Nitrogen pollution

[chasineyes]

Quote:

Three fourths of the nutrient comes from fertilizers used in agriculture, particularly tile drainage that sends contaminated water from farm fields directly into ditches and streams, the report found. About 9 percent comes from wastewater treatment plants, and 1 percent from urban runoff

Apparently some of you haven't read the first page... Remember this comes from the MPCA, the same organization many of you praise for their work in controlling sand fracing and mining.

[chasineyes]

Quote:

Urban sprawl with all of our pavement, buildings, parking lots, etc. contribute as much if not more to the problem

So Lake Minnetonka should be the most polluted lake in MN. However I will bet my paycheck that it's cleaner than Lake Elysian (where I grew up) that is surrounded by farms.

[BobT]

All l am hearing is defense and more, "Well, its not my fault. The farmers are much worse." You guys are too self righteous to get it. You live in a fantasy world with blinders on. I honestly feel sorry for you.

[chasineyes]

Quote:

The farmers are much worse

THEY ARE...ACCORDING TO THE MPCA Sorry you have to live with the facts. As far as the real world, why is it that the Minnesota River is so filthy BY THE TIME IT REACHES SHAKOPEE when there is very little development between there and Big Stone? However this is alot of Agriculuture and Ag Runoff between here and there... Ponder that for a while and get back to me.

[BobT]

Are we going to continue pointing our fingers at others or start taking a realistic look at cleaning up our own practices first? How green are each of us? Could any of us actually score an 'A' if we were to be judged? I doubt it would be risky to wager that not one of us on this site could score better than a 'B'. You think because those that do not farm far outnumber those that do they are above reproach? A small impact by 3M individuals adds up.

[jentz]

I believe fingers should finally be pointed.Farmers are and have been exempt from the clean water act of 1973??1972.With todays testing the facts are coming out,More phosphorus and pesticide/herbicide evidence will soon follow,The stewards of the land should be on board with clean water act.Yes even if food costs rise.Our waters are in trouble!! We need to find and act on the source with solutions not any more avoidance,or back turning.

[BobT]

I’m not disagreeing that farming practices can’t be improved upon and I’m not disagreeing that many if not most are showing their greed. Quite frankly it is very discouraging to see my neighboring farmers removing trees and brush buffers along small watery draws and then tiling to make it possible to add another few acres to their spring tillage. It is discouraging to see my neighboring farmers putting the plow to land that they haven’t plowed in the 20 years that I’ve lived here. It is discouraging to see my neighboring farmers ripping out wooded tree buffer strips that were planted years ago to help control erosion. I recently saw a documentary about the dust bowl years and I couldn’t help but notice a real sense of Déjà vu with how more and more land is being put to the plow just like it was in the 20’s. This is what is believed to have been a big part of the cause for the drought hanging on so long. Haven’t we learned anything?

What I don’t understand is why now? Throughout the 90’s and early half of the first decade of the 20’s it was a real challenge to make a decent living by crop farming. It would seem that would be the catalyst for the expansion we see today because the added volume would have helped improve the bottom line. Since about 2007 when crop prices jumped and still remain higher there should be less need to expand acreage. We farmers are making more money per acre now than we have in 50 years and yet we feel we need to expand further? I don’t get it.

Okay, now that I’ve said that, what I am disagreeing with is our attitude. We see the enemy out there trying to grow the food to feed our nation and beyond and yet we are so bold as to suggest that we are any better. Are we that arrogant to think that we have no responsibility in this?

How many of us take the initiative to upgrade our septic systems to the latest technology as soon as it becomes available? NONE! We wait until we’re forced into it. How many of us have upgraded our highly pollutant outboards for the fuel efficient models available today? How many of us keep the speed down on our boats to save fuel? How many of us still use lead sinkers and jigs? How many of us still drive automobiles that barely meet pollution control standards? How many of us drive 50-55mph where most vehicles are most fuel efficient? How many of us car pool, walk, or ride bicycle to work every day? Lord knows we could use the exercise. How many of us still use incandescent light bulbs when other more energy efficient types are available including natural lighting? How many of us have upgraded our faucets and toilets to lower water consumption? How many of us water our lawns in mid-day rather than doing it at a more efficient time of day to reduce the amount needed? How many of us recycle at every opportunity? How many of us live in a home twice the size of what we really need? How many of us have upgraded the R value of our homes to the best technology has to offer? How many of us have installed solar or wind power to help reduce our dependence on highly pollutant fossil fuel sources for electricity? How many of us have installed state-of-the-art heating/cooling control systems in our homes? How many of us use simple practices to take advantage of nature’s cooling and heating but instead we just set the thermostat and rely on our heating and air conditioning to manage it all? How many of us take the time to dispose of used motor oil, paint, and other toxins properly rather than just pouring it down the drain or elsewhere? I can keep going but I think I’ve made my point.

[Tom7227]

Bob,

Slow done. This one belongs in the silly forum and it is a no win for both side. Relax. Have a beer.

Tom

[jentz]

There's a great point,BobT passing the buck,Its been done for years and as my last post states farmers are exempt from the clean water act.Argue all you want evidence now exists and has been put forth.The nitrogen pollution is mainly from farms a proven FACT.The ones who pass the buck and yet state they are stewards of the land are the main polluters.Like I said more evidence will soon reveal itself as testing goes on.Deniability is becomming a thing of the past on this subject.

[BobT]

Bob,

Slow done. This one belongs in the silly forum and it is a no win for both side. Relax. Have a beer.

Tom

Your right, Tom. I guess I just get so sick of the anti-farming sentiment on this site I could about puke. What would be really great is to read about truly viable proposals for solutions instead of accusation and banter.

[PurpleFloyd]

[Big Bobber]

At least you are able to point your finger with your stomach full. In the last few years, at least where I live,farmers are using all of the latest technology available to cut back on the amount of fertilizer that is applied to the ground. Agronomic science shows that with minimum tillage, split nitrogen applications and proper crop rotations that there is not nearly the amount of fertilizer needed to grow a good corn crop as was thought needed years ago. Fertilizer is applied when the plants have the greatest chance of nutrient uptake and the lowest chance of runoff. With the soil testing methods used today, and the variable application of fertilizer steps are being made every year to improve and be good stewards of the ground. Farmers today cannot afford to blindly apply the fertizer. Where practical, buffer strips are becoming more widely used. The problem of excess fertilizer did not happen overnight, and the problem does not cure itself overnight. Proper tiling costs about $1000 per acre. When the land is propery tiled the ground can percolate properly and better filtering happens and conversely there is less runoff. When I visit your great state and troll arond the shore line, I see vast amounts of impervious structure and very green grass clear to the lake shore. No one is blameless, but we can all improve.

To answer Bob T, the reason that farming in some areas is fence row to fence row is pure economics. Cash rents of $500 per acre or more will make a person grow as much grain as possible to try to generate a profit. Farmers have made money the past three years but the profit window is slamming shut very quickly. Seed corn is approaching $400 per bag for some varieties which will plant about 2.35 acres, all input costs, cash rent and equipment costs and diesel fuel have gone through the roof, and commodity prices are falling like a rock. Farmers cannot afford to over fertilize, and they are doing a darn good job of still feeding the country. Where I live I do not know any farmers that have a blatant disregard of the eco system. Going through the drought last year reminded them how valuable available cleen water is. Tiling is one step to improve the problem. I live in an area where the water table is dropping every year, and know of some farm wells that went dry last year.

This thread reminds me of two little boys arguing who can whiz the highest on the side of the corn crib.

[BobT]

Quote:

Got any? Where would you start? By reducing the nitrogen use, by working on ways to reduce the amount that gets to the watershed or to do something within the watershed to deal with it once it gets there.

This is a politician talking if I ever heard one. I asked for solutions and what do you say? "Reduce the the amount that gets to the watershed." Well, eureka! This guys has it all figured out. You guys have been whining about what I do and so I asked how to do better. You've got my ear so tell me what I need to do. And while your at it, figure out what portion of the expense that your plans impose upon me you are willing to accept.

[jentz]

Stop tileing,use the latest woodchip technolgy.Yes stop tileing!WE dont need to feed the world,The people who need it the most never get it anyway.Move away from corn for fuel!!

[BobT]

Quote:

To answer Bob T, the reason that farming in some areas is fence row to fence row is pure economics. Cash rents of $500 per acre or more will make a person grow as much grain as possible to try to generate a profit.

First, the neighboring farmers I was referring to are not paying cash rent for the land in question. They are small part time farmers managing their own property.

I've lived here for 25 years. From the time I started farming in 1994 until 2007 the value of my wheat and soybeans remained virtually unchanged while my input costs continued to rise.

During that whole time I never once saw a neighbor tear out trees to expand his tillable land. It would have made sense because it would have made it possible to gain a little extra profit without a huge investment.

In the last three years however I've seen patches of trees, former pasture, tree buffer strips along drainage, and rows of trees that were intentionally planted at one time ripped out to allow for more tillable land. It can't be a cost thing because profit margins are higher. I know. Mine have improved dramatically and I haven't changed anything about my farming practices to make that happen. So what is the real reason for them to do this? Greed. Plain and simple. They are already making more money and yet they now have the bug to make even more. Typical human response for sure.

The same thing happened in the 1920's. Grain prices shy-rocketed and farmers rather than just enjoying their blessings began to take advantage and expand their tillage to the max. This is believed to be a major contributor to the seriousness of the 1930's drought that devastated the country. Greed. Plain and simple.

[BobT]

Stop tileing,use the latest woodchip technolgy.Yes stop tileing!WE dont need to feed the world,The people who need it the most never get it anyway.Move away from corn for fuel!!

I don't have any of my ground tiled. Oh, its been suggested that I tile some of it but I won't. Because I don't tile, my land is broken up into too many small pieces which makes corn a poor crop choice. Therefore, I don't grow corn and even if I did are you saying that I should refuse to sell it to the ethanol buyers if they happen to offer a better price? What do you do for a living? How many pay raises have you refused to accept?

[PurpleFloyd]

Quote:

Got any? Where would you start? By reducing the nitrogen use, by working on ways to reduce the amount that gets to the watershed or to do something within the watershed to deal with it once it gets there.

This is a politician talking if I ever heard one. I asked for solutions and what do you say? "Reduce the the amount that gets to the watershed." Well, eureka! This guys has it all figured out. You guys have been whining about what I do and so I asked how to do better. You've got my ear so tell me what I need to do. And while your at it, figure out what portion of the expense that your plans impose upon me you are willing to accept.

No, actually it is a person who has always loved Biology asking a person who is at the epicenter of the original question where he thinks the best place to start would be since he lives it every day. Apparently since you went into full attack mode you have no information that would be valuable to me so I will refrain from seeking input from you and stick to someone who can have a mature conversation without resorting to juvenile posts.

[BobT]

I have reread some of my last posts and I can see I let my emotions get the best of me. I apologize for my rude and condescending statements. It just rubs me the wrong way when I read posts that come across so one-sided against farming as if farmers are devils and sportsmen are saints.

I don't think this issue or others like it are just an agricultural issue. In my opinion these issues belong to all of us in one way or another. As long as we continue to point our fingers elsewhere and not be willing to accept responsibility for our own contribution to the problem, we will never come to terms and truly find a plausible solution we can all live with.

Thank you,

[Big Bobber]

Nice post Bob. It show that you are passionate about the situation and that you are aware of the things that farmers and suppliers are doing to try to improve farming practices. The changes happen slower than some non ag folks want, but the american farmer still feeds the world. Heaven forbid if we ever were forced to eliminate fertilizer and go back to yield levels in the '60's. We need close to trend line yields to keep the food chain filled. The argument is that ethanol is taking too much production out of the food chain, but a study done by Iowa State University shows that food costs have not been impacted by ethanol while helping control our fuel costs. As I type this, within 60 miles of my home, 2 new ethanol plants will go on line next year using nothing but stover to produce ethanol.

We are small farmers in central Iowa and have made costly investments in technology to try to help us control the amount of crop inputs, and hopefully in the long run provide a higher profit while allowing us to be better stewards of the land. The local cooperatives have invested quite abit of money also. I spent some years as CFO of a cooperative so I have a working knowledge of the problems and concerns on both sides of the desk. On our 160 acre farm we took 8 acres out of production creating buffer strips and increasing the size of our waterways. We are lucky as most of the farmers in our area are doing what needs to be done to be good stewards of the land by doing what they can to control runoff and erosion, and making the investment in technology to help control how much fertilizer is applied and help control how much fertilizer can runoff by spending the money to make split applications.

Most of the farmers in our area are retired, so most of them are just receiving cash rent. The rents are in the $550 per acre for the top farms. Do the math, at current commodity prices and factoring in the price of inputs and equipment, there will not be much money made this year.

It is true that farmers have made some good money in the last few years, but prior to 2008 in my area, my income tax clients had some pretty lean income years. Almost all of my small farmers need to have off farm income and benefits to keep the household going, with several small family farms going by the wayside.

[kerryd15]

Urban run off was 1%. Municipal wastewater was 9% Cropland run off was 5%. Run off is above ground and down the storm sewer if you will. the interesting one was 30% from cropland ground water. Thats water coming through the soil not down a tile. Its goes on to state that nitrogen in the ground water can take up to 10 years to get to surface water. and further refinement in application rates and timing are estimated to help 13%.

[Big Bobber]

The new goal in farming is to have the last ounce of nitrogen used by the plants on the same day that the plant starts to go through its normal shut down.

Just spent an hour talking to a US government geologist whose specialty is water quality. His take is that the nitrates that end up in the water in this area is the responsibility of everyone. In the town I live in, all new projects are recquired to have 13% green space. A fast growing town about 70 miles from here is turning everything to concrete and has no buffer zones.

He told me that mother nature has a huge part in dictating how much ends up in the streams and water table. Last year for instance, because of the drought, the corn plants sent the root system about 10 feet down looking for moisture. The roots dropped clear past the nitrogen level and all of it was not used up. This year, we had the floods, and some of it was washed away before the plant roots could get to it. We are experiencing stressed corn this week due to the quick lack of rain. The roots have not reached the nitrogen and subsoil moisture yet.

He gave me some places to look at nitrate meters in each state. I am going to see is I can find it.

[Kyhl]

Urban run off was 1%. Municipal wastewater was 9% Cropland run off was 5%. Run off is above ground and down the storm sewer if you will. the interesting one was 30% from cropland ground water. Thats water coming through the soil not down a tile. Its goes on to state that nitrogen in the ground water can take up to 10 years to get to surface water. and further refinement in application rates and timing are estimated to help 13%.

As I am often told, use more words.

I think you have some great information in there but I am having difficulty assigning the numbers to ideas.

Dont worry if the post gets long.

[delcecchi]

http://mrbdc.mnsu.edu/sites/mrbdc.mnsu.edu/files/public/pdf/askexpert/nitrogen.pdf

Nitrogen comes from lots of sources. If you would be familiar with having aquariums, the reason for having filters in fish tanks is because fish also create nitrogen in their waste. Obviously the amount going in is higher than what the ecosystem can absorb so you have 2 choices- reduce the input or increase the ability of the waterways to absorb or convert the nitrogen. Aquatic plants,just like corn, will use nitrogen as food so creating a scenario where the water has more contact with plants would help. Ammonia is converted from Ammonia to Ammonium and then are converted to Nitrites and then to Nitrates.The latter by bacterial processes. Adding areas where the water can get oxygenated and that have surface area for the bacteria to live and do their thing would make a big difference. But the addition of lots of tile and the surges in water that accompany that process would overwhelm the ability of any system to function properly. My personal opinion is we need more buffers and also places where overflow can be diverted and give nature a chance to take care of them on their own. But it will never happen.

[PurpleFloyd]

So, all of the stuff about fish excrement is just .... fish excrement.

obviously the point went right over your head. The point wasn't what the source was or how it got there or what contributed the most to it. The point is the stuff is there and there are some ways to deal with it.Either by reducing the amount going in and letting it stabilize over time or trying to either remove it or break it down to less problematic compounds.

Personally to me the thought of it being a case where the farmers are running around like Charles Montgomery Burns haphazardly spewing ammonia into the watershed is nonsense. The cost of applying it is high and getting higher all the time and to their end they will do anything they can to make sure as much gets to the crops as possible because that is where the payback is on their investment. I do know they are using more and more technology to help them apply only the correct dosage on the land and the ability to use GPS and harvest data to pinpoint application amounts is an evolving technology that will lead to better results and lower amounts getting away from the reach of the roots of the plants.

But at the same time we are talking about working with Mother nature and there is no way to predict what the weather might do to negate even your best attempts.

And I would listen closely to what KerryD has to say. There are probably few agronomists that have put more time into their job as he has and my guess is he has a whole lot more knowledge on the subject than the average rube on this forum. You might be pleasantly surprised what you could learn from him.

[LMITOUT]

. The point is the stuff is there and there are some ways to deal with it.Either by reducing the amount going in and letting it stabilize over time

You mean like natural wetlands that are no longer there due to drain tile?

After a big rain sometimes I like to drive around and look at all the water sitting in the low spots of the corn fields (before the tile can drain it off) and imagine what great natural habit it would be and how good it would be to the ecosystem. Ducks, geese, pheasants on the fringe, and perhaps a deer or three getting a drink but nope, all that slop goes directly to our lakes and streams and ruins that, too. All for what? Corn based ethanol which is the biggest farce behind man made global warming.

So what do we do? Raise taxes and pretend we're doing it to clean up the water which was as laughable then as it is now. But hey, it bought the Ag lobby another 20 years to keep doing what they're doing before someone finally gets a clue...if that'll ever happen. It's like a person coming into the ER with a bloody nose and a gunshot wound and spending all your time stuffing gauze up their nose to stop the bleeding. The best magicians in the world would be dumbfounded at the slight of hand pulled off when the Dedicated Funding Amendment was passed. "Look over here, we're planting magic bushes and grass to stop runoff...ignore the 12" culverts running directly into the lakes".