Morning Read: Farmers dodge tough new manure rules
The Watertown Daily Times is reporting that the USDA has dropped a proposed rule that would have limited the spreading of manure on frozen ground.
Without the ability to spread manure in winter, north country farmers would have had to build storage facilities big enough to hold a few months’ worth of manure — costing $250,000 or more for a typical farm, critics said.
“We are very pleased to see the USDA take a rational approach in creating the guidelines for family farms regarding nutrient management,” Rep. William L. Owens, D-Plattsburgh, said in a news release.
“I was happy to work with the New York Farm Bureau this year to address serious concerns their members had with the initial draft policy when it was released.”
Environmental groups and many scientists have long argued that the practice of spreading manure on frozen ground results in far more phosphorous run-off into streams and lakes.
Phosphorous contamination has been a major issue in the North Country, from the Black River to Lake Champlain. Read the WDT’s full article here.
Tags: agriculture, economy, environment
Farmers are great stweards of the land, until it affects their bottom line.
$250,000?! Really? For a “typical” local farm?
What’s missed here is that the reason for the rule is to prevent runoff into our waterways. The same runoff that is bad for all of us is also bad for the farmer– they’re going to the trouble and expense of spreading the stuff, but getting less benefit from it.
As long as the spreading is done on fields and away from lakes and streams, I don’t see a problem.
On the other hand, I would hope the honey wagons don’t drop any of the stuff on the roads. Could be very slippery.
Pete, when manure is spread on frozen ground, it almost invariably is transported into lakes and streams as part of the ‘spring runoff’ that occurs as the snow melts above the frozen ground. The run off carries all the nutrients, and sometimes nasty pathogens, into our waterways.
Global warming should solve this problem for us. I don’t think the ground will freeze this year.
Farmer question. Is it better to spread manure on frozen of thawed ground? These comments are nice attacks of farmers, who actually are good stewards. And if they are driven out of business there will be far worse environmental impacts from the development that will follow them so I think it behooves us all to find a solution that works for everyone.
Tom L’s comment and my comment are not attacks on farmers. The best thing for the farmer and for the rest of the world is to store manure in a covered area until spring, and to spread it then. That way the manure rots, which is better for the soil, and it doesn’t run off into streams and lakes where it would have fed algal growth. It also doesn’t do the farmer’s soil any good when it runs off– the whole idea is for it to become part of the soil and fertilize the farmer’s crop.
The problem is the cost of the structure. I think $250,000 is an exaggerated figure for the average north country farm, though I could be wrong. We could make it easier on the farmer with tax credits and/or low cost loans. But we’re not doing anyone any favors by pretending that the status quo is hunky dory.
“Tom L’s comment and my comment are not attacks on farmers.”
I stand corrected there.
The first comment is.
“The best thing for the farmer and for the rest of the world is to store manure in a covered area until spring, and to spread it then”
Walker, thanks that was my question. I am no farmer so I figured that maybe there was some kind of advantage to spreading manure in stages like you see being done in the winter.
So the only issue is storage?
If you lose these farms (as we see happening all around us now) you will have bigger problems to deal with.
Paul, I agree that it’s probably a good thing that these regs weren’t implemented as if the farmers could just turn their vast reserves of ready cash into nifty new manure storage facilities at the drop of a hat. You’re right, we need to hang onto all the farmers we’ve got! But ideally, we would turn around and craft a regulation that would protect the environment and actually help the farmer at the same time, preferably without accidentally providing a subsidy for operations that don’t actually need help to do it right. Tall order, but probably do-able if you could keep big agribiz lobbyists out of the process.
Farmers have a year-round disposal problem but don’t want to be limited by frozen ground in the winter. And in the winter they are mostly disposing of it if it runs off in the spring. Agricultural runoff in any season is one of the biggest contributors to water pollution. Lake Champlain and Chesapeake Bay are prime examples.
Yes there are restrictions that would help, like applying to mostly level fields, keeping a certain distance away from streams and drainage swales, etc. But the Farm Bureau doesn’t like regulations on the farmers and obviously they influenced this legislation.
“Paul, I agree that it’s probably a good thing that these regs weren’t implemented”
Walker I think you are reading into my comments. Where did I suggest that I thought that it was a good idea that these regulations were not implemented?
You may not be able to craft a regulation that helps the farmer and the environment at the same time.
“Where did I suggest that I thought that it was a good idea that these regulations were not implemented?” –Fair enough.
“You may not be able to craft a regulation that helps the farmer and the environment at the same time.” That’s easy, as long as you don’t worry about taxpayers or the deficit– fully fund the construction of manure storage facilities at public expense. It’s only when you bring in all the stakeholders that it gets tricky.
Wouldn’t it be great if they brought in “tough new manure rules” in Washington?
Walker,
If I read you correctly, I think we need regulations to stop those in Washington and Albany from spreading the manure.
“Wouldn’t it be great if they brought in “tough new manure rules” in Washington?”
I wonder if John Kerry even knows where milk comes from.
By the way, many farmers know how to grow cover crops to keep soil nutrients from running off. They don’t need a shed to store manure.
One of the forces at work here is the mindset that politicians know everything, and farmers know nothing. While it is not exactly accurate to say that the opposite is true, I’d bet my money on the farmer knowing what is best.
JDM, when ground is frozen, a cover crop won’t stop manure from running off when the surface melts.
This is the norm these days. Farmers exaggerate their case. Environmentalists exaggerate their case and we are left stuck in the middle.
Then you look at the electorate. Over on the left Walker thinks that only the farmers are exaggerating and over on the right JDM probably thinks that only the environmentalists are guilty.
This is why we have gridlock.
Oh, there ought to be a law! There’s a problem or two with trying to affect change by legislation. Government and manure are only connected figuratively. Unintended consequences and the interference of special interests ruin such attempts.
Couldn’t there be a more direct way to influence the solution? Farmers want the manure to stay on their fields and out of the streams. Would the existance of an economicaly feasable solution that causes less labor and expense for the farmer and less nutrients in the waters need the force of legislation?
Kent Gregson
Let the farmers do what they want and kill the lakes. Problem solved.