Seven years ago, it became clear to me that limiting phosphorus application rate as prescribed by ISU publication pm1688 would completely solve animal manure pollution. To mitigate manure application cost simply apply manure at the nitrogen rate on a three-to-four-year rotation basis with soy beans planted in the rotation.
The latest craze to reduce nitrogen application rate is another tax payer subsidized give away. Try using less nitrogen and we will pay you $35 per acre if your yield drops below the 10-year average. Give us more money and we will stop polluting. We will voluntarily take your money but don't tell us what to do.
My final solution: Stop all agriculture and related subsidies.
Sure "crop geneticists haven’t yet solved Derecho-force wind," but they have used it as a model for the literal shit-storm they've leveled on the land and water where we all live.
I had to read through your piece twice, Chris, but the conclusion is well-supported -- the few cherry-picked examples touted by many as having wide-spread effects of lowering nitrogen are having no discernible effect on the stated outcome. It's time for decision makers in Des Moines to put the health and safety of all Iowans (and those downstream from us) above the de$ires of the empowered few. Please keep beating the drum, Chris. We need you as a champion!
Tracking MMP data has become impossible. Only changes are reported and good luck in following the chain of events. There was a wealth of information in the MMPs such as amount of P and N applied, amount needed by the crop, the expected yield, the amount of soil loss, the soil test P, etc.
I read this after reading about the residual ‘stacks’ of the phosphorous? (Sorry I’m working from memory) fertilizer industry in Florida that were in the path of Hurricane Milton and have threatened the water quality there in past and caused fish kills. We were just in New Mexico where the oil wells in the southern part of the state are flared constantly and there is a widespread petroleum smell in the air that cannot be avoided in certain parts of the state. All I think of now when I drive through Iowa (went to Cedar Falls in August to fish) or any state for that matter is how much open land could be filled with solar panels, how many corn fields could be filled with solar panels instead. Yes, this would decimate the agrieconomy/farmers/agribusiness and because that is predictable and the damage to the environment from agribusiness and petro-chemical business is invisible to most of us, that’s why nothing changes. We’re told lies that we believe. 75 million of us do anyway. That’s what Trump (sorry to get political here) learned—that 75 million Americans will believe lies before they search for truth and he learned that all you have to do with those 75 million is to continue to lie to them. But when Amy Klobuchar was first running for US Senate here in Minnesota, she emphasized how she supported ethanol subsidies because she wanted the corn farmer votes. So the visible impacts on the economy/politics—money—hide all the invisible impacts on the environment/health. Money/energy dominate the conversation and obliterate the ability to address any real problems associated with health/environment.
Seven years ago, it became clear to me that limiting phosphorus application rate as prescribed by ISU publication pm1688 would completely solve animal manure pollution. To mitigate manure application cost simply apply manure at the nitrogen rate on a three-to-four-year rotation basis with soy beans planted in the rotation.
The latest craze to reduce nitrogen application rate is another tax payer subsidized give away. Try using less nitrogen and we will pay you $35 per acre if your yield drops below the 10-year average. Give us more money and we will stop polluting. We will voluntarily take your money but don't tell us what to do.
My final solution: Stop all agriculture and related subsidies.
All of that beautiful black dirt in Iowa being used to feed cattle and cars.
Meanwhile, Iowans are importing 90% of their food!
Thank you for making the science and data on pollution intelligible for the rest of us...
Sure "crop geneticists haven’t yet solved Derecho-force wind," but they have used it as a model for the literal shit-storm they've leveled on the land and water where we all live.
I had to read through your piece twice, Chris, but the conclusion is well-supported -- the few cherry-picked examples touted by many as having wide-spread effects of lowering nitrogen are having no discernible effect on the stated outcome. It's time for decision makers in Des Moines to put the health and safety of all Iowans (and those downstream from us) above the de$ires of the empowered few. Please keep beating the drum, Chris. We need you as a champion!
"Like" is not the correct word - thanks for spelling out the bad news!
The only thing I find surprising in your post is that the State of Iowa makes the data you used available.
I actually wonder if stuff like this might inspire them to take it down
Tracking MMP data has become impossible. Only changes are reported and good luck in following the chain of events. There was a wealth of information in the MMPs such as amount of P and N applied, amount needed by the crop, the expected yield, the amount of soil loss, the soil test P, etc.
More ugly truths revealed. Thx for your insights and presenting them.in a way few others could.
Excellent, as always. Now to make it stick in Des Moines...
Seems like significant concerned citizen participation is called for.
I read this after reading about the residual ‘stacks’ of the phosphorous? (Sorry I’m working from memory) fertilizer industry in Florida that were in the path of Hurricane Milton and have threatened the water quality there in past and caused fish kills. We were just in New Mexico where the oil wells in the southern part of the state are flared constantly and there is a widespread petroleum smell in the air that cannot be avoided in certain parts of the state. All I think of now when I drive through Iowa (went to Cedar Falls in August to fish) or any state for that matter is how much open land could be filled with solar panels, how many corn fields could be filled with solar panels instead. Yes, this would decimate the agrieconomy/farmers/agribusiness and because that is predictable and the damage to the environment from agribusiness and petro-chemical business is invisible to most of us, that’s why nothing changes. We’re told lies that we believe. 75 million of us do anyway. That’s what Trump (sorry to get political here) learned—that 75 million Americans will believe lies before they search for truth and he learned that all you have to do with those 75 million is to continue to lie to them. But when Amy Klobuchar was first running for US Senate here in Minnesota, she emphasized how she supported ethanol subsidies because she wanted the corn farmer votes. So the visible impacts on the economy/politics—money—hide all the invisible impacts on the environment/health. Money/energy dominate the conversation and obliterate the ability to address any real problems associated with health/environment.
Plus it stinks!!!
This is wisdom and truth. I am soooo tired of foolishness.
Very informative read!