,17trials 219:9tributary 226:22trick 33:3tricky 225:3tried 11:17 156:20

185:25 233:9240:12

tries 179:10

triple 233:13trouble 99:9 184:5

212:5troublesome205:2trout 235:14truck 128:9trucks 15:16 248:12true 110:14 185:16

205:22 223:1237:4 266:7

truth 6:7 8:24 156:6156:20

truthing 232:7try 11:16,20 26:22

62:4 70:24,2478:24 85:18 86:14100:19 109:24114:25 138:24177:20 187:13244:10 248:7

trying 12:17 25:725:12,13,16 34:334:9 39:21 43:1775:18 85:20 99:599:17 108:22113:12 115:4,5127:1 132:16145:4 157:12191:10 194:20239:14 241:3

tunnel 213:21,22turn 24:14 112:1

163:13 184:17213:17 255:7

turned 8:11,12178:25 179:2233:12 235:18

Turtle 164:3 232:17tweak 58:13tweaking 42:1twice 222:15 224:20two 6:24 14:17

35:11 56:16,2257:24 59:8 60:362:20 83:18100:10 101:13105:9 107:2109:21 111:1112:16 118:9121:17 136:25141:2 149:21161:10 179:16181:19 204:14206:21 208:3214:10 219:22220:13,19,21224:8 229:14

234:16 237:23239:4 245:5247:12 249:2,25

two-thirds 51:568:18 107:7

type 17:6 32:1135:24 48:12 79:17190:16,19 193:12193:13 221:2242:25 261:5

types14:2,17 20:225:16 79:13 114:4190:24 193:15200:24

typical 24:24 37:8typically 48:22

51:22Tyrchniewicz

181:10 183:23186:25

Tyrchniewicz-Gr...181:23

T.R.C 164:4

UUBC 219:14Ukraine 102:23ultimately 144:8

193:17 198:23233:7

ultraviolet 214:25unable163:3unaltered 78:1unbearable82:21uncapped229:5uncertainty 146:8uncovered232:1under 5:3 16:14

23:23 27:18 36:1138:23 49:19 50:350:24 51:23 68:169:9 70:13 73:2573:25 93:21,2198:13 100:5105:13 116:10,13134:17 139:25148:6 149:17153:24,24 158:3162:18 165:7189:23 200:22211:19 212:23239:23 240:3

undergoes30:1underground

187:11understand49:7

62:7 156:11,12



Page 35

178:20,25 180:22184:6 193:6,8238:5 262:14263:18

understanding30:17 95:3 109:17156:10 184:5188:18 263:22

undertake 264:3undertaken 5:16under-utilized

211:10undesirable260:17unfair 63:13unfortunately

48:18 177:17178:18,19

unheeded173:3unimproved 49:14union 101:25

103:22 141:13unique 79:18

155:16 173:18206:11 214:14243:17 244:4

uniquely 243:20unit 17:19 35:15

51:1 152:4United 16:9,18 20:4

20:6,8 21:4,2322:6,21 96:23102:14 103:5,21104:12,14 105:14106:15 107:1

Unites199:21 200:6units 17:18 39:7

46:16 50:10,1153:2,4,6 98:10116:13 238:25247:8 251:8

university 7:19 66:266:8,15,17 83:7100:5 114:9 137:7142:14 196:1204:16,19 217:4224:16 263:2

unless31:7 39:9165:17 200:23244:2 251:9

unlikely 31:6,1792:15

unnatural 194:2unpleasantness

83:12unprofitable 108:5unproven 81:9

188:12

unreasonable230:15

unsaleable187:14unsuitable227:14until 12:4 21:18

52:15 59:12 96:5135:5 149:4151:21 154:12168:3 170:6,11,16191:6 194:25208:13 217:21225:15

untreated 233:5unwritten 167:3upcoming261:16update61:9 130:7

131:23updated49:21

65:15updates48:14upfront 177:12upset138:19uptake 33:12

245:18upwards 259:24upwind 83:19up-front 56:2 58:4urban 43:9 48:9,10

50:25 114:24145:1 187:23188:2 242:24

urea 208:8,15urge 135:2 197:17urges131:9urging 195:9urine 26:18 134:12

208:9,11,11214:11,13,15223:22 224:15,19224:21

usage132:1USDA 102:15,16

106:20used12:13 17:3

29:14,14 71:2472:1,25 79:2380:18 97:17100:18 109:5,13130:16 131:10135:16 168:16193:15 205:12211:16 212:12219:6,17 222:22225:17

useful75:24user168:6users68:11,23

69:13 73:15,16,16uses31:20 37:6 59:6

85:16 136:14137:15,17 168:8168:10 214:21216:16

using24:9,11 27:1135:9 58:5 70:772:11 79:1 81:1582:1 87:12 108:17109:3 115:19,24168:3 186:17195:13 200:21208:9 258:12

usually 73:15utilization 35:23utilize 101:14 186:7

205:13 255:21256:14

utmost 62:4,5UV 209:15U.S16:20 96:21,24

97:13 102:18,19103:25 107:21108:4 123:24131:2,4 133:23140:13 146:23,24147:5

VV 119:1vaccinated105:11vaccinating105:14vaccines88:19

105:9,16,20,22valley 52:12 110:5

116:6 142:17,17241:2 243:4

valuable110:11,12110:15 142:5241:10 247:21253:11 260:15

value19:14,17 22:586:21 100:11110:10,14 112:8181:21 207:16234:4 261:6

valued207:1values58:8 82:21value-added205:7

213:16Van 2:19 203:11,11

203:15,17,19,23219:1 225:25

Vancouver204:18219:15

vapour 212:10

variabilities 147:1220:11

variable 79:16variations 173:23variety 7:18 15:20

25:9 36:11 86:1087:10 100:12109:17

various 4:24 5:1011:12,13 14:1,1515:6 17:16,2319:15 20:2,1521:11 28:7 30:2432:21 34:21,2535:22 38:24 39:1040:1,7,8 77:1978:14 79:12 80:2582:19 85:11 86:193:10,14 100:18108:9 109:1 167:5239:11 244:6249:5

varying 79:17 168:2vast84:11 173:4vegetable204:1vegetated53:24vehicle56:4 126:3ventilation 209:6

236:1venues167:5Verbatim 8:7verification 139:14

232:8verify 141:4 162:25versions221:14vertical 212:22vet 208:19veterinarians 14:20

89:23veterinary 90:1

190:8 242:10vexatious63:18via 31:15 149:20viability 90:10

205:1 206:2212:17

viable 62:12 204:24205:7 218:4

vibrant 204:9vicinity 133:8

134:14Vicki 2:17 118:24

192:21,22victim 170:15Victor 2:19 203:15

203:17,19,23view 97:3 111:13

113:14 125:23143:5 166:20175:21 223:7225:22 226:8239:8,9 241:9257:17

viewed110:18village 71:4 101:4

148:14 150:20249:17

villages43:10violate 51:16viral 87:3virgin 76:15virtually 82:14

88:24 241:22245:15

virtue 93:6virus 120:8visit 101:20 197:17

197:18visitor 248:15visitors 236:5Vital 145:2vociferous80:7voice155:13volatilization 25:8

26:2 30:21 31:434:22

volatilize 98:4volatilized 28:18volume69:6 170:13

209:17 221:20voluntarily 251:18volunteer 23:21volunteers227:24

Wwait 150:24 163:14

169:21 170:6,11waiting 236:14walk 40:21 41:5,19walks 94:8,9Wallinga 200:11wanted50:7 61:23

187:15 205:9,25224:5 246:25249:22

wants75:14 150:20217:12,22

War 193:20wards 45:6warmer 87:7warming 136:15,23warned 233:14warning 137:8warrant 173:24



Page 36

washed125:22140:25 233:24

washing89:8 228:6wash-down209:17wasn't 13:7 86:13

236:21,23wastage35:13waste2:19 78:23

130:21 144:2147:22 203:15,24227:9 229:11,21232:6 233:16,23234:2,3 242:20243:4 245:4 253:9

wasted88:6 150:4waste/landfill 204:1wasting104:23

105:1 147:24watch 128:15

143:22watched147:19

152:8waters32:25

142:11 154:14167:22

watershed165:20watersheds61:5

114:3 115:9waterways144:19water's 144:23way 5:3 8:19 11:10

16:14 55:2 64:165:16,23 75:784:21 90:20 92:5100:25 102:11105:15,21 115:2138:18 147:11150:14 155:7167:6 196:10199:8,11 202:6204:16 206:5212:12,16 215:4215:25 220:24221:16,18 224:13225:2 226:5241:13 242:4243:18 250:3258:4 259:24

Wayne2:6 4:8263:16

ways41:25 57:662:14 81:17 175:3194:21 230:22244:18 254:3256:10 258:6259:14

weak157:12

weakened162:19weaknesses41:23wean213:3weanling10:9 17:8

19:3 22:19 23:11weanlings16:20

19:1 20:6,18106:25 107:23220:4

wears233:16weather23:10

87:11 205:24website6:11 7:6,13

7:24 8:9 111:18117:18 217:9254:4 261:10264:15

websites254:10weed-free210:5week151:21weekend66:12

151:19weekends151:17

151:24weeks8:3 10:18

66:11 188:6,13234:16

weigh19:8weighing19:3weight 13:23,25

15:14 18:16 35:15weights111:5welcome125:1

237:10welfare 56:21 57:24

64:7 90:8,12141:21 193:6

wells67:22 71:2,771:11,14 129:2,8129:10,20,23131:21,22 188:12188:22,23

well-being88:5,18151:2 175:12176:19

well-managed84:11

well-protected88:8well-ventilated

15:10went 44:7 123:10

129:18 130:6152:8,25 188:13188:23 189:2241:23

weren't 68:14232:11

west142:18 189:23189:25 244:15,16245:4

western127:10132:10

wet 139:12we'll 9:16 11:25

12:2,3,6 18:2 23:524:13 29:22 31:2232:24 37:20 74:2074:24 112:16117:23,24

we're 11:14,1616:25 22:2 25:1331:9 34:3,8 39:2147:4,5 49:5,2350:21 51:1 52:1061:16 62:4 63:1264:18 65:13 74:875:13 99:17102:13 105:17115:4,5 127:1136:13 167:8183:8 185:6 198:6219:18,20 221:21223:3 227:3238:15

we've10:3 22:925:7 26:12,1660:5,13,14,1785:5 97:2 125:6,7133:11 139:23184:8 204:14214:10 219:13,24227:6 252:11260:24,25

wheat106:12,13168:8

whereabouts47:23while 45:2,8 68:6

142:12 153:14159:13 173:22205:2,5 207:2210:7 212:5,10216:17,24 218:20223:3

Whitaker 186:25Whoa 125:1whole15:19 19:17

41:18 44:20 50:759:18 87:10100:12 114:3,23116:8 128:12145:2 165:3 183:3202:18 243:11245:12 259:4262:15

wife 246:17wildlife 227:16willing 233:20

247:23win 149:3wind 144:6 224:10windbreaks 259:23window 37:2

141:13 152:18winds 189:22Winnipeg 1:18 5:20

21:10,16 29:541:2 46:4 70:6,871:25 121:4 127:9128:19 130:13131:24 138:18143:23 144:11167:15 168:20169:8 176:12186:13 192:7,21192:23 201:10233:7 238:8242:19 243:2245:3,14

Winnipeg's 66:13winter 52:10,20,20

52:23 53:6 87:8116:12 128:10132:10 149:3151:22,23 243:3

wisdom129:1wish 7:9 8:2 137:19

145:20 203:7226:2

wishes264:24withdraw 67:23withdrawal 68:22

161:2withdrawn 180:3withdrew 185:3

230:24 236:16witnessed151:22

179:16witnesses150:11witnessing194:14woken144:21Wolfe 226:10,21

232:5won 150:14wondering 113:4

263:1 264:8Woodlands117:10word 17:3 253:7words 12:13 13:16

17:14 68:8 69:473:13 84:21 88:2391:22 95:12

104:13 194:6,10195:10 196:6217:22

work 11:10 33:261:21 74:12 78:2485:19 95:13119:19,22 145:24163:21 176:6179:3 194:3200:20,23 219:9224:4 233:14235:7,9 245:11249:6 254:5

worked 63:15 143:3169:9 217:24219:13 249:13261:12

workers 135:13working 42:9 49:6

115:2,10 145:19149:25 159:4195:21 248:8249:1

workplace 135:14works 42:14 70:10

92:10 148:11204:12 206:19218:20 254:9

Workshop 240:18world 12:22,24

102:17,21 103:9103:17,18,20,23103:24 104:21,22107:18 112:10,12120:18 156:11,13156:16 172:17,19177:10 193:20,21195:13 197:1198:25 199:8205:19,23 244:9

worldwide 173:22worse145:6worth 16:7 20:14

20:25 123:16187:16

worthwhile 264:2wouldn't 128:21

149:10 189:24231:2 233:9 235:6259:25 264:19

Wowchuk 165:9172:21

wrap 42:5 56:1wrap-up 202:12Writer 2:8writes 232:18writing 96:2 190:11



Page 37

192:7,8,9written 7:8,11,13

7:14 192:5,5wrong 122:22

152:23 233:2236:15

wrote 153:4 169:7175:24 232:23

WTO 244:8

XXavier 159:22

Yyeah123:15 140:6

207:16 225:2226:8

year 16:2,3,2329:11 47:4 48:2152:22,24,25 60:2482:14 92:7 95:2598:6 104:7 105:9105:23 107:9,20111:8 115:13120:4 122:1123:17 142:15170:9 179:16189:10 215:19228:7,15,17,17231:13 234:17235:12 242:18

year's 240:5Yee2:5 4:8 112:20

223:21 225:5,10225:13 251:2,6,14251:20 263:15264:22

yield 33:15 35:12young62:10 250:10

Zzero49:24 74:12,14

129:9 218:16250:8

zone58:14 79:9zones79:6 180:18

243:15zoning43:1 227:20zoonotic90:3

$$1123:18$1.121:1$10100:14$105100:11$14169:4$150146:10

$170.5124:10$2.8261:2$2010:16$20,000150:4$200215:22 222:13

223:9,11,20$267100:16$27114:11$28169:4$3.320:25$4.4261:1$45016:2 20:14$5213:1$6108:22$7.5213:6$705123:16$860123:16

11 16:3 18:23 19:21

45:3 50:4,4 51:2,266:14,14 80:691:2 134:3

1st41:12 45:14 47:31,000122:4,18,18

123:1 129:21,25083:21 122:11,300213:51,4009:20 121:241,650123:91.320:71.4215:211.5107:81.651:31:00265:31:024:21053:9 70:14 72:25

73:2 97:12 102:12106:19 107:4,8111:7,13 114:12123:19,23 129:11153:21 168:12

10th 52:21,22126:12

10,000126:5 132:20212:25 215:18217:11,14 221:12

10-year107:1010-8-7215:20

222:1110052:5 70:10

98:10 125:17168:9 241:21,22

112:12 28:25107:16 123:11213:2

11,00029:9

11313:25 15:1511859:111192:151253:15,18 84:1

111:7 126:212.616:22120238:25 251:81384:16 146:23

175:23 186:913.5169:21145:16 10:61402:16156:1 11:20 26:5

29:11,12 117:23146:24

15th 146:2215,000238:24 251:8

251:12,17150138:231552:161691:16 128:1

129:10160238:21175:161772:1718114:11,15 168:7

220:13180123:151922:17 260:241946244:171950's13:2196100:91960s65:16196719:19197542:191980's218:6198843:3,161990246:41990s16:21 111:31990's218:61993203:25199438:6,23 80:15

122:10199516:12 159:21199619:211998155:2 261:121999128:25 129:13

246:8

22 16:25 44:7 50:6

91:14 104:4133:24 134:4170:21

2nd 193:202,000122:17 126:24

128:2

2,500215:19 228:22,779100:202.2238:232.25107:112.991:202.9618:232013:12 15:21 19:3

19:8 26:5 87:14218:15 226:20228:8

20,000213:5 221:1220.669:1120050:19,22 85:132000113:11 115:13

133:18 142:15143:23 147:18246:8

2000s16:21 21:182001123:7 124:7

126:9 131:52002125:5 133:18

155:5200316:24 100:5

134:19 181:8,15181:23 227:25239:18 242:8

200416:24 92:13146:23 248:11

2004/0544:19200516:7 20:14

29:2,4 44:5 107:8123:18 130:7228:12

200638:25 41:1245:3 47:4 52:13103:3 111:6 120:2120:10 121:6122:1,25 131:24155:5

20071:19 4:1 18:23170:6 175:23218:1

200845:14 107:12107:21

20150:112016104:6,62020191:62032:1921104:5210228:321568:16 69:922-gallons228:523.334:2237-243218:224168:6 208:16

215:924814:1 15:15

25104:6 114:1525,00068:11,132522:212639:5265266:72713:24 17:1627th 5:212821:5 92:9 142:16

143:22290111:8

33 92:13 106:25

134:43.320:203.570:1,3 72:203.820:4,63:17118:23:36118:33014:20 15:21 25:3

28:18 104:7106:11 116:15

30,00028:1230036:24 39:7

50:11 51:1 53:2,3116:13 247:8251:10,17

300,00028:2332129:7 168:832,000128:23345:1,2 161:4

166:1 180:534-kilograms257:5350200:6350,00028:2336570:113782:6378,00018:2439839:2

44 21:13 27:8 106:25

215:20,214,000217:114,44069:84.521:144.616:244.728:13402:12 18:14 24:22

25:3 44:24 76:14106:12 133:19,23146:11 154:2161:1 168:8 180:2218:10,14

40036:24 53:3,5116:13 129:22

42439:4



Page 38

4318:9436113:11,11452:1345053:164662:21 104:246,00029:4 120:2548839:14982:4

55 1:19 4:1 103:18

118:10 257:65,000213:45.3628:145:30118:11 177:35:31203:15:35177:5,65026:17 27:11

83:22 104:19216:11

50/50215:250013:14 129:225117:1353,000213:354,000120:2557260:255821:22 168:9

66 26:15 28:20 49:14

53:146,800213:36.2195:186.5107:36026:4,17 27:15

76:14 115:19116:15 168:10245:19

60-kilograms19:960083:17606100:2365212:6

77 49:147th 7:157.2491:47.5213:77:00177:4 202:257:01203:27031:1 106:12

216:6733,00029:127517:17 24:22 82:4

123:2377189:19

88 26:15 52:138,000148:158.5153:218.8120:48:21265:58031:1 106:12

123:20800262:16800-pound263:8800-pounds263:982123:10825168:4,11 189:98426:4851122:3,25

99 2:11 16:7 17:25

18:20 28:16 33:2234:1 75:9 91:19107:6,25 113:10115:12

9021:3 168:13,14900168:199443:2097247:139845:8

manitoba clean environment commission … clean environment commission hog production industry...

Documents