Knockout punch: "I am convinced this pollution matters: for nature, for economy, for conservation, for people. So, I’m going to turn the steering wheel hard here: I’m also convinced our institutions not only tolerate it, but bless it, because it’s generated by a landed gentry of old, white males (>99% of Iowa farmers are white). If people of color were generating this pollution, it would be the environmental crime of the century."
Every day, many timese per day, the air waves remind us that farmers feed and fuel the world. In the same breath, we hear farmers just can't make it on their own because of high input cost, crop pressures, and unfair world competition. This leads me to believe without tax payer subsidies, they could not even feed themselves. This diversion takes the light off who the real polluters are. Sure, the IDNR, IDALS, NRS, NRCS, etc. give comfort to farmers for their transgressions but it doesn't change the facts. Overapplication of fertilizer is driven by greed, ego, and fear. Not my idea of an American Hero.
For me personally, and I know many others, it was not greed or ego but FEAR to put on any more amt of fertilizer than for removal for planted year. Now I never in 45 years ever wanted to over apply fertilizer because of higher cost/acre which was more money borrowed (especially in years of 21% interest on production loans). Like most I knew I put on what the University's recommended for projected yield. If had a farm that had been run down we would put a little more P & L on to do a slow rebuild. If didn't get tests up to at least medium, yield could suffer even though had same production costs/A. Several years ago I did soil testing for N early in season to see how much N there and make decisions. Then technology to test corn leaves in August to see why corn was turning brown, if no green-no photosynthesis. Low and behold corn was out of N, right at ear production time, bado, bado. Hadn't put enough on or lost it. Unfortunately the country has not addressed the nitrate problem for a long time. I remember when there were no subsidies and have always though all should be stopped cold. None for rice, wheat, corn, SB, tobacco, different nuts, etc. I can't imagine how few farming operations would be left, ya think there are big farms now!!!
Since Pine Lake in Hardin County is algae impaired due to excess phosphorus, 86% from farm field runoff (Pine Lake TMDL), Phosphorus has been my focus. Water samples taken at Lower Pine Lake by the IDNR show a rising trend (exceeding EPA lake recommendations 10 years ago) in dissolved P over the last 20 plus years. I've reviewed several hundred manure management plans filed at the Hardin County Court House which indicate crop utilization rates of 59pounds phosphorus utilization rate with a corresponding 179 pounds applied with the manure application. The corresponding P index calculation indicates the vast majority of field soil tests who STP in the high to very range. Conversations with local farmers suggest 100 pounds ommercial P is being applied but when asked what soil test P is, I get that's what the guy tells me I need. I've been asked many times, why would more be applied than what' is needed. This implies they are not but the data I have indicates they are.
You and I live in different parts of Iowa and have very different pictures of what's going on. It sounds like you are doing all the right things but paints a very different picture than the data shows I:m looking at. Be well my friend.
It is correct we live in different parts of Ia. 85% of applied phosphorus is attached to soil particles, soil must leave. With Washington Co being either #1 or 2 in no-till, which greatly reduces soil loss, could this be a factor in other areas? I don't disagree with your questioning of why applying more than removal if already having tests in VH range.
Here are links to ISU and K State addressing this subject. I modeled the P Index using Hardin County data from MMPs and found as P rises in soil above 40 ppm, the transport mechanism shifts from soil erosion to dissolved P. When using soil saving practices, no till, cover crops, buffer strips, even wetlands, P loss dropped quickly but then dissolved P rose over the next 10 to 20 years as soil test P rose with continued over application. This is what happened to Lake Erie in the 80s and 90s. Purdue USDA ARS has this well documented. Latest ISU and K State studies in the links below confirm this mechanism of P loss. In my mosel, applying P at the crop removal rate to achieve the optium levels would reduce P loss by 35 to 40 percent. This could be achieved by applying man;ure at the N rate but rotating fields over a 3 to 4 year basi with no P applied in the off years but of course commercial N applied in thos years as well. I hope these links work for you.
So many people don't understand the ramifications of their actions. They won't face the fact that what they do can affect the entire world. Somehow we need to point to them and explain how it affects them personally first. Maybe take them to the closest pond or creek that is filled with blue-green algae.
Did you read Tom Barton’s column yesterday about conservation dollars in the Farm Bill? Iowa farmers are complaining about the guidelines being too strict to access those funds, because you know, farmers are the original environmentalists, and the best caretakers of their land, and all that jazz.
Thank you, Washington Co Ia is one of the leaders in cover crops and is #1 or 2 in no-till. I started no-till with many others about 1990 (lot of trial and errors with attachments on planters to make it work) and started cover crops many yrs ago. I just wish we'd known about cover crops when started no-tilling.
Thanks for making the data accessible that supports the story. Looks like western Iowa streams have 2024 loads above the 2013 loads while in eastern Iowa….not so much.
Thanks, Chris. I always appreciate that you back up your statements with facts, and illustrate them so effectively. Yes, a picture (graph) is worth 1 000 words! And, your :hard turn" has me thinking more about entities (politicians of both parties, universities, DNR, ...) that are complicit in facilitating our clean water calamity.
Very good info. I have read it twice and will again. I do wish you and others would quit saying 'farmers' but instead 'some farmers'. It's like saying all conservatives are bad, all liberals are bad, all republicans are bad, all democrats are bad, all politicians are bad etc.
You have an excellent point. I've read your comments carefully and am convinced you are doing the right things. All farmers could learn something from you, some more than others. I could learn more from you and we can all learn from each other. Thank you..
Imagine the billionaires asking taxpayers to pay for their vacation homes while the elderly have no safe care. Who will the workers choose? Every p.t. student worker pays taxes and some billionaire benefits by paying no income tax. These corporate giants should pay their percent. It is time we stop giving to those living better than the ones giving.
Knockout punch: "I am convinced this pollution matters: for nature, for economy, for conservation, for people. So, I’m going to turn the steering wheel hard here: I’m also convinced our institutions not only tolerate it, but bless it, because it’s generated by a landed gentry of old, white males (>99% of Iowa farmers are white). If people of color were generating this pollution, it would be the environmental crime of the century."
Every day, many timese per day, the air waves remind us that farmers feed and fuel the world. In the same breath, we hear farmers just can't make it on their own because of high input cost, crop pressures, and unfair world competition. This leads me to believe without tax payer subsidies, they could not even feed themselves. This diversion takes the light off who the real polluters are. Sure, the IDNR, IDALS, NRS, NRCS, etc. give comfort to farmers for their transgressions but it doesn't change the facts. Overapplication of fertilizer is driven by greed, ego, and fear. Not my idea of an American Hero.
Most excellent comment.
For me personally, and I know many others, it was not greed or ego but FEAR to put on any more amt of fertilizer than for removal for planted year. Now I never in 45 years ever wanted to over apply fertilizer because of higher cost/acre which was more money borrowed (especially in years of 21% interest on production loans). Like most I knew I put on what the University's recommended for projected yield. If had a farm that had been run down we would put a little more P & L on to do a slow rebuild. If didn't get tests up to at least medium, yield could suffer even though had same production costs/A. Several years ago I did soil testing for N early in season to see how much N there and make decisions. Then technology to test corn leaves in August to see why corn was turning brown, if no green-no photosynthesis. Low and behold corn was out of N, right at ear production time, bado, bado. Hadn't put enough on or lost it. Unfortunately the country has not addressed the nitrate problem for a long time. I remember when there were no subsidies and have always though all should be stopped cold. None for rice, wheat, corn, SB, tobacco, different nuts, etc. I can't imagine how few farming operations would be left, ya think there are big farms now!!!
Since Pine Lake in Hardin County is algae impaired due to excess phosphorus, 86% from farm field runoff (Pine Lake TMDL), Phosphorus has been my focus. Water samples taken at Lower Pine Lake by the IDNR show a rising trend (exceeding EPA lake recommendations 10 years ago) in dissolved P over the last 20 plus years. I've reviewed several hundred manure management plans filed at the Hardin County Court House which indicate crop utilization rates of 59pounds phosphorus utilization rate with a corresponding 179 pounds applied with the manure application. The corresponding P index calculation indicates the vast majority of field soil tests who STP in the high to very range. Conversations with local farmers suggest 100 pounds ommercial P is being applied but when asked what soil test P is, I get that's what the guy tells me I need. I've been asked many times, why would more be applied than what' is needed. This implies they are not but the data I have indicates they are.
You and I live in different parts of Iowa and have very different pictures of what's going on. It sounds like you are doing all the right things but paints a very different picture than the data shows I:m looking at. Be well my friend.
I deeply appreciate your correspondence and info you have researched and shared. It is encouraging me to dig deeper here. Thank you.
It is correct we live in different parts of Ia. 85% of applied phosphorus is attached to soil particles, soil must leave. With Washington Co being either #1 or 2 in no-till, which greatly reduces soil loss, could this be a factor in other areas? I don't disagree with your questioning of why applying more than removal if already having tests in VH range.
Here are links to ISU and K State addressing this subject. I modeled the P Index using Hardin County data from MMPs and found as P rises in soil above 40 ppm, the transport mechanism shifts from soil erosion to dissolved P. When using soil saving practices, no till, cover crops, buffer strips, even wetlands, P loss dropped quickly but then dissolved P rose over the next 10 to 20 years as soil test P rose with continued over application. This is what happened to Lake Erie in the 80s and 90s. Purdue USDA ARS has this well documented. Latest ISU and K State studies in the links below confirm this mechanism of P loss. In my mosel, applying P at the crop removal rate to achieve the optium levels would reduce P loss by 35 to 40 percent. This could be achieved by applying man;ure at the N rate but rotating fields over a 3 to 4 year basi with no P applied in the off years but of course commercial N applied in thos years as well. I hope these links work for you.
https://research.iastate.edu/2022/03/21/iowa-state-scientists-solving-the-complex-puzzle-of-dissolved-phosphorus-loss-from-farmland/
https://www.ksre.k-state.edu/news/stories/2021/08/agronomy-cover-crops-reducing-phosphorus-runoff.html#:~:text=But%20in%20something%20of%20a,loss%20are%20not%20a%20concern.
Another home run, Chris! Did you see John Oliver's recent take down of King Corn?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI78WOW_u-Q
Yes it’s great!
This is part of the BigAg plan of course: “likely some fatigue among the public on this issue.”
So many people don't understand the ramifications of their actions. They won't face the fact that what they do can affect the entire world. Somehow we need to point to them and explain how it affects them personally first. Maybe take them to the closest pond or creek that is filled with blue-green algae.
Did you read Tom Barton’s column yesterday about conservation dollars in the Farm Bill? Iowa farmers are complaining about the guidelines being too strict to access those funds, because you know, farmers are the original environmentalists, and the best caretakers of their land, and all that jazz.
Wow!
Thanks I will take a look
ALL Ia. farmers, come now. What Ia. farmers?
The ones who aren't covering their soil, for starters. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=108950#:~:text=U.S.%20cropland%20area%20planted%20to,of%20total%20cropland%20in%202022.
Thank you, Washington Co Ia is one of the leaders in cover crops and is #1 or 2 in no-till. I started no-till with many others about 1990 (lot of trial and errors with attachments on planters to make it work) and started cover crops many yrs ago. I just wish we'd known about cover crops when started no-tilling.
I agree 100%. The good life for me is being with friends and we are in agreement.
Wow! Thanks, Chris.
Thanks for making the data accessible that supports the story. Looks like western Iowa streams have 2024 loads above the 2013 loads while in eastern Iowa….not so much.
Thanks, Chris. I always appreciate that you back up your statements with facts, and illustrate them so effectively. Yes, a picture (graph) is worth 1 000 words! And, your :hard turn" has me thinking more about entities (politicians of both parties, universities, DNR, ...) that are complicit in facilitating our clean water calamity.
Very good info. I have read it twice and will again. I do wish you and others would quit saying 'farmers' but instead 'some farmers'. It's like saying all conservatives are bad, all liberals are bad, all republicans are bad, all democrats are bad, all politicians are bad etc.
You have an excellent point. I've read your comments carefully and am convinced you are doing the right things. All farmers could learn something from you, some more than others. I could learn more from you and we can all learn from each other. Thank you..
Why are we paying to pollute ourselves, then pay to unpollute? Let intelligent people decide what to decide what taxes to pay.
That is so interesting. Imagine, we teh people could decide where our tax dollars go. That could upset the political apple cart.
Imagine the billionaires asking taxpayers to pay for their vacation homes while the elderly have no safe care. Who will the workers choose? Every p.t. student worker pays taxes and some billionaire benefits by paying no income tax. These corporate giants should pay their percent. It is time we stop giving to those living better than the ones giving.
I totally agree. Hidden in your word is the solution. ...giving to those living better than the ones giving.