Tag: nitrogen

Cities Cope With Pesticide Pollution

  • Farmers are using fewer pesticides these days. (photo by Don Breneman)

Today, we continue our series on pollution in the heartland. Farm pollution is one of the biggest contamination problems in the country. But unlike other industries, there are very few pollution restrictions on agriculture. In the second story of our week-long series, the GLRC’s Lester Graham reports when cities clean up pollution from pesticides, the cost ends up on their citizens’ water bills:

Transcript

Today, we continue our series on pollution in the heartland. Farm pollution is one of the biggest
contamination problems in the country. But unlike other industries, there are very few pollution
restrictions on agriculture. In the second story of our week-long series, the GLRC’s Lester
Graham reports when cities clean up pollution from pesticides the cost ends up on their citizens’
water bills:


Every city in the Corn Belt that gets its water from surface supplies such as lakes and rivers has to
deal with pesticide contamination. For the most part, the pesticide levels are below federal
standards for safe drinking water. But water treatment plants have to test for the chemicals and
other pollutants that wash in from farm fields.


Some cities have had to build artificial wetlands or take other more expensive measures to help
reduce pollution such as nitrogen, phosphorous and pesticides.


Craig Cummings is the Water Director for the City of Bloomington, Illinois.


“Well, you know, it is an expense that, you know, we would rather not bear, obviously. We
don’t, you know, particularly like to pass that on to our customers. But, again, it’s understood
that we’re not going to have crystal clear, pristine waters here in the Midwest. But, that’s not to
say that we should stick our head in the sand and not work with the producers. At least here in
our little neck of the woods we think we have a great working relationship with the producers.”


Part of that working relationship is a liaison with the farmers.


Jim Rutheford has worked with farmers in the area on soil conservation issues for decades. He’s
showing me the artificial wetlands that the City of Bloomington is monitoring to see if it can help
reduce some of the contaminants that end up in the city’s water supply. The wetlands reduce
nitrogen runoff and filter out some of the pesticides such as atrazine that otherwise would end up
in Bloomington’s lake.


“The atrazine was used back several years ago in high concentrated amounts. Its effects were if
you get a flush of rain after your atrazine is put on, it comes into the lake.”


Rutherford says for a very long time atrazine has been popular with corn farmers.


“It’s the cheapest, but it’s also gives more problems as far as water quality is concerned.”


Because atrazine has been so popular, a lot of farmers use it and it’s polluted some lakes to the
point they exceeded safe drinking water standards.


In one test during spring applications of atrazine, National Oceanic and Atmospherica
Administration scientists found so much of the chemical had evaporated from Midwest farm
fields that rain in some parts of the East Coast had atrazine levels that exceeded safe drinking
water levels.


But atrazine levels have been going down. It’s not so much because of artificial wetlands or
because farmers are concerned about pesticide pollution, although some of them have expressed
concern. Atrazine has not been as much of a problem because more and more farmers are
switching to genetically modified crops such as Round-Up Ready soybeans and more recently
Round-Up Ready corn. The Monsanto seed is genetically altered so that the Monsanto pesticide,
Round-Up, can be applied to the fields and not hurt the crops. And Round-Up doesn’t cause the
kind of water pollution that atrazine does.


Mike Kelly is a farmer who’s concerned about reducing storm water runoff from farm fields.


“A lot of the herbicides that we’re using attack the plant, not the soil. For example, Round-Up
does not hang around in the soil. Now, I do still use atrazine. It does attach to soil particles. But
there’s where the advantage of no-till–the soil staying put in the field–as you said, we’re not
getting as much erosion, so it stays put and breaks down the way it’s supposed to.”


Kelly use a conservation tillage method that doesn’t plow up the soil the way traditional methods
do. That means less soil erosion so pesticides aren’t as likely to end up in waterways. And Kelly says low-till and no-till methods are beginning to get a hand from nature:


“Definitely conservation tillage and no-till is going to help keep herbicides in the field. Again, he
do see increased infiltration through better soil structure and also through earthworms coming
back, creating holes about the size of a pencil three to four feet deep in our soils. That is a nice
avenue for water to infiltrate rather than run off.”


And if more of the water percolates down into the soil, less of it is going to end up polluting
water supplies such as the City of Bloomington’s lake.


Water Director Craig Cummings says they city encourages voluntary efforts like Mike Kelly’s.
Cummings says the city depends on the farming community too much to point a finger, accusing
farmers of pollution.


“We recognize that we’re in the breadbasket of the world here. And we’re going to see with the
kind of agricultural practices that we have here in the Midwest or United States, we’re going to
see some of these contaminants.”


Cummings says it’s not a matter of eliminating pesticide contamination at the source, but
rather a matter of the city keeping levels low enough that the water is safe to drink.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Study: Land Use Patterns Altering Earth

  • Everybody has basic needs: food, water, and shelter. A study says that these needs are rapidly changing the earth we live on. (Photo courtesy of NASA)

Some scientists contend that land use by humans has become a top threat to the planet’s ecosystems. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Some scientists contend that land use by humans has become a top threat to the planet’s ecosystem. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports.


People in cities and towns often spend hours debating local land use issues, but a group of scientists says there should also be a focus on the larger topic of widespread conversion of natural landscapes to uses like urban development and agriculture.


Jonathan Foley is a climatologist at the University of Wisconsin – Madison and lead author of a new study published in the journal Science. He says the Midwest sees its share of large land use changes.


“We grow a lot of corn and soybeans and other crops. But we do so, unfortunately, with quite a bit of damage to some of our environment: water quality, leaching of nitrogen and phosphorus into our lakes and groundwater and streams.”


Foley says the Midwest could look at changing farm subsidy programs to help farmers use better environmental practices. Globally, he says six billion people are competing for food, water, and shelter, and their land use decisions are transforming the planet.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Epa Rules on Meat Processing Waste

  • To go from these chickens... (photo by Romula Zanini)

The largest meat and poultry processing plants in the country must follow new rules regarding how much pollution they release into waterways. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Weber reports:

Transcript

The largest meat and poultry processing plants in the country now must follow new
rules regarding how much pollution they release into waterways. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Tom Weber reports:


The new rules apply to about 170 plants in the country that turn cows and chickens into
hamburgers or filets. Wastes will have to contain fewer nutrients like ammonia and nitrogen
before it’s released into water. Mary Smith heads a division within the Water Office of the
Environmental Protection Agency. She says the rules are not as strict as when first proposed.
That’s in part because of concerns from the industries that it would cost too much. Smith
says the limits are tougher than what the law was before. But she adds these aren’t the only
industries that release waste into the water.


“So we can’t really kind of single out the meat industry, necessarily. Everyone, in a sense,
needs to do their part. But it’s another piece of the puzzle in terms of getting cleaner water.”


The new rules mark the first time poultry plants will have these kinds of limits. The EPA
estimates meat and poultry plants use 150 billion gallons of water each year. That water needs
to be cleaned of wastes like manure, blood, and feathers before it’s discharged.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tom Weber.

Related Links

Streamside Forests Play Role in Pollution Cleanup

Scientists have known for years that streamside forests help stop certain pollutants from entering the waterway. But new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that those forests have added benefits. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris Lehman reports:

Transcript

Scientists have known for years that streamside forests help stop
certain pollutants from entering the waterway. But new research
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
shows that those forests have added benefits. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Chris Lehman reports:


Steams that flow through forests tend to be wider and slower than those
that flow through meadows or urban areas. Scientists say that creates
an environment that can actually help clean up a polluted waterway.


Bernard Sweeney is the director of the Stroud Water Research Center in
Pennsylvania. He says their research points to a direct relationship
between woods and water.


“You put a forest along a small stream, it creates a more natural and
wider stream channel; that in turn provides more habitat, more
available ecosystem which in turn enables a stream to do more work for
us like processing nitrogen and organic matter.”


Sweeney says government programs that offer incentives to create
natural streamside buffers should do more to specifically encourage
reforestation. He says grass buffers don’t have the same cleansing
effect on waterways.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chris Lehman.

Related Links

The Foibles of Suburban Lawn Care

  • Although a well-manicured lawn offers certain benefits... not everyone thinks it's worth the effort. (Photo by Ed Herrmann)

One of the great rituals in suburban America is mowing the lawn. A manicured lawn seems to say that the house is well cared for, that it belongs to the neighborhood. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Ed Herrmann wonders whether this obsession for the perfect lawn is worth the effort:

Transcript

One of the great rituals in suburban America is mowing the lawn. A
manicured lawn seems to say that the house is well cared for, that it belongs
to the neighborhood. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Ed
Herrmann wonders whether this obsession with the perfect lawn is worth the
effort:


(sound of evening insects)


It’s a late summer evening and at last I can go outside and enjoy the
sounds of the neighborhood. There’s a little breeze, the air is cooler. The
chorus of insects is soothing, gentle but insistent, an ancient throbbing
resonance. Much better than during the day…


(roar of lawn machines)


Summer days in the suburbs are the time of assault, when people attack their
lawns with powerful weapons from the chemical and manufacturing
industries. Anyone who uses the words “quiet” and “suburbs” in the same
sentence has never been to a suburb, at least not in summer.


It takes a lot of noise to maintain a lawn. Besides the mower, you’ve got edgers, trimmers,
leaf blowers, weed whackers, core aerators, little tractors, big tractors, slitting
machines. I don’t know whatever happened to rakes and hand clippers. One
thing’s for sure. This quest for lawn perfection wouldn’t be possible without
the industrial revolution.


(machines stop)


So where did we get the idea that a house should be surrounded by a field of
uniform grass kept at the same height?


Well, with apologies to the Queen, I’m afraid we must blame the British. It
seems that, along with our language, our imperial ambitions and our
ambivalent morals, America also gets its notion of what a lawn should look
like from the English. Of course, the estates of the English aristocracy were
tended by a staff of gardeners. England also has a milder climate, and the
grass that looks so nice there doesn’t do as well in North America. In the
1930’s the USDA came up with a blend of imported grasses that would
tolerate our climate. Since these grasses are not native, they need help, and
that calls for fertilizers, pesticides and lots of extra water. Since normal
people can’t afford gardeners who trim by hand, that means lawn machines.
American industry to the rescue.


(mower starts up, fades under next sentence)


A quick Google tells me that today we have 40 million lawn mowers in use.
Each emits 11 times the pollution of a new car, and lawn mowers contribute
five percent of the nation’s air pollution. Plus more than 70 million pounds of
pesticides are used each year and over half of our residential water is used
for landscaping. Don’t you love those automatic sprinklers that come on in the
rain? Add to that all the time that people spend mowing and edging. Of
course the two billion dollar lawn care industry is thrilled about all this
enthusiasm, but I gotta ask, “Is it worth it?”


Call me old fashioned, but I actually prefer the looks of a meadow with mixed
wildflowers and grasses to the lawn that looks like a pool table. My own lawn
is somewhere between. It’s mowed, but it’s what you might call multicultural.


There are at least five different kinds of grass with different colors and
thicknesses, plus clover, dandelions, mushrooms, a few pinecones, and a
rabbit hole or two. There’s also some kind of nasty weed with thorns, but even
that has nice purple flowers if it gets big enough.


Clover, by the way, used to be added to grass seed because it adds nitrogen to
the soil. Now we just buy a bag of nitrogen fertilizer, so who needs clover?
And what’s wrong with
dandelions? You can eat them, some people even make wine out of them,
they have happy yellow flowers; yet to most people they indicate your yard is
out of control. So I’m down on my hands and knees pulling dandelions. I’m
not sure why, but I hope it keeps the neighbors happy.


One thing I won’t give in to, though, is the chemical spraying trucks, painted
green of course, that roll through the neighborhood.


I can only hold my breath. (sound of trucks and mowers) Try not to listen. And
wait for the evening. (evening insects)


(air conditioner starts up)


Although, with all these air conditioners, even the night’s not too quiet.


But that’s another story.


Host tag: “Ed Herrmann is an outdoor enthusiast living in the
suburbs of Detroit.”

Related Links

Buying Organic: Grocery Stores or Local Farm-Raised?

It can be tough deciding whether to buy organic foods at the market. Organic produce often costs more, sometimes doesn’t look as nice, and can compete with locally-produced products that might be raised organically but don’t carry the government’s certification. As part of an ongoing series “Your Choice, Your Planet,” the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant looks at what you’re getting when you buy the organic label:

Transcript

It can be tough deciding whether to buy organic foods at the market. Organic produce often costs more, sometimes doesn’t look as nice, and can compete with locally-produced products that might be raised organically but don’t carry the government’s certification. As part of an ongoing series called “Your Choice, Your Planet,” the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant looks at what you’re getting when you buy the organic label:


(sound of supermarket)


Elizabeth Culotta is shopping around the natural and organic food section of the Acme Supermarket in Kent, Ohio. She’s glad there are now standardized stickers on the fruits and vegetables that say “USDA Organic” because it makes it easier to judge what’s grown without pesticides.


EC: “It matters to me, because I feel like organic produce is grown in a way that is better for the global environment. So it matters to me in a global sense. I’m not actually a person who that is worried about the health aspects of pesticides.”


JG: “If the prices were comparable, would you buy organic over conventional?”


EC: “Sure. Sure. Definitely. If you look at these organic cherry tomatoes, they look great. But they’re $3.99 a pint.”

JG: “Let’s go look at the conventional.”

EC: “Here’s some grape tomatoes. A little different. And they are… $1.49 for a pint. So that is less than half the price.”


One reason organics cost more is the price farms pay for USDA certification. It’s an involved process…


(farm sound)


Mick Luber inspects farms for the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association. His group is approved by the USDA to certify farms as organic. This morning he’s visiting Larry Luschek’s farm in Ohio. Until a couple of years ago, cabbage, collards, or other produce claiming to be “organic” could be certified by any number of organizations. But, now the USDA has established guidelines everyone must follow. Luber says that actually hasn’t changed his inspections much.


(sound in fields)


Out in the fields… he sticks a metal probe in the ground and pulls out a soil sample… the soil structure looks right.


ML: “See that little white stuff there? That’s bacteria in the soil. It means the soil is alive. And you also look for earthworm activity.”


JG: “What would any of that mean for certification?”


ML: “Means soil is alive. That’s what the whole organic thing is about is alive soil. You’re not just using NPNK to produce your plants. You’re using the soil as a living organism.”


JG: “NPNK is?”


ML: “Nitrogen-potassium-phosphorous. A living soil is a living soil, it actually produces a lot of those things itself…”


In addition to the soil, Luber checks the equipment for oil leakage, the barrels used to clean produce, and everything else he can think of to bring back to an inspection committee.”


(kitchen sound)


He sits at Larry Luschek’s kitchen table for more than an hour, asking where Larry buys his seeds and checking his receipts. There’s a lot of paperwork involved in getting the USDA’s organic certification.


Not everybody thinks it’s worth the hassle.


(market sound)


At the North Union Farmers’ Market in Cleveland, Mark Welton and his teenage daughter are selling rhubarb. Welton owns a three-acre farm…


MW: “We do everything organically with no herbicides, pesticides, lot of composting, cover cropping, crop rotation. You know, things like that.”


Welton used to certify his farm organic. But he stopped once the USDA national standards went into effect.


MW: “I just didn’t feel I needed to keep it going anymore. And it was getting expensive. It was getting expensive to stay certified. I said, I haven’t changed my practices, I’ve been doing it twenty years that way. I just felt now was the time just to say… okay, I’m done.”


Welton says people at the market know him and trust that he’s not using chemical-laden seeds or spraying things like NPNK on his fields. He says they can visit his farm if they want to check for themselves.


Farmer Bruce Cormack thinks that’s a lot more important than the USDA organic label. He wonders if huge organic farms on the west coast are really
earth friendly…


BW: “I mean, I think the organic certification is supposed to be, as far as environment, less impact and better for everybody but when you have 800 horsepower tractors and shipping 4,000 miles it doesn’t make any sense. I don’t see how that is not impacting the environment.”


Shoppers at the farmers’ market know they’re paying more than the average price for produce. They don’t seem to mind because it’s fresh and locally grown. But not everyone has the time to get to the farmers’ market, let alone drive out to the farm to make sure it’s organic.


(supermarket sound)


Back at the supermarket, Elizabeth Culotta is glad the federal government has standardized what it means to be an organic farm…


EC: “Yes. I mean I think that makes it simpler for someone like me to go into a grocery store and if I can find something that says organic, then I can probably be pretty sure that that’s probably going to meet what I want. As opposed to having to parse the label and trying to figure out from the ads who is exactly doing what.”


The USDA organic label does let people know how the food was grown and processed. It does not tell them whether it’s good for the planet. That’s something shoppers still have to figure out for themselves.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

The Debate Over a Corn-Based Hydrogen Economy

  • Researchers are looking at ethanol from corn as an environmentally-friendly way to power fuel cells. However, some studies show corn-based ethanol takes more energy to produce than the fuel provides. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Researchers are looking at ways to use corn-based ethanol as a way to power hydrogen fuel cells. It would appear to be an environmentally friendly way to get into the hydrogen fuel economy. However, ethanol might not be as environmentally friendly as its proponents claim. Backed by the farm lobby and ag industries such as Archer Daniels Midland, ethanol has plenty of political support. But some researchers say corn-based ethanol is a boondoggle. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports:

Transcript

Researchers are looking at ways to use corn-based ethanol as a way to power hydrogen fuel cells.
It would appear to be an environmentally friendly way to get into the hydrogen fuel economy.
However, ethanol might not be as environmentally friendly as its proponents claim. Back by the
farm lobby and ag industry such as Archer Daniels Midland, ethanol has plenty of political
support. But some researchers say corn-based ethanol is a boondoggle. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports…


This reactor is in a laboratory at the University of Minnesota ticking as it converts ethanol into
hydrogen. Researchers here envision thousands of these inexpensive reactors in communities
across America using ethanol to create hydrogen, which would then be used in fuel cells to
generate electricity.


Lanny Schmidt, a Professor of Chemical Engineering, directs the team that created the reactor.


“We’re not claiming our process is the cure-all for the energy crisis or anything like that. But it’s
a potential step along the way. It makes a suggestion of a possible way to go.”


Hydrogen is usually extracted from fossil fuels in dirtier and more costly refineries.


Schmidt says it’s much better to make hydrogen from ethanol.


“It right now looks like probably the most promising liquid non-toxic energy carrier we can think
of if you want renewable fuels.”


Not so fast, says David Pimentel, an agricultural scientist at Cornell University. For years,
Pimentel has warned about what he calls the cost and efficiency and boondoggle of ethanol.
Pimentel says ethanol is a losing proposition.


“It takes 30-percent more energy, including oil and natural gas, primary those two resources to
produce ethanol. That means importing both oil and natural gas because we do not have a
sufficient amount of either one.”


Pimentel says most research on ethanol fails to account for all the energy needed to make the fuel,
such as energy used to make the tractors and irrigate crops. Adding insult to injury, says
Pimentel, ethanol relies on huge government subsidies going to farmers and agri-business.


“If ethanol is such a great fuel source, why are we subsidizing it with 2-billion dollars annually?
There’s big money, as you well know, and there’s politics involved. And the big money is leaking
some of that 2-billion dollars in subsidies to the politicians and good science, sound science,
cannot compete with big money and politics.”


Pimentel also points to environmental damage of growing corn – soil erosion, water pollution
from nitrogen fertilizer and air pollution associated with facilities that make ethanol. But
Pimentel has his detractors.


David Morris runs the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis. Morris is not a scientist,
but he commissioned a study on ethanol. He says Pimentel relies on out-of-date figures and fails
to account for the fact that ethanol production is getting more efficient.


Morris’ findings – a gallon of ethanol contains more than twice the energy needed to produce it.
As for subsidies…


“There’s no doubt that if we did not provide a subsidy for ethanol it would not be competitive
with gasoline. But what we need to understand is that we also subsidize gasoline, and if you took
the percentage of the Pentagon budget, which is spent directly on maintaining access to Middle-
Eastern oil, and impose that at the pump, it would add 25- to 50-cents a gallon. At that point,
ethanol is competitive, under the assumption that you will not need a large military budget to
protect our access to Iowa corn.”


But more efficient than making ethanol from corn might be grass, or even weeds. David Morris
says that’s because you don’t have fertilize or irrigate those kinds of plants, the way you do corn.


“So if we’re talking about ethanol as a primary fuel to truly displace gasoline, we have to talk
about a more abundant feedstock. So instead of the corn kernel, it become the corn stock, or it
becomes fast-growing grasses, or it becomes trees, or sawdust or organic garbage. And then
you’re really talking about a carbohydrate economy.”


Pimentel scoffs at that idea.


“You’ve got the grind that material up, and then to release the sugars, you’ve got to use an acid,
and the yield is not as high. In fact, it would be 60-percent more energy using wood or grass
materials.”


While scientists and policy people debate whether ethanol is efficient or not, Lanny Schmidt and
his team soldier on in the lab undeterred in their efforts to use ethanol for fuel. Schmidt
understands some of Pimentels’s concerns, but he thinks scientists will find an answer, so ethanol
can be used efficiency enough to help power the new hydrogen economy.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Related Links

Epa Tightens Rules on Slaughterhouse Waste

It takes a lot of work to turn a cow or chicken into a hamburger or chicken nuggets. And the process creates a lot of waste. Now, the Environmental Protection Agency is aiming to reduce the pollution that’s released into rivers, lakes and streams. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams has more:

Transcript

It takes a lot of work to turn a cow or chicken into a hamburger or chicken nuggets. And the
process creates a lot of waste. Now, the Environmental Protection Agency is aiming to reduce
the pollution that’s released into rivers, lakes and streams. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Rebecca Williams has more:


The EPA estimates meat and poultry processors use 150 billion gallons of water every year.
Most of that water becomes wastewater. That wastewater can contain oil, blood, manure, and
feathers.


If the wastewater isn’t treated, organic wastes and nutrients are released directly into waterways.
Excess nutrients can cause harmful algae blooms, and kill fish.


The new rule targets about 170 meat and poultry processors.


Mary Smith directs a division of the EPA’s Office of Water.


“The meats industry will have to meet tighter limits on the pollutants that it discharges to the
water. And then, of course, for poultry, this is the first time they will be regulated at all, they
didn’t have preexisting regulations, unlike the meats industry. And they will have to meet limits
for ammonia, total nitrogen, and what we call conventional pollutants.”


These regulations are a result of a lawsuit against the EPA, settled 13
years ago.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

GOVERNMENT AIMS TO REMEDY GULF ‘DEAD ZONE’ (Short Version)

  • Although government programs offer incentives for farmers to plant grassy buffers between farm fields and waterways, many farmers don't bother with the voluntary efforts to reduce nitrogen. A new push to reduce nitrogen runoff is in the works in an effort to reduce the size of a 'Dead Zone' in the Gulf of Mexico believed to be caused by excess nitrogen runoff from Midwest farms. (Photo by Lester Graham)

A government task force is trying to find ways to reduce fertilizer pollution from Midwest farms because it’s causing environmental damage to the Gulf of Mexico. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A government task force is trying to find ways to reduce fertilizer pollution from Midwest farms
because it’s causing environmental damage to the Gulf of Mexico. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The task force is looking at ways to stop excess nitrogen from getting into waterways. It hopes to
persuade farmers to reduce the amount of nitrogen they use or plant grassy buffer strips or
artificial wetlands to take up the nitrogen. The idea is to stop so much nitrogen getting into the
Gulf of Mexico. Once there it causes an algae bloom that then dies and depletes the water of
oxygen, causing a ‘dead zone.’


Don Scavia is with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean
Service. He says offering farmers money to sign up for conservation programs is likely the best
route.


“The idea is to try to make the social benefit of reducing the nitrogen load work in favor of the
farmers.”


Right now, many row crop farmers pay the cost of applying more nitrogen than needed in hopes
of getting a better crop. Experts say it’s a gamble that rarely pays off and ultimately adds to the
problem in the Gulf.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Government Aims to Remedy Gulf ‘Dead Zone’

  • Although government programs offer incentives for farmers to plant grassy buffers between farm fields and waterways, many farmers don't bother with the voluntary efforts to reduce nitrogen. A new push to reduce nitrogen runoff is in the works in an effort to reduce the size of a 'Dead Zone' in the Gulf of Mexico believed to be caused by excess nitrogen runoff from Midwest farms. (Photo by Lester Graham)

The government is looking at programs to reduce the amount of fertilizer runoff from farms that ends up in streams and rivers. It’s necessary because 41 percent of the continental U.S. drains into the Mississippi River and all that runoff is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. There, it’s causing a ‘dead zone’ where fish and other aquatic life can’t live. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The government is looking at programs to reduce the amount of fertilizer runoff from farms that
ends up in streams and rivers. It’s necessary because 41-percent of the continental U.S. drains
into the Mississippi River and all that runoff is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. There it’s
causing a ‘dead zone’ where fish and other aquatic life can’t live. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Each year about one-and-a-half million metric tons of nitrogen is dumped into the Gulf of
Mexico. Plants feed on nitrogen, so there are huge algae blooms, far more than the tiny aquatic
animals that feed on algae can eat. The algae eventually dies and begins to decompose. That process
depletes oxygen from the water. Fish and other marine life need oxygen to live. So they leave
the oxygen-depleted area or die. It’s called a ‘dead zone.’ In recent years that ‘dead zone’ in the
Gulf of Mexico has been as large as the state of New Jersey.


Don Scavia is Chief Scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
National Ocean Service. He says it looks as though much of that nitrogen comes from farms in
the Mississippi basin.


“The most significant change in the nitrogen load into the basin is actually coming from
agricultural application of fertilizer. That application rate has more than tripled since the 1950’s,
corresponding to almost a tripling of nitrogen loss from that system into the Gulf.”


Farms that are hundreds of miles from the Mississippi River drain into the Mississippi River
basin. The basin stretches from Montana to the southwest tip of New York. It includes all or
parts of 31 states.


Nitrogen exists naturally in the environment. But growing corn and some other crops on the
same land year after year depletes nitrogen. So farmers fertilize the land to bolster nitrogen
levels. Sometimes they use animal manure, but often they use man-made fertilizers such as
anhydrous ammonia.


David Salmonsen is with the American Farm Bureau.


“Well, for several crops, especially out into the upper parts of the Mississippi River basin, the
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, southern Minnesota, the great Corn Belt, you need nitrogen as a basic
additive and basic element to grow, to grow these crops.”


But often farmers use more nitrogen than they really need to use. It’s called an “insurance”
application. Farmers gamble that using an extra 10 to 20 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre
will pay off in better crop yields – more corn. A lot of times, that gamble doesn’t pay off because
rain washes the extra nitrogen off the field. Salmonsen says slowly farmers are moving toward
more precise nitrogen application.


“Try and get away from what, you know, for years has been a practice among some people, they
say ‘Well, we’ll do what they call insurance fertilization. We got to have the crop. It may be a
little more than what we need, but we’ll know we have enough,’ because they just didn’t have the
management tools there to get this so precisely refined down to have just the right amount of
fertilizer.”


Salmonsen says with global satellite positioning tools, computers, and better monitoring farmers
will soon just be using the nitrogen they need. But, it’s not clear that farmers will give up the
insurance applications of nitrogen even with better measurements.


The government is getting involved in the nitrogen-loading problem. A task force has been
meeting to determine ways to reduce the amount of nitrogen that reaches the Gulf of Mexico.
Among the strategies being considered are applying nitrogen fertilizer at lower rates, getting
farmers to switch from row crops to perennial crops so they don’t have to fertilize every year,
planting cover crops during fall and winter to absorb nitrogen, establishing artificial wetlands in drainage areas to absorb nitrogen and getting
farmers to plant buffer strips of grass between farm fields and nearby waterways to filter out nitrogen.


Tom Christiansen is with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He says while the government task
force is considering recommending some specific basin-wide reductions in nitrogen use the
USDA is only looking at the problem farm-by-farm.


“We get good conservation on the land, good water quality in the local streams and that will
benefit the Gulf. So, we’re working on a site-specific basis. We haven’t established any kind of
nation-wide goal for nutrient reduction.”


Unlike other industries, the government is reluctant to mandate pollution reduction. Instead of
regulations and fines used to enforce pollutions restrictions with manufacturing, agriculture is
most often encouraged to volunteer to clean up and offered financial incentives to do that. But in
the past farmers have complained that there wasn’t enough money in the programs. Christiansen
says the new farm bill has more money for conservation efforts and that should make it more
appealing for farmers to reduce nitrogen pollution.


“It falls back to good conservation planning, using the correct programs and then providing the
right kind of incentives and benefits to producers because they are taking land out of production
in many cases.”


The government is assuming the voluntary programs will be enough to reduce the nitrogen flow
into the Gulf of Mexico. No one expects the ‘dead zone’ will be eliminated. The best that
they’re hoping for is that it will be significantly reduced.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links