Part 1: the feedlot
Simon Cobban is building a file thick as a brick to contain all the
information he requires before he can expand his feedlot east of
Didsbury, Alta.
In partnership with his father-in-law Garry Morasch, the two applied to
expand the 5,000-head backgrounding lot to 17,000 head on Jan. 4,
immediately after new provincial legislation governing intensive
livestock operations came into effect.
The AAA Cattle Co. is the second application before the Natural
Read Also
Calf hormone implants can give environmental, financial wins
Hormone implants can lead to bigger calves — reducing greenhouse gas intensity, land use intensity and giving the beef farmer more profit, Manitoba-based model suggests.
Resources Conservation Board, or NRCB. A Lethbridge swine operation
submitted the first application.
Cobban said the new legislation requires more detailed building and
environmental information than what the Mountainview County requested
when the original feedlot was built in 1998.
Before the 16-page application is completed, he must submit engineering
reports on soil quality, soil permeability tests under the pens, runoff
and water availability.
“This is not going to be a walk in the park,” Cobban said in an
interview at the Didsbury site.
“It’s going to be very time consuming just for the sheer volume of
testing that needs to be done.”
He estimates engineering consultant costs will reach $150,000 before
construction even begins. The NRCB regularly sends representatives to
the site for environmental inspections.
“To date we haven’t been told we are doing anything wrong,” Cobban
said. “I truly believe that we don’t want to hand down an environmental
problem to our kids.”
The feedlot has a permit for 2,500 head but last summer’s drought led
it to accept double that number because it had enough feed and water
when the surrounding pastures dried out.
Since the company announced its expansion plans, Cobban’s file of
letters opposing the development has grown to two centimetres thick.
Several public meetings have been held, although he said he was only
invited to one session.
He expected complaints and appeals before development boards, based on
past trends experienced by Alberta’s intensive livestock industry.
“We knew they would appeal it. We know the tenacity of the people in
this area and they would have taken that appeal process to its fullest.”
Cobban hopes his application to the NRCB can satisfy everyone’s
concerns.
The feedlot is located on six quarters of land about 21 km east of
Didsbury. Cobban and Morasch also own another two quarters farther away.
“As far as the county is concerned, we have all the land we need for
it. The minimum distance of separation is there and even with the
expansion we’re not encroaching on anyone else,” he said.
Speaking with a Scottish lilt, Cobban insists he wants to do the right
thing. The son of an architect, he always wanted to farm and as a
teenager visited Canada and ultimately earned an agriculture degree
from the University of Saskatchewan.
He has travelled throughout Europe and does not want Alberta to repeat
the same environmental mistakes made there.
When the original plans for the feedlot were presented to neighbours,
he said they were told the operation’s goal was to expand within 10
years to a minimum of 10,000 head.
Good cattle prices moved that goal forward.
As a backgrounding lot, it accepts freshly weaned calves and feeds them
until they reach 850 pounds. Most are then sold through a contract to a
finishing lot.
New regulations base operation size according to an animal unit, which
is a full-grown cow. Backgrounders are considered the equivalent of
half an animal unit so their manure production and water needs are
considerably less than adult animals.
Cobban said this is where some of the misunderstandings have occurred
when neighbours protest the size of the proposed lot.
There are additional concerns about the sustainability of the water
supply.
The lot has an Alberta Environment licence to withdraw 15 gallons of
well water per head per day, up to 2,500 head. The standard is 10
gallons per day for a 1,200 lb. animal.
“A 450 to 850 lb. animal does not drink near that much water,” he said.
The lot has installed water meters on the wells to measure consumption.
There are also four monitoring wells so water can be checked when it
enters and leaves the lot. Water tests from Alberta Environment since
1998 show no impacts. For drainage, the current lot slopes downward and
is surrounded by a berm where all runoff flows into a catch basin.
“The place is designed to meet today’s specs,” he said.
With two years of drought there has been no runoff so the catch basin
on the east side has remained empty.
The basin is horseshoe shaped and has been lined with polyurethane
vinyl. Cobban said a clay-lined lagoon would be inadequate for this
farm.
“Everything we have done here, in my mind, we have done over and above
what the requirements were.”
Part 2: the citizens
The proposed feedlot expansion is brewing into a community controversy.
Concerned about how the feedlot might affect water supplies and air
quality, a citizens’ committee has formed to investigate the proposed
construction.
Headed by Carstairs farmer Murray Marsh, the committee has hired a
hydrologist to measure the impact on supply if the feedlot is allowed
to withdraw 39,000 gallons a day.
“We had the meeting to widen awareness,” said Marsh, who farms five
kilometres from the proposed expansion.
“Water quality, quantity and quality of life are issues, but we’re
concerned largely because these operators have not demonstrated their
concern for community issues,” he said in an interview.
The original feedlot application for 2,500 head went to Mountainview
County at the end of 1997, but final approval was not received until
December 2000. The operation went ahead, even though the permitting
process had not been completed.
Before construction, Marsh said owners Cobban and Morasch met with
neighbours and told them the yard would likely expand to 5,000 head.
When cattle appeared on the property before the permit was granted, the
company was reported to county officials but Marsh said nothing
happened.
Pigs not allowed
The land was originally purchased for a major hog development, but when
the municipality turned down the application from Pig Improvement
Canada of Acme, the land was sold to Morasch and Cobban.
Marsh’s group worries the new legislation could exclude neighbours’
concerns. Some argue the legislation needs further revisions to satisfy
local views. Responsibility for new and expanding confined feeding
operations has been assigned to the NRCB, which also regulates energy
companies.
“The oil industry has high standards they have to live by and we think
the agriculture industry should face the same bar,” said Marsh.
“The NRCB has no option but to stand behind its commitment to not
sacrifice the environment to intensive livestock.”
Part 3: The rules
New government regulations for confined feeding operations in Alberta
are being put to the test.
So far, about 11 preliminary applications have appeared before the NRCB
since it took over regulation of the industry on Jan. 1.
AAA Cattle Co. and Elite Swine at Lethbridge are the first two
applications.
“It is early days for Triple A,” said Alex Bolton, head of compliance
and monitoring in the Red Deer office of the NRCB. Four offices have
been set up in the province in Lethbridge, Red Deer, Barrhead and
Fairview.
Although he would not make specific comments about the Didsbury
application, Bolton said the owners have met on several occasions with
affected neighbours and NRCB officials who were checking nuisance
complaints.
The board’s mandate is to protect the public interest and take into
consideration economic and environmental concerns, as well as lifestyle
impacts and property rights of neighbours.
Process to follow
The first step under the rules is to complete an application that
signifies an intention to build or expand. The developer has six months
to complete soil tests, water supplies and provide engineering designs
to the approval body. The board staff provides help to ensure each
application is properly completed.
Once this section is approved, the developer has 15 working days to
notify neighbours, who then have five days to submit concerns to the
board.
Appeals could occur if a community has further concerns about an
approved operation. By turning the approval process over to a neutral
third party, Alberta Agriculture hoped to resolve some of the
divisiveness occurring in rural communities over intensive livestock.
“Sometimes there isn’t a lot of science behind some of the concerns
raised,” Bolton said.
