Nitrogen pollution

[PurpleFloyd]

. 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

[BobT]

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".

This is the attitude I've been talking about. I won't go down that slippery slope again.

I wonder...when it rains and that water is puddling in that low ground, what happens to the nitrogen that is in the soil? Does it remain in the soil or does it dillute into the water on the surface?

Part of the reason the water ponds up in those low areas is because it is a low area, naturally. However another part of the reason is because the soil does not drain well and the water can't leech through. It eventually dries up as the water evaporates. Putting in tile might actually make it possible for that water to get filtered through the ground as it makes its way to the tile. I don't know for sure but if I'm correct then adding tile reduces the potential for erosion due to surface water runoff and possibly helping control the nitrogen issue by letting the ground filter the water rather than running overland.

[LMITOUT]

Yeah, I'm sure Coors will start using that drain tile water to brew their beer because it's so darn clean.

Got any other talking points from the ag lobby?

[BobT]

I didn't know they used surface water. As I said, "I don't know for sure" and I won't fall for your meager attempt at trolling there, LMITOUT.

On the "Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy" site I found an article that may show something that could be done. Enforcing the regulations that already exist would seem to be a first step in the right direction. From the site it says,

Quote:

One practice that contributes greatly to water pollution is farming the land adjacent to lakes, rivers and streams. Minnesota has a shoreland rule that requires maintenance of a permanent 50-foot vegetative (non-cultivated) filter strip or buffer along public waterways. Counties are responsible for enforcing that filter strip, but few in the state have done so.

I'm not saying that farmers should get away with it just because the governing bodies fail to enforce it but then how many of us willingly follow the rules when they exist like speeding for example.

More from the site.

Quote:

As shown in the chart below, Minnesota waters suffer the most unsustainable crop erosion of all states bordering the Mississippi River, but a limited amount of this erosion in Minnesota comes from HEL (highly erodable land). Instead, the runoff comes from flatter crop acres that lack conservation measures. To reduce Minnesota’s erosion will require changes in the farm bill to require conservation on more than just HEL.

Perhaps education would be a step in the right direction as well as appropriate regulations.

And more.

Quote:

After years of effort, MCEA successfully forced one particularly problematic Scott County cattle feedlot to adjust their practices to curb water pollution. Owned by Mike and Becky Vierling, the feedlot was emblematic of the water quality problems feedlots can cause. For years, manure ran off the property into a creek that emptied into Pike Lake. In 1999, MCEA asked the Pollution Control Agency to force the Vierlings to either stop the pollution or move their livestock.

Nothing happened. And in 2005, MCEA tested the creek and found fecal coliform bacteria at 100 times the allowable limit.

That same year, MCEA sued the agency and signed a stipulation agreement in August 2006 in which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency agreed to take enforcement action against the Vierlings. A year later, the agency ordered the Vierlings to move their cattle.

It doesn't say anything about it but I wonder if fines were imposed? If not, why not? Maybe appropriate consequences should also be included in the rules just like they are for speeding?

I have merely an 87-acre hobby farm. A few years ago I had to get my feedlot certified. What is my feedlot? We have four horses and a 52' x 75' pole shed/barn. We call it a barn simply because we have four 12' x 12' horse stalls inside. A county agent was sent out to my place to see that there was sufficient grass buffer between the area most frequented by our horses (feedlot) and the nearest wet land. The grade of the land between there was also a consideration. We do have a pretty aggressive slope there. If we didn't have that buffer we would have been ordered to move the feedlot. My neighbor runs a rather large dairy for this area. He was forced to secure adequate land to handle the manure from his operation. I remember when he went door to door contracting with neighbors to provide adequate land area with which to manage his manure. To be honest I don't know how far away he is forced to spread it around but I do know they travel some distances.

I also know of a neighbor who's beef opeation was forced to shut down because his multi-generation family farm was too close to Lake Osakis. Please note that it did not border the lake. There are resorts, a county road, and a state hiway between his land and the lake shore. Lucky for him he was about reaching retirement age anyway and was able to retire.

A recent controversy here was the rebuilding and cleanup of a drainage ditch that was put in many decades ago. It improved the land for farming in the watershed west of Lake Osakis and eventually drains into the lake. The ditch was becoming filled with sediment and there was no decent sediment pond to handle the runoff. The farmers that benefitted from the ditch raised a stink because they got assessed for the cleanup as well as the creation of two sediment ponds prior to the water entering the lake. Personally, I think they should have been assessed. Either that or close the ditch and return the land to its former state.

The following is also from the site I mentioned above.

Quote:

According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, at least 30 percent of these home septic systems are either failing to protect groundwater or are an imminent threat to public health and safety because of poor design or poor maintenance.

Minnesota law governs septic systems, but it is carried out by counties and some other local units of government. While it is a homeowner’s and developer’s responsibility to make sure septic systems are properly designed and maintained, many do not pay attention.

If my memory serves me correctly it wasn't too long ago there was a thread on this site questioning how one might avoid having to upgrade his septic system because what he had was outdated and deemed insufficiently effective. Funny how things change when the shoe is on the other foot.

Quote:

Urban storm water is the rain and snow melt that isn’t absorbed by the ground and plants but instead flows into storm drains (“street sewers”) and then into rivers or lakes – or runs directly into water bodies. Impervious surfaces (roads, parking lots, sidewalks, rooftops) carry polluted stormwater to storm drains, instead of allowing the water to percolate through soil. Most municipal storm sewer systems discharge stormwater, untreated, to streams, rivers and lakes.

This stormwater runoff contains:

· Gasoline, motor oil, heavy metals, trash, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (combustion byproducts of gasoline and other fuels) and the heavy metals nickel, copper, zinc, cadmium, and lead from roadways and parking lots;

· Fertilizers, pesticides, nitrates and phosphorus from lawns, golf courses and parks; and

· Synthetic organic compounds and zinc (from galvanized gutters) from roofs.

Like I already pointed out, this is a "we" problem.

[jentz]

I only read the first paragraph and yes shore owners HAVE to go by those rules EPA mandated.Farmer on the otherhand are exempt from the clean water rule and set their own rules for 1 rod setback 16ft.!!! and in the county where I just bought a lot on a lake Kandiyohi only 20% are complying,The county is responcible for that rule and seeing its a farming comunity the lax rule is not enforced! The county reply to why it isnt enforced is no funds for the inspections.

Time for the EPA to bring farmers on board.The lakes surounded by homes and cabins are the cleanest in the county the lakes surounded by farm lane are the most polluted!!

It is a we problem however shore owners have complied with settleing ponds,Rain ponds sewer the other of the we you know the stewards of the land have their own lax rules and dont comply anyway

[PurpleFloyd]

Yeah, I'm sure Coors will start using that drain tile water to brew their beer because it's so darn clean.

Got any other talking points from the ag lobby?

To be fair, that waters exits the tile and hits a ditch that is full of grass. It then heads down the ditch and the grasses in the ditch will pull Nitrates out of the water and the grass will also filter out the sediment so it isn't like there is an instant injection of every particle that gets out of the tile.

Although it is getting harder for the grasses and gravity to settle that stuff out due to the increased volumes of water that go hand in hand with the extensive amounts of tile that have been added without adding additional ditches to carry the discharge.

[LMITOUT]

Like I already pointed out, this is a "we" problem.

Oh, I've noticed that you like to "point" a lot and usually it's in the opposite direction of the elephant in the room.

[LMITOUT]

To be fair, that waters exits the tile and hits a ditch that is full of grass. It then heads down the ditch and the grasses in the ditch will pull Nitrates out of the water and the grass will also filter out the sediment so it isn't like there is an instant injection of every particle that gets out of the tile.

That isn't always the case and I could personally take photos of pipe exiting directly into lakes, but regardless your pie in the sky best case scenario seems to be failing:

[BobT]

I only read the first paragraph and yes shore owners HAVE to go by those rules EPA mandated.Farmer on the otherhand are exempt from the clean water rule and set their own rules for 1 rod setback 16ft.!!! and in the county where I just bought a lot on a lake Kandiyohi only 20% are complying,The county is responcible for that rule and seeing its a farming comunity the lax rule is not enforced! The county reply to why it isnt enforced is no funds for the inspections.

Time for the EPA to bring farmers on board.The lakes surounded by homes and cabins are the cleanest in the county the lakes surounded by farm lane are the most polluted!!

It is a we problem however shore owners have complied with settleing ponds,Rain ponds sewer the other of the we you know the stewards of the land have their own lax rules and dont comply anyway

The reason I posted that paragraph was to point out that farmers are not necessarily exempt. There are rules they are required to follow just like you and me but the county isn't exercising its due diligence and enforcing the rules. Like you and me, when not enforced we will take advantage where we can. Tell me with a straight face you have never dumped anything potentially toxic down your drain. Inthat same article it talks about efforts to change the rules eliminating some or all of those exemptions you have eluded to.

[BobT]

Oh, I've noticed that you like to "point" a lot and usually it's in the opposite direction of the elephant in the room.

[BobT]

That isn't always the case and I could personally take photos of pipe exiting directly into lakes, but regardless your pie in the sky best case scenario seems to be failing:

Take another look at my post #3099671 and in particular notice what I quoted with regard to city and municipal storm sewers and where most are discharged. Not just some but most. Also pay careful attention to the toxins that are included in that runoff. It is a "we" issue.

Also, take notice of the quote I included regarding the status of home septic systems and how 30% are not up to code and how the counties don't enforce them. I guess that's because of farm lobby efforts too?

[LMITOUT]

Your first post in this thread sums up your position quite nicely.

Essentially it's a take-everyone-else-down-with-you attitude even though you know who the elephant in the room is. As I said last night, you can keep sticking gauze up the broken nose to stop the bleeding but the gunshot is where your attention should be.

Stop handing out gauze and fix the real problem.

[LMITOUT]

Take another look at my post #3099671 and in particular notice what I quoted with regard to city and municipal storm sewers and where most are discharged. Not just some but most. Also pay careful attention to the toxins that are included in that runoff. It is a "we" issue.

Also, take notice of the quote I included regarding the status of home septic systems and how 30% are not up to code and how the counties don't enforce them. I guess that's because of farm lobby efforts too?

Bob, these aren't septic systems, storm sewers, or any other scapegoat that you can try to pin this on. It is field tile.

The quicker you stop with the denial the quicker you can fix your mess.

[Big Bobber]

People that bring problems to light remind me of most of the people that I terminated when I was in corporate america. Any employeee can identify a problem, but the ones I wanated on the team would also bring me a solution to the problem that they identified. I had a rule, if you identify a problem you alson need to bring me a solution to the problem. Employees who sat on the sideline and would make fun of the solutions presented were terminated, plain and simple. Employees who identified what they thought was a problem but did not bring me a solution were no good to me. If you don't have an idea how to fix it, do you really know if it is broken? Have a feeling if you worked for me it would have been a short term thing. You like to pick apart things, then come forth with some type of over the top example. Reminds me of someone who starts fires just to watch them burn, then sits back and giggle when the fire department shows up. Share with us how you would fix the problem that has been identified in this thread, please.

[LMITOUT]

[Big Bobber]

Cute but no answer.

[LMITOUT]

Sure it is. Plug'm up.

[LMITOUT]

Possibly the largest source of nutrients comes from farms in Illinois, Iowa, Ohio and southwest Minnesota, where drainage tiles -- plastic pipes that crisscross underground - - drain the once-wet soil, making it arable, and dry enough for corn and soybean crops. But these pipes also flush nitrogen fertilizer into tributaries, which lead to rivers and eventually the Gulf.

In fact, research shows that the most heavily tile-drained areas of North America also contribute the largest source of nitrates to the Gulf of Mexico, which add to the dead zone, according to Mark David, a professor of biogeochemistry from the University of Illinois.

[Big Bobber]

Better answer, just have the farmers quit raising livestock, import all of our meat, quit using fertilizer and chemicals, drop corn yields to 100 bushels per acre, and quit producing ethanol. You will be happy within 10 years that there is no nitrogen in the water system other than what plants produce, farmers will still make the same amount of money, (supply and demand) the price of fuel will go up, and a good share of the people will not be able to afford to buy food. Let us hear how you would fix things other than plug up all of the tiles.

[LMITOUT]

Better answer, just have the farmers quit raising livestock, import all of our meat, quit using fertilizer and chemicals, drop corn yields to 100 bushels per acre, and quit producing ethanol.

That would be a good start.

When approximately 1/2 of all corn production is used for ethanol you have no leg to stand on.

[Big Bobber]

That will hardly change anything. Most of the corn by product, DDG's (dried distillers grain) is replacing a portion of the graim going into livestock. The food supply is not being affected. Eliminating ethanol only makes a difference if the country no longer feeds any livestock. Instead of sitting on the sidelines taking shots or agreeing with someone else's outlines give us your bullet pointed outline to improve the situation, not just some tripe that you like to toss out. If you were on my team you still would be heading out the door. Guys like you were a dime a dozen, all talk but no action. I loved to buy that type of employee, bought them for what they were worth and sold them for what they thought they worth. Made alot of profit that way.

[Big Bobber]

Better recheck your number, 2011 was 27.3%, 2012 was approx 34%, 2013 was projected to be 40% will not happen as many of the plants will be shutterd for 1-2 months. Most of the coops in this area are no longer shipping corn, and saving all of their in house inventory for feed production, and most farmers are tapped out of corn in this area. Bins empty and we have 6 ethanol plants in a 60 mile radius.

[BobT]

In the 20 years that I have been farming I have cut back as far as I can in the use of herbicide and I don't use pesticide. I have changed my tilling practices to reduce erosion, reduce the number of trips over my field and increase efficiency thereby reducing the amount of fuel I burn and cutting emmissions. I have taken land out of production without benefit to me in the form of any conservation programs. I have asked for permission from the DNR to improve wetland on my property but got no response. I never cut certain sections of my lower ground for hay despite the fact that right now I could make a killing if I did. Instead, I leave it for the sake of the wildlife that use it. I have refused to jump on the tiling bandwagon even though to do so could make it possible for me to get into my fields up to two weeks earlier, reducing the risk of frost damage, and increasing yield potential. This year it would have saved about 30% of my entire crop drowning. That was $600.00 out the flippin' window. And no, I do not take advantage of the evil...crop insurance.

I obviously failed to get my point across. I really don't know how to put it any other way. I have admitted that we farmers are contributing to the problem. I have admitted that we farmers are showing our greed. There are many things farmers do toward reducing excess nitrates, phosphorous, and sediment in the watershed including technological and practical applications. Some of these things are very expensive and take time to implement. I admit we aren't advancing fast enough. Small farmers like me could never afford to implement some of the technology or practices. If it came down to it, I'd have to sell out to the nearest evil...corporate farm. I have admitted that we farmers need to do more.

What I did not do is accept total and complete responsibility for our woes. I guess for that reason I have failed.

[LMITOUT]

Better recheck your number,.

Number(s) came from the DOE. If you want to quibble over 5-10% then have at it, but the fact of the matter is that anything over 0% is a waste.

[LMITOUT]

That will hardly change anything. Most of the corn by product, DDG's (dried distillers grain) is replacing a portion of the graim going into livestock. The food supply is not being affected. Eliminating ethanol only makes a difference if the country no longer feeds any livestock. Instead of sitting on the sidelines taking shots or agreeing with someone else's outlines give us your bullet pointed outline to improve the situation, not just some tripe that you like to toss out.

Like the ag chanting points in the first part of that paragraph you tossed out? Save it for the media because nobody is buying it.

Where does the four to five billion bushels of corn used to make ethanol come from? Should we talk about all the new tillable land that has popped up in the past 10 years, most of which was land not suitable for farming but was put into production anyway with the help of MORE field tile and results in MORE runoff?

You want a bullet point list? Easy.

• Cease all corn based ethanol production
• Eliminate all field tiling, including removing or disabling what is currently installed

The first item would go a long way in fixing the problem.