By taxpayer largess for crop subsidies and insurance and mandated "choice" of 10% corn ethanol at the gas pump, we non-farmers are also paying for those train cars of excess nitrogen flowing under the bridges. So, yeah, we get the costs -- capital, environmental, ecological, health, climatic and aesthetic -- of the "freedom to farm" in all its undemocratic and unaccountable ways. So, give us the "choice" of 15% corn ethanol and save us from the evil EV socialists!
thank you Lou. And to think the Music Man and its scam was set in River City...and Iowans continue to buy the artificially sweetened and tax payer supportered virtues of corn
Great copy; revelatory, even. But help me with the science: What is the alternative disposition (to field-spreading) of the nitrogen in manure? Buried deep like carbon dioxide?
nitrogen in manure can be in many forms--nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, amino acids, urea, uric acid, and more. In the presence of oxygen, all forms ultimately are oxidized to nitrate. On its way to nitrate, ammonia is oxidized to intermediate forms of nitrogen--Nitrous Oxide (N2O) and nitric oxide (NO). N2O is a greenhouse gas with 300x more warming potential than CO2. Ideally manure nutrients aligned with the crop needs where it is applied, creating a mass balance. when manure nutrients exceed the capacity of plants to assimilate the nutrients, pollution results. the response to this should be 1) reduce animal numbers to align with crop nutrient needs or 2) haul manure out of the watershed. Number 2 usually is not very economically feasible because manure contains a lot of water (except poultry manure) and hauling costs may exceed the nutrient value contained within the manure.
It's not the NRCS, EPC, IDALS, IDNR, fertilizer salesman, ethanol plant, hogs, cattle, dairy, or even the politicians that over applies phosphorus and nitrogen on their farm fields. Nope, none of these. The only one left is family, cares about water quality, good steward of the land, lives here, feeds the world, fuels the world, and brings economic success to our poor neighborhood. How could we say anything bad about the one and only one that's causing surface and ground water pollution? Must be the "Iowa Nice" in us all.
Very informative read. I feel it was probably an agreed deal for Koch to end up with it originally, I don't believe Koch could have gotten it built if they did it. Nitrogen instability is definitely a concern. In my area I see more and more producers split applications of N so spread it out as plant needs it and then also spread risk of larger rains taking off with it. Believe it or not a producer cares about N loss as it it is an important and expensive input. The corn plant needs a higher percentage at tasseling/ear setting time, it's reproduction phase. Many producers I know are putting a percentage of N on at this time with high clearance motorized sprayer equipment. This is not an easy task trying different ways to get the N to the base of the plants, trying not to run over high investment crop and not drive operator bonkers. Once again remember the ethanol mkt is just another market for yellow corn and a by-product of the process is used in livestock diets to use less yellow corn and SBM. So..... if didn't make ethanol we'd probably raise about the same amt of corn!! Finding a non N needed third crop that has a DEPENDABLE market, not requiring a lot of specialized equipment from what they have for corn/SB production, fits with our climate and of course has a ROI (return on investment) is still very important. Unfortunately we have yet to find one, and don't blame producers as they'd jump on it.
About 30% of the calories in corn grown for ethanol ends up in DDGs, 70% in the ethanol. So the idea that livestock would just absorb all the existing corn for ethanol probably is not correct.
I understand that some farmers are modifying their application strategies. But here again the controlling variable when it comes to water quality is RATE. We’ve known that for decades. You can split 300 lbs every which way but if that’s what we’re committed to, then there’s going to be a problem.
I'm not familiar with the DDG's/ethanol calorie split for corn. True LS would not utilize all this corn, the supply would likely bring down price paid to producers and make our exports more competitive in world mkt. helping offset this countries addiction to foreign made goods. Currently I don't believe as a country we'll raise less corn, only more, short of a major depression.
From experience a uncontrollable variable is rain. Unpredictable time of big rain at wrong time can take much applied N. By splitting apps more can be being used by plant and less available for loss. As I said their are producers trying to meet the challenges of applying N at tasseling/ear setting time when plant needs the most and is least likely to be lost. One problem is the much higher cost of the liquid N/unit used at this time.
When u talk of tons of nitrogen, are u talking of the product or the N units in product? A ton of anhydrous ammonia is 82% N, 1640 units of N. So... your 300# is actually 246 units of N, which is close to what most corn on corn producers would use from what we know from testing and experience. Now, 28% UAN (liquid) has 560 units N/2000# ton. There is a 32% also. These are much higher price per unit of N. Used mostly for some N on with planter, some as carrier with herbicide instead of water, some for sidedressing (injected applying after crop is up) and at tasseling. As u see these all are splitting the amt/application. Needless to say less chances of loss, especially the later in the production year the better. So you see now a producer could put on 246 units of N (300# total product) and lose very little of the applied N.
Oh, by the way your picture you posted of those anhydrous tanks sitting in a possible flood plane, I believe it was by Nichols, was a good laugh by many that know. Those tanks, look closely, have WHEELS. If a flood is coming there would be plenty of time to MOVE these tanks and I guarantee you they would me moved to higher ground. I realize many of your followers know no different but producers and ag do.
Thanks again and I really enjoy communicating, learning, clarifying and educating you and everyone.
I took the anhydrous picture at Elkader. They might have wheels but when you have dozens or hundreds of them and it rains 4" overnight, good luck.
I convert all N products to "as N"
Blaming unpredictable weather is bunk. The range of possible weather conditions in Iowa are known. You can design your farming system to account for that, or not. Crops grown are part of that. All you are doing when you blame weather is admitting that you prioritize production over environmental outcomes.
If you apply 300 units and the corn doesn't have the capacity to assimilate 300 units, you are going to lose the surplus to the surrounding environment. That is the whole point of the piece. Sure it may sit there for a while until the "unpredictable" rains return and wash it down to the tiles and utilmately the stream network. Only in the rarest of years will a corn crop be able to assimilate 300 lbs/ac. But farmers shoot for that because they aren't held responsible for the environmental outcomes.
If you’ve applied only 20 lbs extra on 500 ac over 40 years, you’ve wasted $200k. At least. 40 lbs extra on 1000 ac, $800k. I understand that farmers (or any human being) are not going to bring themselves to that sort of admission easily. All you can do is to tenaciously maintain that you had to do it and that you made the right decision. You could have bought or rented land with that wasted money and made more money. There are likely millions of acres in Iowa that could be farmed most profitably with < 100 lbs N, but here we are. Colossal waste and the resulting pollution.
Thank u for responding, very enjoyable. On the nurse tank pic, u said weather is predictable. The owner/manager of the tanks would know if a 4" rain is coming and watching the present river level and take precautionary action. These are not stupid people and if the company has 'hundreds' of tanks they have a lot of employees and vehicles to move them fast.
Glad to know you use the nitrogen numbers as actual N. Now others know.
I must point our there is NO WAY to know at the beginning of a production season the exact amt of N to apply. As is known in production agriculture there are so many variables affecting N. In ONE farm field there can be many soil types (heavy, dark, lighter soils, sandy), Organic Matter (can range from <2% to 5%>) and other factors that has direct relationship. Once again saying blaming weather for SOME losses is not bunk. If a person can predict dry springs and growing season like last couple years in different areas of the state and the wet this year with accuracy you're definitely in wrong business.
Your math for N use for 40 yrs needs some major adjustment. WOW. 40 years ago I was paying in the area of $125/T for Ammonia, 7.6 cents /unit x your 20 units is $1.52/A. Over 40 years it has crept up but for $200K divided by 40 yrs = $5,000 divided by 500A = $10A divided by 20#= $.050/ unit of N x 1640 units of N/T of ammonia is cost of $820/T for 40 years. NO WAY corn producers have averaged $820 for 40 years, correct? In my area about 3 yrs ago saw ammonia sky rocket to about $1400, last year down down considerably this year it's in $800 area, can usually buy summer ahead about $200 less/T. Now I realize there are some adjustment to these prices in different areas of the state. Just so all understand.
Important wording u use is 'IF use 300 units of N'. In past u make it sound sometimes that for some reading this that 300# applied N is the norm and I know darn well it's not though I would not dispute there are unfortunately some do. With N price being such a high cost in the production of corn many are lowering the use with technology. For one thing I've done some checking in my area and for C on C, though not much C-C here, 200-225units applied N plus maybe 15 to 20 units in the 10-34-0 is close to the norm. For corn following SB 150 units is common up to 225 depending on soil type. Also as I've pointed out more than once most are doing split applications to put on total N. It only makes common sense if split total into 3-4 apps then a producers chances are much better to miss a unexpected heavy rain and lose some but also we can spoon feed the N as plant needs and uses it. Also there are N stabilizer products used like N Serve at $15/A especially in fall applied ammonia no matter applied rate. Nutra Charge for the dry urea for somewhere around $2/A.
I totally agree that there is nitrate problems in our water. I feel many changes in N use are happening in corn production, unfortunately not as fast as some would like. As farm operations get larger they'll be able to afford the tools available and coming to use such to better manage of the nutrient needs of crops. They can come at a high cost that need to be divided by more acres/operation to justify the expense.
Iowa has right at 30 million acres farm land, down 600,000 from 2022 due partially to urban sprawl, highways etc. The sprawl takes a lot of our good level higher producing soils. In 2023 Iowa 12.6 million acres corn, 200,000 more acres corn than '22. But you say there is likely millions of acres could be profitably with less than 100 units of N. To me that could be a stretch.
The vast majority (greater than 90%) of Manure Management Plans filed with the Hardin County Court House indicates 179 pounds phosphorus per acre is applied with a crop utilization rate of 59 pounds per are. The corresponding P Index calculation indicates this is on soil that tests high to very high. Our own Pine Lake in Hardin County is algae impaired due to excess phosphorus, 86% from farm field runoff. Perhaps you could share some of your intellectual prowess, sit us down, and educate us all on why farmers would apply this much phosphorus on soil that does not need any at all.
I do not know what the manure mgmt plans here in Washington Co. would say amt of phosphorus applied is. In my area here in Washington Co. I would guess the majority of the liquid manure is applied every other year when going to corn as most here is in Corn/SB rotation. So applied in one yr would be filed for 2 yrs removal. My most recent manure test for phosphorus expressed as P205 was 22.3#/1000 gal x 5k gallon applied = 111. My soil tests taken on 2.5 A. grids are still in Med range on soils in the 80's of CSR2. I can't speak for everyone just things I understand and know from experience. There is no way I can explain why what is happening in Hardin county and why there are some doing as you say. I do love to share what I know which is helping others to know a little more. I also realize there are problems and issues in some ag production states.
I just pulled up a MMP for Hardin County. It seems the manure up here is a lot hotter than in your area. P2O5 in our manure comes in at 39 pounds/1000 gallons. Nearly twice as hot. Manure was applied at 5117.6 gallons yielding 199.6 pounds p205 per acre. Crop utilization comes in at 62.9 pounds P2O5 per acre for this MMP.
I've suggested rotating fields where manure is applied on a 3 to 4 year basis, reducing P applied to the "feed acre rate". That is, apply manure on the same number of acres that it took to feed the animals. This has a limited acceptance when single buildings are involved. Field and/or soybean-corn rotation becomes problematic when large clusters of buildings are involved. Just not enough land for the amount of manure produced. Bottom line, we pay for this in poor water quality, lost enjoyment of our property, lost recreation revenue, and higher taxes.
Thank you for sharing your data. A rare occurrence.
I appreciate your info. Large cluster of buildings, I presume u mean per site) is not common here at all. Usually 1-2 1200 or 2400 hd finishers/ site. Sometimes 3-4 1200's / site. Even though we are the largest hog county in state hog barns are spread out to be nearer to be applied. Also there is quite a bit of Phytase used here in diets to reduce the phosphorus. Also there are businesses that truck by semi's to fields farther away, especially where finishing manure has never been applied.
This is very excellent and informative and well written article. THIS IS NEWS
By taxpayer largess for crop subsidies and insurance and mandated "choice" of 10% corn ethanol at the gas pump, we non-farmers are also paying for those train cars of excess nitrogen flowing under the bridges. So, yeah, we get the costs -- capital, environmental, ecological, health, climatic and aesthetic -- of the "freedom to farm" in all its undemocratic and unaccountable ways. So, give us the "choice" of 15% corn ethanol and save us from the evil EV socialists!
thank you Lou. And to think the Music Man and its scam was set in River City...and Iowans continue to buy the artificially sweetened and tax payer supportered virtues of corn
You are our warrior, Chris. Keep your words flowing. Please don't ever give up. Thankyou,
Tom Scherer
Great copy; revelatory, even. But help me with the science: What is the alternative disposition (to field-spreading) of the nitrogen in manure? Buried deep like carbon dioxide?
nitrogen in manure can be in many forms--nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, amino acids, urea, uric acid, and more. In the presence of oxygen, all forms ultimately are oxidized to nitrate. On its way to nitrate, ammonia is oxidized to intermediate forms of nitrogen--Nitrous Oxide (N2O) and nitric oxide (NO). N2O is a greenhouse gas with 300x more warming potential than CO2. Ideally manure nutrients aligned with the crop needs where it is applied, creating a mass balance. when manure nutrients exceed the capacity of plants to assimilate the nutrients, pollution results. the response to this should be 1) reduce animal numbers to align with crop nutrient needs or 2) haul manure out of the watershed. Number 2 usually is not very economically feasible because manure contains a lot of water (except poultry manure) and hauling costs may exceed the nutrient value contained within the manure.
A very good article
How many pounds of commercial phosphorus does Iowa purchase every year?
It's not the NRCS, EPC, IDALS, IDNR, fertilizer salesman, ethanol plant, hogs, cattle, dairy, or even the politicians that over applies phosphorus and nitrogen on their farm fields. Nope, none of these. The only one left is family, cares about water quality, good steward of the land, lives here, feeds the world, fuels the world, and brings economic success to our poor neighborhood. How could we say anything bad about the one and only one that's causing surface and ground water pollution? Must be the "Iowa Nice" in us all.
Have you talked with Christine? If not let's get you two connected!
Have you talked with Christine? If not we need to get you connected
Very informative read. I feel it was probably an agreed deal for Koch to end up with it originally, I don't believe Koch could have gotten it built if they did it. Nitrogen instability is definitely a concern. In my area I see more and more producers split applications of N so spread it out as plant needs it and then also spread risk of larger rains taking off with it. Believe it or not a producer cares about N loss as it it is an important and expensive input. The corn plant needs a higher percentage at tasseling/ear setting time, it's reproduction phase. Many producers I know are putting a percentage of N on at this time with high clearance motorized sprayer equipment. This is not an easy task trying different ways to get the N to the base of the plants, trying not to run over high investment crop and not drive operator bonkers. Once again remember the ethanol mkt is just another market for yellow corn and a by-product of the process is used in livestock diets to use less yellow corn and SBM. So..... if didn't make ethanol we'd probably raise about the same amt of corn!! Finding a non N needed third crop that has a DEPENDABLE market, not requiring a lot of specialized equipment from what they have for corn/SB production, fits with our climate and of course has a ROI (return on investment) is still very important. Unfortunately we have yet to find one, and don't blame producers as they'd jump on it.
About 30% of the calories in corn grown for ethanol ends up in DDGs, 70% in the ethanol. So the idea that livestock would just absorb all the existing corn for ethanol probably is not correct.
I understand that some farmers are modifying their application strategies. But here again the controlling variable when it comes to water quality is RATE. We’ve known that for decades. You can split 300 lbs every which way but if that’s what we’re committed to, then there’s going to be a problem.
Thanks for reading and the comment.
I'm not familiar with the DDG's/ethanol calorie split for corn. True LS would not utilize all this corn, the supply would likely bring down price paid to producers and make our exports more competitive in world mkt. helping offset this countries addiction to foreign made goods. Currently I don't believe as a country we'll raise less corn, only more, short of a major depression.
From experience a uncontrollable variable is rain. Unpredictable time of big rain at wrong time can take much applied N. By splitting apps more can be being used by plant and less available for loss. As I said their are producers trying to meet the challenges of applying N at tasseling/ear setting time when plant needs the most and is least likely to be lost. One problem is the much higher cost of the liquid N/unit used at this time.
When u talk of tons of nitrogen, are u talking of the product or the N units in product? A ton of anhydrous ammonia is 82% N, 1640 units of N. So... your 300# is actually 246 units of N, which is close to what most corn on corn producers would use from what we know from testing and experience. Now, 28% UAN (liquid) has 560 units N/2000# ton. There is a 32% also. These are much higher price per unit of N. Used mostly for some N on with planter, some as carrier with herbicide instead of water, some for sidedressing (injected applying after crop is up) and at tasseling. As u see these all are splitting the amt/application. Needless to say less chances of loss, especially the later in the production year the better. So you see now a producer could put on 246 units of N (300# total product) and lose very little of the applied N.
Oh, by the way your picture you posted of those anhydrous tanks sitting in a possible flood plane, I believe it was by Nichols, was a good laugh by many that know. Those tanks, look closely, have WHEELS. If a flood is coming there would be plenty of time to MOVE these tanks and I guarantee you they would me moved to higher ground. I realize many of your followers know no different but producers and ag do.
Thanks again and I really enjoy communicating, learning, clarifying and educating you and everyone.
I took the anhydrous picture at Elkader. They might have wheels but when you have dozens or hundreds of them and it rains 4" overnight, good luck.
I convert all N products to "as N"
Blaming unpredictable weather is bunk. The range of possible weather conditions in Iowa are known. You can design your farming system to account for that, or not. Crops grown are part of that. All you are doing when you blame weather is admitting that you prioritize production over environmental outcomes.
If you apply 300 units and the corn doesn't have the capacity to assimilate 300 units, you are going to lose the surplus to the surrounding environment. That is the whole point of the piece. Sure it may sit there for a while until the "unpredictable" rains return and wash it down to the tiles and utilmately the stream network. Only in the rarest of years will a corn crop be able to assimilate 300 lbs/ac. But farmers shoot for that because they aren't held responsible for the environmental outcomes.
If you’ve applied only 20 lbs extra on 500 ac over 40 years, you’ve wasted $200k. At least. 40 lbs extra on 1000 ac, $800k. I understand that farmers (or any human being) are not going to bring themselves to that sort of admission easily. All you can do is to tenaciously maintain that you had to do it and that you made the right decision. You could have bought or rented land with that wasted money and made more money. There are likely millions of acres in Iowa that could be farmed most profitably with < 100 lbs N, but here we are. Colossal waste and the resulting pollution.
Thank u for responding, very enjoyable. On the nurse tank pic, u said weather is predictable. The owner/manager of the tanks would know if a 4" rain is coming and watching the present river level and take precautionary action. These are not stupid people and if the company has 'hundreds' of tanks they have a lot of employees and vehicles to move them fast.
Glad to know you use the nitrogen numbers as actual N. Now others know.
I must point our there is NO WAY to know at the beginning of a production season the exact amt of N to apply. As is known in production agriculture there are so many variables affecting N. In ONE farm field there can be many soil types (heavy, dark, lighter soils, sandy), Organic Matter (can range from <2% to 5%>) and other factors that has direct relationship. Once again saying blaming weather for SOME losses is not bunk. If a person can predict dry springs and growing season like last couple years in different areas of the state and the wet this year with accuracy you're definitely in wrong business.
Your math for N use for 40 yrs needs some major adjustment. WOW. 40 years ago I was paying in the area of $125/T for Ammonia, 7.6 cents /unit x your 20 units is $1.52/A. Over 40 years it has crept up but for $200K divided by 40 yrs = $5,000 divided by 500A = $10A divided by 20#= $.050/ unit of N x 1640 units of N/T of ammonia is cost of $820/T for 40 years. NO WAY corn producers have averaged $820 for 40 years, correct? In my area about 3 yrs ago saw ammonia sky rocket to about $1400, last year down down considerably this year it's in $800 area, can usually buy summer ahead about $200 less/T. Now I realize there are some adjustment to these prices in different areas of the state. Just so all understand.
Important wording u use is 'IF use 300 units of N'. In past u make it sound sometimes that for some reading this that 300# applied N is the norm and I know darn well it's not though I would not dispute there are unfortunately some do. With N price being such a high cost in the production of corn many are lowering the use with technology. For one thing I've done some checking in my area and for C on C, though not much C-C here, 200-225units applied N plus maybe 15 to 20 units in the 10-34-0 is close to the norm. For corn following SB 150 units is common up to 225 depending on soil type. Also as I've pointed out more than once most are doing split applications to put on total N. It only makes common sense if split total into 3-4 apps then a producers chances are much better to miss a unexpected heavy rain and lose some but also we can spoon feed the N as plant needs and uses it. Also there are N stabilizer products used like N Serve at $15/A especially in fall applied ammonia no matter applied rate. Nutra Charge for the dry urea for somewhere around $2/A.
I totally agree that there is nitrate problems in our water. I feel many changes in N use are happening in corn production, unfortunately not as fast as some would like. As farm operations get larger they'll be able to afford the tools available and coming to use such to better manage of the nutrient needs of crops. They can come at a high cost that need to be divided by more acres/operation to justify the expense.
Iowa has right at 30 million acres farm land, down 600,000 from 2022 due partially to urban sprawl, highways etc. The sprawl takes a lot of our good level higher producing soils. In 2023 Iowa 12.6 million acres corn, 200,000 more acres corn than '22. But you say there is likely millions of acres could be profitably with less than 100 units of N. To me that could be a stretch.
Thanks, keep in touch.
The vast majority (greater than 90%) of Manure Management Plans filed with the Hardin County Court House indicates 179 pounds phosphorus per acre is applied with a crop utilization rate of 59 pounds per are. The corresponding P Index calculation indicates this is on soil that tests high to very high. Our own Pine Lake in Hardin County is algae impaired due to excess phosphorus, 86% from farm field runoff. Perhaps you could share some of your intellectual prowess, sit us down, and educate us all on why farmers would apply this much phosphorus on soil that does not need any at all.
I do not know what the manure mgmt plans here in Washington Co. would say amt of phosphorus applied is. In my area here in Washington Co. I would guess the majority of the liquid manure is applied every other year when going to corn as most here is in Corn/SB rotation. So applied in one yr would be filed for 2 yrs removal. My most recent manure test for phosphorus expressed as P205 was 22.3#/1000 gal x 5k gallon applied = 111. My soil tests taken on 2.5 A. grids are still in Med range on soils in the 80's of CSR2. I can't speak for everyone just things I understand and know from experience. There is no way I can explain why what is happening in Hardin county and why there are some doing as you say. I do love to share what I know which is helping others to know a little more. I also realize there are problems and issues in some ag production states.
I just pulled up a MMP for Hardin County. It seems the manure up here is a lot hotter than in your area. P2O5 in our manure comes in at 39 pounds/1000 gallons. Nearly twice as hot. Manure was applied at 5117.6 gallons yielding 199.6 pounds p205 per acre. Crop utilization comes in at 62.9 pounds P2O5 per acre for this MMP.
I've suggested rotating fields where manure is applied on a 3 to 4 year basis, reducing P applied to the "feed acre rate". That is, apply manure on the same number of acres that it took to feed the animals. This has a limited acceptance when single buildings are involved. Field and/or soybean-corn rotation becomes problematic when large clusters of buildings are involved. Just not enough land for the amount of manure produced. Bottom line, we pay for this in poor water quality, lost enjoyment of our property, lost recreation revenue, and higher taxes.
Thank you for sharing your data. A rare occurrence.
I appreciate your info. Large cluster of buildings, I presume u mean per site) is not common here at all. Usually 1-2 1200 or 2400 hd finishers/ site. Sometimes 3-4 1200's / site. Even though we are the largest hog county in state hog barns are spread out to be nearer to be applied. Also there is quite a bit of Phytase used here in diets to reduce the phosphorus. Also there are businesses that truck by semi's to fields farther away, especially where finishing manure has never been applied.
Where is Bohanan on this?
She’s pro ethanol as far as I know