Pig Slurry (Control) (Hansard, 28 October 1986)

§ Mrs. Elizabeth Shields (Ryedale)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the control of pig slurry and for connected purposes. The Bill has three aims: to assist small and family farms with an interest in pigs, to monitor future developments in separate intensive industrial units, and last but not least, to provide safeguards for people and the countryside against pollution.

Pigs comprise approximately 25 per cent. of the national farm livestock, and it is interesting to note that these pigs are housed in about 7.5 per cent. of livestock holdings. Furthermore, a large proportion of the pig industry is concentrated in the eastern and north-eastern counties of England, with some 1.6 million pigs in Yorkshire and Humberside, 24 per cent. of the total in England and Wales.

Disposal of slurry is a major factor in the breeding, rearing and fattening of pigs. Current methods of disposal are varied and virtually every method has some disadvantages. Guidelines from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food state: mechanical separation of slurry is generally carried out as a pre-treatment or conditioning stage. The act of separation does not improve or reduce odours. Its main purpose is to remove much of the coarse solid from the effluent. I do not wish hon. Members to get too bogged down by this topic but detail of some methods is relevant to the subject. Some farmers have taken the initiative and installed equipment that separates out the larger solid particles so that it may be composted before being applied to the land. Unfortunately, the capital cost of providing the necessary plant is quite high, and is probably beyond the means of the smaller farms' resources.

Other farmers dispose of slurry using the traditional splash-plate tanker, which has the advantage of being a basic, simple design and therefore relatively easy to maintain. It operates quite fast and has comparatively low capital costs. Its main disadvantage is that it can often cause a public health nuisance.

Rain guns are the least favoured solution, as high-level spreading is likely to increase the risk of droplets being carried by the wind beyond the targeted area. This system is operated by pumping slurry under pressure through movable distribution pipes and spraying it high in the air. Under calm conditions, which are the optimum for all slurry disposal, a sampling of a rain gun's effects was found three quarters of a mile downwind. Under windy conditions, heavy bacterial pollution has been traced as far as five miles downwind

Bearing in mind that slurry should not be applied to land close to residential areas, a stipulation that may shortly be endorsed by law, this method constitutes not only a nuisance risk but an environmental hazard. It should probably be phased out over several years, when the existing equipment can be written off.

One of the latest and the most efficient methods is by injection. Here, the slurry is injected directly into the soil via pipes placed behind the coulter cutting blades. This method is extremely effective in controlling odour, its main disadvantage being the high cost of the equipment. I have observed the disposal of some 2,000 gallons of slurry by injection in a period of three minutes, and the method may be accurately summed up as " out of sight, 193 out of mind", for there is neither visible nor olfactory evidence of its existence. The only disadvantage apart from the cost of this method is that there are some types of soil for which injection is unsuitable.

Many farmers employ a solid manure system for their pigs. The latest figures from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service estimated that 660 kg of straw or other absorbent bedding material is needed per annum per bacon pig to retain all its waste products. The advantage of this method is a considerable reduction in smell, although it means that wherever possible there should be a regular cleaning out of pens. However, it is probably easier for the small pig farmer to dispose of pig manure in this solid form.

One of the chief disadvantages of slurry is its smell. All country dwellers accept the inevitability of certain smells associated with agriculture, but when they waft into more sensitive nostrils of the urban public, or unduly assail rural dwellers in their homes, then in England and Wales the law defines the interpretation as a form of a nuisance.

Under the Public Health Act 1936, the word "nuisance" is a fairly flexible one, permitting different interpretations in different places and at different times. The nuisance of slurry smell is of great concern because it has an all-pervasive odour that it would be a euphemism to describe as a "fresh country smell".

I recognise the nutrient value of slurry to the land, but the problems of pollution connected with its disposal are likely to increase with expansion in the relatively new industry of separate intensive pig production, especially when it is unrelated to the traditional husbandry of the land. In view of the possible loss of amenity from slurry disposal which is associated with a high density of pigs in any one area, it is essential that adequate land is available for spreading.

The Royal Commission's seventh report on agriculture and pollution made many recommendations, and drew conclusions that were submitted to the Government. Recommendation 46 states: Intensive livestock units should be regarded as industrial enterprises. This is of particular relevance where many separate pig units, which are in no way connected to a local farm, have been established as no planning permission is required for an agriculture building up to 5,000 sq ft. This means that there is often insufficient suitable land under an owner's control available for spreading slurry and if agreements with a local farmer are not possible, transportation to another area will be necessary.

The Ministry's aim is to achieve a practicable balance between the protection of the environment, especially from water pollution, and the economic production of food. Considerations of the need to avoid pollution of water courses 194 impose a limitation on the maximum rate at which manures may be safely spread on land. In 1985, incidents of farm pollution from such causes as inadequate storage capacity, leaking or bursting stores, land run-off and so on, totalled 313. While this is a far lower number than that for pollution associated with cattle, for example, more advice and consultation would reduce the total to an even lower level.

Numerous local authorities, chiefly district and borough councils, have to deal with such agricultural problems. Many farmers have already responded to requests to improve their methods of slurry disposal, but the concomitant problems still make this a high priority. It is important that the whole matter be given due consideration, for the popularity with British families of pork, bacon and ham is likely, and quite rightly, to ensure that our pig industry continues to grow and prosper.

Guidelines to take account of the production, storage, transportation and disposal needs are required on a national scale and would help to clarify and facilitate these issues. To this end, my Bill proposes to set up a pig slurry advisory board, to which reference can be made in all matters relating to the above.

The board would co-ordinate the many sets of guidelines and recommendations that are in circulation from the Ministry, the National Farmers Union, the regional water authorities and local councils and, having regard to circumstances in different parts of the country, would seek to eliminate the existing irregularities and anomalies. The board would also have powers to give grants to defray costs of expensive equipment, especially for small or family farms unable to provide the necessary capital. Decisions concerning slurry in all its aspects would be referred to the advisory board. In the interests of the public generally, representation on the board would ensure a wide range of opinion and expertise from producer to consumer, with a sufficient number of members to protect the public interest.

The overall aims of the board would be to provide support and free advice for new entrants, as well as for those already in the industry, to consider the problems of environmental impact and repercussions and thus to work for the maintenance of good relations between farmers and other countryside dwellers.