Emergency Livestock Disposal Sites INTRODUCTION Death of livestock is a normal occurrence and represents a loss to the livestock operation. Even the best livestock producers will have losses of two or three per cent, but higher rates can occur. Events such as fire, building collapse, suffocation or the outbreak of a major disease will result in a large number of animal deaths. Producers are encouraged to develop a plan to dispose of significant numbers of animal carcasses in the event of a catastrophic loss. The outbreak of a foreign animal disease will result in the death of many animals at the same time. Diseased animals are sometimes depopulated immediately to eradicate the disease. If the disease is readily transmissible, neighbouring animals and animals with previous contact with the infected herd are sometimes depopulated to prevent the disease from spreading. Selecting and executing a method of carcass disposal is a formidable task, so co-ordination between federal, provincial and municipal governments will be. Foot-and-mouth disease (1952) BACKGROUND Instances of foreign animal disease are common. In Canada in 2009 there were 15 confirmed cases of Anaplasmosis in Manitoba, and nine in British Colombia; two cases of Anthrax in Saskatchewan; one dairy cow infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in Alberta; two elk herds infected with Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in Saskatchewan; two cattle herds infected with cysticercosis in Ontario; and six sheep flocks and/or goat herds infected with scrapie. The following cases are examples of foreign animal disease events. A well-known outbreak of a foreign animal disease in Canada is the Saskatchewan Foot-and-mouth disease outbreak of 1952. The disease was officially diagnosed on February 25, 1952 near Regina, and depopulation was complete by May 4, 1952. In total, 1,742 head of livestock were destroyed, including 1,346 cattle, 296 hogs, 97 sheep, two horses and one goat. Burial pits were excavated on 10 infected farms, and livestock from 18 infected herds and 12 contact herds were transported to the farms for disposal. An infected dairy farm near Regina was the first burial site, located about one mile west of the RCMP grounds along Dewdney Avenue. Soil frozen to a depth of five feet was thawed by burning coal and oil so PFRA could prepare the trench, which measured 200 x 35 x 10 feet and held 200 head of cattle. Overseeing the operation were the Associate Chief Veterinarian for Canada and the Federal District Veterinarian for Saskatchewan. U.K. Foot and mouth disease (2001) The scale of this epidemic presented unprecedentedchallenges in terms of carcass disposal, prompting authorities to seek sites for large-scale burial. A total of seven sites were identified as suitable, and work began almost immediately to bring them into use (five of the seven sites were operational within eight days of identification). In total, 1.3 million carcasses (about 20 per cent of the total six million) were disposed of in these mass burial sites. The U.K. experience demonstrated the value of thorough site assessments.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (2003) A more recent BSE event demonstrated the difficult nature of carcass disposal. A single animal tested positive for BSE on May 12, 2003, and about 2,300 head of cattle were subsequently destroyed and tested to discover if there were more instances of the infection. The carcasses tested negative and were diseasefree, and the search began for a disposal location. Provincial Crown land was the first choice, so a community pasture was investigated for environmental suitability. Test drilling determined that the subsurface geology was suitable for disposal by burial. However, the site was not suitable to local stakeholders. Fortunately, time was available to search or a disposal site, since the carcasses were in cold storage, the disease was not spreading, and there were no further carcasses accumulating. Alternative sites in three RMs were considered, and all three RM councils were helpful and supportive - they likely recognized the need for a suitable disposal location. A private landowner within the above RMs offered a location that proved to be environmentally secure. Avian Influenza (2004) On February 19, 2004, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) confirmed the presence of Avian Influenza in the Fraser Valley area of southern British Columbia. In early April, the poultry industry suggested depopulation of birds in the Fraser Valley. Approximately 14 million birds from 600 farms were depopulated by the end of May; about 1.3 million birds on 42 farms were infected with the virus. Carcass disposal presented a unique challenge, because the Fraser Valley is densely populated with both people and livestock. Further, onsite burial was not an option because shallow aquifers approach the ground surface. Many disposal options were considered, because the capacity of a single method was insufficient to handle the large volume of bird carcasses. Positive birds were disposed of largely by composting and incineration, while negative birds were processed by markets, rendering and composting. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS The CFIA is responsible for directing the disposal of mortalities resulting from a federally reportable disease, and the province and municipality involved may be expected to provide support. If a large number of animals or poultry die due to an unlisted infectious disease, fire, flood or other natural disaster, the appropriate municipal authorities and various provincial government departments will direct disposal of the mortalities. Rapid response is critical in the event of a foreign animal disease. Delays in determining and implementing a suitable containment, destruction and disposal plan may significantly increase the number of carcasses that need to be managed due to increased exposure to the disease agent. If the disease is zoonotic (capable of transfer from animals to people), the public may be at risk, as well. Advance planning will facilitate effective animal disposal, and identifying sites in advance of an emergency will reduce pressures of limited time during the emergency. COMMON DISPOSAL METHODS In an emergency, on-farm disposal is preferred because transportation is not. Producers are encouraged to consider the environmental suitability of their farm for disposal of livestock in an emergency. However, on-farm disposal may not be an option for some farms due to environmental constraints. Where animals have been moved off the farm of origin and/ or are in transit, an alternate disposal location may be necessary. Ideally, this location would be suitable for burial, incineration and composting. Common methods of animal disposal include rendering, burial, incineration and composting. Landfills are commonly used for animal disposal in many parts of the world, but in Saskatchewan very few landfills accept carcass material. Consideration should be given to the use of landfills for this purpose.
Rendering should not be relied upon for emergency disposal. Local capacity is limited to about 600 tonnes per week without disruption to normal processing. Burial, incineration and composting are therefore the most likely emergency disposal methods. A comparison of disposal options is provided below. CROWN LAND Crown land is preferred for an emergency disposals ite, since a designated site on private land may not be available in the time of emergency. For example, if the land is privately owned, the landowner may decide at the time of emergency that the location is no longer suitable. Future land uses also need to be considered, and public ownership or other controls may need to be established. This will help restrict future development on the land if necessary. For these reasons, Crown land and suitable landfills are preferred emergency disposal sites. In Saskatchewan, Crown land includes community pastures, leased agricultural land and forested areas. Crown land is managed by Saskatchewan Agriculture and Saskatchewan Environment under The Provincial Lands Act. LANDFILLS Landfills have been used as a means of carcass disposal in several major disease eradication efforts, including the 1984 and 2002 Avian Influenza outbreaks in Virginia, the 2001 outbreak of Foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom, and the 2002 outbreak of Exotic Newcastle disease in southern California. Landfilling of carcasses represents a means of waste containment rather than elimination, and long-term management of the waste may be. According to a United States Department of Agriculture report, several risk assessments conclude that disposal of potentially Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy infected carcasses in an appropriately engineered landfill site represents very little risk to human or animal health. During an emergency or instance of catastrophic loss, response time is often very limited, and landfills offer the advantage of infrastructure for waste disposal that is pre-existing and immediately available. Because landfill sites exist prior to times of emergency, set-up time would, in theory, be minimal. However, time is to establish availability of the site, and this is best done in advance of the emergency. Landfills are typically owned by a municipality (urban or rural) or a private landowner. Also, landfills are governed by The Municipal Refuse Management Regulations handled by Saskatchewan Environment. Therefore, consultation with the landowner, municipality and Saskatchewan Environment is necessary. Disposal in a dedicated area of landfill is an option to be considered. Additionally, when new landfills are proposed, use of the landfill in emergency situations should be considered. PRIVATE LAND Private land could also be considered for potential emergency disposal sites, since Crown land and landfills represent a small area of the province. Purchase of the land by the Province becomes important, since the potential availability of private land is considered less secure than public land. Also, existing intensive livestock operations are very often suitable disposal sites, and the operator should consider if they are willing to accept livestock from neighbouring farms. The property could be purchased from the landowner by the Province, and the land would then become Crown land. Crown land, landfills and private land as potential locations are summarized below. Vacant Crown land is preferred, but limited in land area and not evenly distributed throughout the province, so other options should also be considered.
PROPOSED CRITERIA The disposal of mortalities must not adversely impact the environment or public health. The site should have natural features that provide environmental protection for a variety of disposal methods. The Site Characterization Manual for the Development of Intensive Livestock Operations and Earthen Manure Storage (2005) provides groundwater protection criteria that apply to disposal by burial. Managing Livestock Mortalities (2010) provides additional criteria and considerations for site selection. Proposed criteria are presented in Table 1 below. Additional selection criteria must be defined in cooperation with stakeholders, so the site will be available in an emergency for burial, incineration or composting. Table 1: Proposed criteria. Criteria Resident Well Logs Aquifiers Oil/Gas wells Utilities (available) Water (available) Underground Air Photo Groundwater Velocity Road Road all-weather Railway Surface Water Geology Cemetery Gravel Pit Reserve Provincial Park Regional Park Town Test 500 m Indicate geologically secure > 15 m beneath surface none on 1/4 section Yes Yes Identify, avoid and determine separation distance Use digital photo to identify location of residents and confirm land forms < 0.15 m/yr (from Site Characterization - requires on-site testing) > 100 m < 2.5 miles > 50 m > 100 m Exclude Alluvial plain, GlacioFluvial, Delta, Meltwater Channel 100 m > 100m Excluded Excluded Excluded 1000 m SITE SELECTION The objective is three available sites suitable for disposal of livestock in an emergency. One site would be located in each Agricultural Operations region. Characteristics of potential sites will determine their suitability. Soil conditions, proximity to water resources and setback distances will be considered. Many sites may appear to be suitable from available information, and if so these sites would be considered pre-screened. Hopefully, many pre-screened sites will arise during the consultation process. These sites require detailed investigation prior to use. On-site investigation (including drilling for soil samples) is to confirm the properties of the prescreened sites. If site conditions are found to be environmentally secure, and other criteria are favourable, then the site may be selected for future use. Ideally, any other local or provincial approvals that may be would be in place for preselected sites.
PROCESS Pre-selected sites should be available in an emergency. Therefore, the site must be suitable to local stakeholders. Consultation with community residents will determine criteria to satisfy local needs. Rural municipalities, landowners and livestock producers are encouraged to consider the suitability of their land for livestock disposal in the event of an emergency. Landowners with suitable sites may contact Saskatchewan Agriculture at 306-787-4680 to discuss the potential for establishing an emergency livestock disposal site. Alternatively, municipalities that appear to have favourable conditions may be contacted. Figure 1: Screening process.
DISPOSAL METHODS Option Advantage Disadvantage Capacity 1 Comments Rendering Value-added products Destroys most pathogens Transportation Supplemental treatment to deactivate TSE 635 tonnes/week without disrupting normal operation. 3,200 tonnes/week max. Available volume is limited, as capacity is for routine processing. SRM disposal may not be available. On-site burial Central burial Composting Landfill burial Incineration Transportation not Environmentally secure in much of Saskatchewan Rapid Geotechnical investigation may occur in advance Provides location for off-farm livestock On or off farm Publically acceptable Destroys most pathogens Wide geographic dispersion Infrastructure exists for rapid disposal and long-term management Destroys most pathogens Deactivates TSE with proper operation Geotechnical investigation to confirm site conditions Transportation May not deactivate TSE Careful management Agreements/ approvals may be Transportation Usually operated by contractors 2,600 tonnes/week/ excavator 2 70,000 tonnes/ quarter section 3 12,000 tonnes/ quarter section 4 Much of Saskatchewan is underlain by till that is effective at containing contaminants A central burial site identified in advance be be valuable in an emergency End-use of compost may be dependant on nature of disease 800 tonnes/acre 5 Saskatchewan Environment and the RM may have approval conditions 420 tonnes/week/ air-curtain 6 1 The capacity will vary according to a number of variables. An estimate is presented for comparison. 2 Assume the excavator will move 100 yards 3 /hour and works 24 hours/day, and the pit is 3 m deep. 3 Assume the trenches are 3 m deep, spaced 6 m apart and set back 100 m from property boundaries. 4 Assume the windows are 2 m tall, spaced 6 m apart and set back 100 m from property boundaries. 5 Assume the trenches are 3 m deep and spaced 6 m apart. 6 Assume the incinerator burns 2.5 tons of carcass/hour and is operated 24 hours/day. Infrastructure is usually
AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS REGIONS Agricultural Operations Unit - Regional Boundaries Moose Jaw Regional Contacts 306-694-3673 306-694-3672 Saskatoon 306-933-5322 306-933-5095 622 561 588 Meadow Lake Yorkton 306-786-1505 306-786-1429 General Inquiries: 306-787-4680 142 111 51 501 520 521 502 499 Lloydminster 498 496 497 494 493 490 491 471 Prince Albert 472 469 470 468 467 466 464 461 459 460 442 463 440 North Battleford 439 438 431 435 430 437 436 434 429 411 382 352 322 321 232 292 261 231 141 171 381 351 410 320 290 260 230 110 380 350 49 19 169 319 79 409 259 229 139 109 379 349 318 168 138 108 78 18 378 288 228 347 257 377 317 287 167 77 17 555 344 376 Saskatoon 286 285 226 166 165 Swift Current 76 345 315 255 284 254 194 283 403 313 312 282 224 223 222 221 164 314 342 341 488 458 457 Melfort Humboldt 369 368 137 136 135 128 127 134 133 132 131 130 129 107 406 346 316 256 106 405 225 105 404 104 343 253 193 163 103 402 401 101 400 Martensville 373 372 371 370 252 281 251 340 339 310 280 250 100 279 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 486 Weyburn 66 67 395 394 Yorkton 243 241 Melville 214 213 46 42 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 45 44 43 Estevan 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 399 309 219 99 428 398 338 308 248 218 98 487 427 397 367 337 277 247 217 97 426 456 366 336 276 246 216 126 335 334 307 305 304 275 245 215 190 187 186 185 191 189 158 Regina 161Moose Jaw 156 162 157 155 160 159 102 220 125 96 95 94 65 274 244 184 154 124 64 333 273 183 123 93 63 33 3 331 303 301 153 271 211 181 152 151 122 121 92 32 2 61 91 31 1 2015 Government of Saskatchewan 0 25 50 100 150 200 ± Kilometers Projection: UTM Zone 13 Datum: NAD83 Data Source: Agricultural Operations Unit Regions - Livestock Branch, Ministry of Agriculture Geomatic Services, Ministry of Agriculture March 19, 2015
DISPOSAL LOCATIONS Location Ownership Comments Vacant Crown Province Preferred option Occupied Crown Province An agreement should be prepared that specifies emergency land use Landfills Public Landfills are typically owned by RMs or individuals. Availability of landfills should be established Private land Private Crown ownership is preferred to secure availability