Author David Kirby says cattle eating cattle by-product could risk another outbreak of mad cow disease. The FDA says there’s no measurable risk. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)
The hamburger you put on the grill this weekend could be from cattle raised on feed that includes chicken feces. Lester Graham reports…a year-old Food and Drug Administration rule says it’s safe:
Transcript
The hamburger you put on the grill this weekend could be from cattle raised on feed that includes chicken feces. Lester Graham reports…a year-old Food and Drug Administration rule says it’s safe.
The rule came about after the mad cow disease outbreak. It made some changes, but still allows putting chicken litter – that’s the straw, feathers, chicken manure and scattered food left after raising chickens in a building– into cattle feed.
David Kirby wrote a book entitled “Animal Factory.” He says the government buckled to the chicken industry because the industry didn’t have a place to go with all the chicken litter.
“There’s too much to spread on local farmland, so they very often put it into cattle feed. It contains urea which cows can convert into protein.”
Chickens are messy. They scatter their feed and it gets into the chicken litter that’s put in some cattle feed. Some chicken feed contains beef by-products. Kirby says cattle eating cattle by-product could risk another outbreak of mad cow disease. The FDA says there’s no measurable risk.
Organic steak is hard to find, partly because so few slaughterhouses are certified organic. (Photo by David Benbennick, Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
Organic farmers would love to have you dig into more of their pork, chicken and beef. It’s not just because they’re proud about how they raise their animals – it’s because certified organic meat fetches high prices. But organic meat is harder to find than you’d expect, and it’s partly because there are few organically-certified slaughterhouses.
Shawn Allee found a farming community that came up with a solution:
Transcript
Organic farmers would love to have you dig into more of their pork, chicken and beef.
It’s not just because they’re proud about how they raise their animals – it’s because certified organic meat fetches high prices.
But organic meat is harder to find than you’d expect, and it’s partly because there are few organically-certified slaughterhouses.
Shawn Allee found a farming community that came up with a solution:
Dennis and Emily Wettstein turned their Illinois farm organic a while ago, mostly because conventional farming wasn’t practical for them.
“All the money seemed to go to pay for the fertilizers and the chemicals. And then I was more or less allergic to the chemicals. And so we were interested in getting away from that, especially if we were going to raise a family out here.”
The Wettsteins didn’t just raise grain organically – they kept chemicals and hormones out of their cattle.
“We started raising meat for ourselves and our families. Then, pretty soon, just word of mouth, friends and neighbors wanted meat.”
And, they found people who’d pay top dollar for their meat.
“We sell at the Oak Park farmers market.”
That’s just west of Chicago.
“Right. The Oak Park market managers, they are working on all the farmers to go towards organic.”
And that worked for the Wettsteins – they had USDA certified organic chicken.
“There’s one other meat vendor there – it’s not organic. So, we have no competition. We feel that, with that label on there, we can set our price to where we can make a profit.”
But Emily Wettstein says that term – organic – gave them trouble when it came to beef and other meat.
“We were getting a little bit pressured from other people, ‘Well, you can’t call your item organic. You don’t have a processing facility with the term of certified organic.'”
Here was the problem: For meat to get labeled USDA certified organic, it’s gotta be certified from the farm to the slaughterhouse.
The Wettsteins had someone to process organic chicken, but they were out of luck with pigs and cows.
There was no certified slaughterhouse for beef or pork in Illinois.
So, the Wettsteins and some relatives prodded meat lockers to get certified.
There was one taker.
“I’m inside a meat locker that’s about a fifteen minute drive from the Wettstein farm. It’s owned by Scott Bittner, and I’m here to understand what organic certification means for his business. How do I put this, there’s a headless, hoofless, skinless cow hanging from your ceiling. Where are we exactly?”
We’re on the kill floor. We had seventeen, eighteen cattle today. Seven of those were organic.
So, walk me through how you have to treat that organic cow differently.
It’s the first thing we did this morning – that’s one thing. Other than that, it’s segregating it in the cooler from the non-organic product and then processing it at a later time, which, again, you have to do first thing in the morning.
So, the basic idea is segregation?
Yeah, it is. The whole way through. Exactly.
Bittner’s simplifying things, but not much.
He has to clean or swap equipment between batches of organic and conventional meat.
There are rules on the kinds of chemicals he can use. And he hires a certification company to monitor his paper work.
Bittner says overall, it’s easy, and he’s surprised more slaughterhouses haven’t done it.
“Here we’re doing all our fabricating – grinding sausage, ground beef. Cutting some chops, ribs.”
“How does it feel to be the only guy who can process an organic side of beef?”
“I want to keep it quiet – I don’t want too many people to get started doing what I’m doing because it’s nice. I get two or three customers every year that I didn’t have before. When you go to bed at night and think about this economy being the way it is, every little bit helps.”
Bittner says farmers drive animals up to four hours to slaughter their animals here.
He says he’s proud of his work but can’t take too much credit; he knows he’s got a local organic slaughtering monopoly going.
That might change some day, but for now it’s reason enough to keep his knives sharp.
Today’s cattle are much bigger than they were back in the 1920s. They’ve been bred to
big and beefy. But, it turns out, you can actually produce more meat with the smaller
cattle.
(Photo by Keith Weller, courtesy of the USDA)
Because of feed and energy prices,
some cattle farmers are scaling back.
They’re not reducing the size of their
herd. They’re reducing the size of their
cows. Kinna Ohman reports:
Transcript
Because of feed and energy prices,
some cattle farmers are scaling back.
They’re not reducing the size of their
herd. They’re reducing the size of their
cows. Kinna Ohman reports:
Today’s cattle are much bigger than they were back in the 1920s. They’ve been bred to
big and beefy. But, it turns out, you can actually produce more meat with the smaller
cattle.
Richard Gradwohl has been breeding miniature cattle for more than forty years. He
says with today’s larger beef cattle on five acres, you can produce 2400 pounds of
meat. He can raise as much as 7000 pounds of beef on that same five acres.
“It’s surprising to me how many large cattle breeders call me almost every day
because they’re interested in reducing the size of their animals to achieve more
feed efficiency.”
Gradwohl thinks the emphasis on breeding large cattle might be reversing.
Milking Devon cattle are rare domestic breeds from an earlier day, some dating back to the 18th century. The animals hold genetic information that some people think is too valuable to lose. (Photo by Lester Graham)
The Garfield Farm Museum is preserving antiquated domestic breeds of farm animals, such as these Black Java chickens. (Photo by Lester Graham)
The Garfield Farm Museum, between Geneva and Elburn, Illinois, brings together farming experiences of the past 150 years with an appreciation of the natural environment, according to its website. (Photo by Lester Graham)
When you think of endangered species, farm animals might not top the list. But some types of farm animals are in danger of going extinct.
Certain breeds of common barnyard creatures are no longer considered commercially viable, and are being allowed to die off. But as the GLRC’s Chris Lehman reports, there’s an effort to preserve some rare varieties of
livestock:
Transcript
When you think of endangered species, farm animals might not top the list. But some
types of farm animals are in danger of going extinct. Certain breeds of common barnyard
creatures are no longer considered commercially viable, and are being allowed to die off.
But as the GLRC’s Chris Lehman reports, there’s an effort to preserve some rare varieties
of livestock:
When you buy a pound of ground beef or a pack of chicken legs, you probably don’t
think about what kind of cow or chicken the meat came from. And in most stores,
you don’t have a choice. Beef is beef and chicken is chicken.
Of course, there’s many different kinds of cows and chickens, but most farmers stick with
just a handful of types. They prefer animals that are specially bred to produce more meat
in less time.
That’s all well and good if your motive is profit.
But some people think the move towards designer farm animals is risky.
Jerome Johnson is executive director of Garfield Farm Museum.
(Sound of turkeys gobbling)
Johnson says breeds like these Narragansett turkeys carry genetic traits that could be
desirable in the future. They don’t require as much food, for instance. That could be an
attractive feature as costs continue to rise:
“Some of the high-producing, high-yielding animals today, they may require a lot of
input. In other words, a lot of feed, more expense since so many things are derived from
petroleum, from the diesel fuel that powers the tractors to the production of fertilizer
and the like, and chemicals for herbicides and all… that as the cost of that goes up, it may
actually be cheaper to raise a different type of animal, that doesn’t require that much.”
Johnson also says some common poultry breeds get sick more easily. That’s part of the
risk farmers take when they choose meatier birds. Normally that might not be a problem,
but if Avian flu spreads to the US, some of the older breeds might carry genes that could
resist the disease. If those breeds disappear, that genetic information would be lost.
But some farmers choose rare livestock breeds for completely different reasons.
(Sound of baby chicks)
Scott Lehr and his family raise several varieties of pure-bred poultry, sheep, and goats on
their northern Illinois farm. These chicks are just a few weeks old…
(Sound of baby chicks)
“These are all pure-bred birds. These are birds that have been around a long time. Some
of the breeds that are in there, there’s Bantam Brown Leghorns, Bantam White Leghorns.”
Some of the poultry breeds are so rare and exotic they’re practically collector’s items.
Lehr’s son enters them in competitions. But the animals on their farm aren’t just for
showing off. Scott says they use the wool from their herd of Border Cheviot sheep for a
craft studio they opened in a nearby town:
“There’s quite a bit of demand growing for handspun wool and the rising interest in the
hand arts, if you will… knitting and spinning and weaving and those kinds of things… are
really beginning to come into, I guess, the consciousness of the American public in many
ways. It’s evolving beyond a cottage industry.”
And the wool of rare breeds like the Border Cheviot sheep is popular among people who want handspun wool.
(Sound of Johnson calling to giant pig, “Hey, buddy, how ya doin’?”)
Back at the Garfield Farm Museum, Jerome Johnson offers a handful of grass to a 700
pound Berkshire hog. This Berkshire is different from the variety of pig with the same
name that’s relatively common today. Johnson says these old-style Berkshires have a
different nose and more white hair than the modern Berkshire. They also tend to be fatter,
which used to be a more desirable trait.
The museum’s pair of old-style Berkshires are literally a dying breed. Johnson says the
boar isn’t fertile anymore:
“They were the last breeding pair that we knew of. These were once quite common but
now are quite rare. And we maybe have found a boar that is fertile that is up in
Wisconsin that was brought in from England here a couple years ago that we could try
crossing with our sow to see if we can preserve some of these genetics.”
(Sound of pigs)
Advocates of rare livestock breeds say the animals can be healthier and sometimes tastier
than the kinds raised on large commercial farms. And although you won’t find many
farm animals on the endangered species list, they could have important benefits for future
farmers.
Many of the crops being grown in the U.S. don't end up in the produce aisle. In fact, they usually aren't even sold to people in neighboring areas. (Photo by Rene Cerney)
Some experts think farmers could do a lot better for themselves if they changed what they’re growing. They say growing corn and soybeans subsidized by the government doesn’t do much for the farmer and almost nothing for the local economy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports on efforts to change that:
Transcript
Some experts think farmers could do a lot better for themselves if they changed what they’re growing. They say growing corn and soybeans that are subsidized by the government doesn’t do much for the farmer and almost nothing for the local economy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports on efforts to change that:
It can be hard to find locally-grown broccoli, milk, or beef in most grocery stores, even in the middle of farm country. In some states, ninety percent of the land is farmed, but ninety-eight percent of food people eat is shipped in from other parts of the nation or other countries.
The local farmers are growing commodities: corn and soybeans harvested for cattle-feed or processed foods, not stuff that winds up in the produce aisle. But ag economist Ken Meter wants to see that change.
“Farmers have doubled their productivity since 1969, and yet, they’re not making more money, they’re actually losing more money after doubling productivity.”
Meter has studied the economics of farm communities. In one area, he found that nearly all of the farm fields there were used to grow corn and soybeans for the commodities market, but farmers were losing money. At the same time, nearly all of the food people bought there was shipped in from other places.
“The economy we’re in right now is extremely efficient at taking any money that you or I earn in our neighborhood or in our daily lives and basically pulling it into a big global network that very efficiently takes that money and helps other people elsewhere make some value from it.”
It hasn’t always been this way. Richard Pirog is food systems researcher at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in Iowa. Eighty years ago, he says, most farms grew a lot of different
products and processed them to be sold locally or within the region.
“Iowa back in the 1920’s had fifty-four canneries. We were the canned sweet corn capital of the world in the mid-1920’s. Fast forward to today, there isn’t a single cannery in Iowa. So that infrastructure is gone.”
Pirog says you could tell similar stories in farm areas across the U.S. Back during World War Two, the federal government encouraged farmers to grow commodities, such as corn and soybeans. The government starting paying them subsidies to grow those crops.
These days, Pirog says a lot of farmers wouldn’t even think about risking those subsidies to grow something besides corn and soybeans. Economist Ken Meter says that might be a mistake. He says many farmers don’t realize there’s a growing market for local ag products.
“All of us get focused on whatever we’re paying attention to, and as a farmer you get focused on producing quite well. I’ve spoken with farmers who’ve told me that they really didn’t have any clue that that their neighbors would be looking for different foods, because they just haven’t heard of the tremendous increase in demand we’ve had for things like organic milk or higher quality meats or fresher produce.”
There has been an organic explosion of local farm markets in recent years, because customers want to buy fruit, vegetables, milk, and meat directly from the farmers who produce them. But government policy and farm subsidies mainly still support the commodity production of corn and soybeans.
Richard Pirog hopes that changes, but it’s unclear if growing produce for the new local markets is always economically viable. No one has studied the phenomenon.
“It has to make economic sense for a community and a region. We believe it will, which is why it’s spread so rapidly. But it’s sort of like, the real numbers, the quantification hasn’t caught up with all the growth and explosion and the interest.”
Pirog says he’d like to push the process along. He says it would make more sense for the government to shift subsidies from corn and soybean production to the farms that produce food for their local communities.
Ethanol often is made from corn, and one of the by-products, distillers grains, can be eaten by cows (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA Agricultural Research Service)
From cows come dairy products and beef, the by-products of the cow - manure - can be anaerobically "digested," and the by-products of that process can be used to carbonate soft drinks. It might seem like an environmental and economic dream, but some are not supportive of this idea. (Photo by Bram Dejonckheere)
It’s rare when a factory and a mega-farm can help reduce pollution. But a project planned in the Midwest promises just that. The project would produce a fuel additive that is thought to reduce air pollution; provide a market for farm goods; create scores of jobs… all while not harming the environment. The Ohio project is getting millions of dollars of help from the state and federal governments. But some people doubt the project will accomplish all it promises. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tamara Keith
reports:
Transcript
It’s rare when a factory and a mega-farm can help reduce pollution. But a project planned in the Midwest promises just that. The project would produce a fuel additive that is thought to reduces air pollution, provide a market for farm goods, create scores of jobs – all while not harming the environment. The Ohio project is getting millions of dollars of help from the state and federal governments. But some people doubt the project will accomplish all it promises. Tamara Keith reports:
The project is called Harrison Ethanol. It will include an ethanol factory, using millions of bushels of corn to produce the gasoline additive. At the same location, thousands of dairy and beef cattle will live in fully enclosed barns. And then there’s the small power plant, which will be fueled by manure produced by the cattle. Wendel Dreve is the project’s director.
“I think the nicest way of describing our project is it’s a vertically-integrated, agriculturally-based industrial development.”
Dreve began working on the project nearly 4 years ago. He’s retired from the oil and gas industry and built a home in eastern Ohio farm country. His neighbors approached him about starting up a corn-powered ethanol factory – something that has not existed in Ohio in a decade.
“I told them that I didn’t think we could build a ethanol plant in Ohio because there are no state subsidies, so we had to figure out a way to raise the revenue streams internally and the only way we could figure out to do that was to employ animals.”
The 12-thousand cattle housed on site, will eat the main byproduct of ethanol production, a corn mush called distillers grains. The cattle will generate money too, from sales of milk and meat. But the cattle will create manure… lots of manure… about 50 million gallons of it a year. Dreve has a solution for that, too: a power-generating anaerobic digester.
“It eliminates nearly all of the odor, it processes all of the wastes from the entire facility. So it’s like an industrial waste treatment plant on site.”
60 times a day, manure will be flushed out of the animal barns and into the digester. A large, cement structure, where the manure is broken down by microbes.
“And at the other end, you get water and methane and carbon dioxide and some solids.”
The methane will run power generators, creating “green energy,” which can be sold at a premium. The carbon dioxide from the manure will be sold to make carbonated sodas. This would be the first anaerobic digester powered by cattle manure in Ohio, and one of only a handful nationwide. Dreve says his digester will be much better for the environment than open-air manure lagoons, the cheaper method most commonly used by farmers.
But not everyone agrees. Bill Weida is an economist and director of the Grace Factory Farm Project which opposes large concentrated animal farms. Weida says most anaerobic digesters are paid for with some kind of government assistance. Harrison Ethanol is no exception. The project received a 500-thousand-dollar grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help pay for the digester.
“No one in their right mind who is looking for an economic investment would build a digester. The only reason you’d build one is if you had some sort of a government subsidy that would help pay for it.”
Harrison Ethanol also is receiving seventy-million dollars in financing assistance from the state of Ohio. In fact, the company indicates it got some very good legal and accounting help, to find the perfect location for the project to take advantage of state and federal tax credits. Add to that federal ethanol subsidies and federal subsidies for corn production, and Harrison Ethanol is getting plenty of help from taxpayers.
Ken Cook is executive director of the Environmental Working Group. He says ethanol might reduce air pollution and reliance on foreign oil, but it is not economically viable without those huge taxpayer subsidies.
“The worry is that what we’re really doing is bailing out failed agriculture policy with heavily subsidized energy policy. We’re going into the corn industry with another set of subsidies to basically turn corn, that would have been exported at a loss, into corn that is used to make fuel at a loss to taxpayers.”
That’s not how state officials see it. Bill Teets is a spokesman for the Department of Development which has been working to bring several ethanol plants to Ohio.
“We think that this is a great project because you help farmers, you create manufacturing, you have something that helps benefit the environment and it seems to be a good type of project that we can really benefit from.”
And if everything goes as planned, Wendel Dreve will build 2 more ethanol and cattle operations in Ohio. He’s already secured tax dollars from state and federal sources for those plants.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tamara Keith.
David Hammond's inspiration to experiment with a low-carb diet. (Self portrait by David Hammond)
Each year, Americans spend tens of billions of dollars on diets and diet aids. Low carbohydrate diets like South Beach, the Zone, and Atkins are all becoming household words and companies are scrambling to cash in. As part of an ongoing series called “Your Choice, Your Planet,” the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Hammond looks in the mirror as he investigates the potential environmental impacts of the low-carb diet:
Transcript
Each year, Americans spend tens of billions of
dollars on diets and diet aids. Low carbohydrate
diets like South Beach, the Zone, and Atkins are all
becoming household words and companies are
scrambling to cash in. As part of an ongoing series
called “Your Choice, Your Planet,” the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s David Hammond looks in the
mirror as he investigates the potential
environmental impacts of the low-carb diet:
(sound of shower door closing, shower being turned on)
Every day it’s the same. As I wait for the shower to
warm up, I fight off an assault on my self-esteem.
First, there’s my naked reflection in the bathroom
mirror. (Ugh.) To my right, a stack of clothes that
don’t fit anymore. And in front of me, the most
damning thing of all… the bathroom scale.
I know I should ignore it, but its pull is irresistible.
Hammond: “Okay, here comes the big
moment of truth. Ohh… you gotta be kidding
me. Well, according to my scale, I am four pounds
heavier than yesterday. I don’t know how
that can be possible.”
You see, I’m fat. Not “oversized.” Not “full-figured.” Fat. I weigh 268 lbs and desperately need
to lose some weight. None of my clothes fit. My
cholesterol is through the roof. And my wife? Well, she
seems to have cornered the market on migraine
headaches.
(shower fades out)
But what kind of diet? I needed a diet that would
work within my lifestyle, not totally change it.
Because giving up meat wasn’t an option for me, I
figured low-carb was the way to go.
A recent Roper Report estimated that up to 40
million Americans were reducing their
carbohydrates.
40 million carb counters can’t be wrong, can they?
My gut told me that low-carb dieters must be
demanding more meat and poultry. But
was there an environmental impact?
For advice, I turned to the Sierra Club. They have a
program focused on concentrated animal feeding
operations — better known as factory
farms. These are operations where thousands of animals,
sometimes tens of thousands, are housed
together in relatively small spaces.
Environmentalists say the problem is their manure.
So much of it is produced, in such a small area that
simply spreading it on nearby fields can lead to
severe water pollution.
Anne Woiwode is the Director of the Sierra Club’s
office in Lansing, MI. She said that manure is not
the only problem. A bigger threat may be the
antibiotics that the animals are given to promote
their growth.
“Up to 70% of the antibiotics used in
this country right now are being fed to animals so
that they are fattened quickly. And because
animals are consuming so many antibiotics, you
are actually creating super bugs or super
bacteria.”
As far as my diet is concerned, with all this talk
about manure, bacteria, and super bugs, I wasn’t
sure that I needed to diet after all. I’d pretty much
lost my appetite.
Well, almost… it is still barbeque season after
all.
What I need is a low-carb fix that I can feel good
about. A local butcher mentioned Roseland Farm.
It’s located in southwest Michigan, near the Indiana border.
They’re one of the region’s largest, certified organic
farms. It’s a family farm. Merrill Clark is one of
the owners.
“We’re a 1,800 acre certified organic beef farm, we also
raise some grains and other garden vegetables on
a smaller scale but we are mostly known for our
beef. We’ve been, I’ll say certified organic, for
nearly 20 years.”
Certified organic means that Clark and her family
feed their cattle with crops grown without pesticides
or synthetic fertilizers. They also don’t give their
cattle antibiotics or growth hormones.
Nearly a quarter of their farm is devoted to grazing,
so the Clarks avoid the manure problems of factory
farms. They just leave the manure where it drops
and it becomes natural fertilizer.
Natural grazing also reduces the need to feed the
cattle grains like corn and soybeans. When used for
cattle feed, those grains are usually inefficient and
expensive to produce.
Even though the Clark family runs a large organic
farm, they know that in the scheme of things, they are still very small.
Merrill Clark says that’s fine.
“If some major Kroger or Meijer’s wanted to buy all of our
meat, I don’t think we would want to. We sort of
feel connected to our label and our own name and
our identity. It’s just so interesting this way. You
meet great people. Because you’re face to face with
your own customers.”
In my case, Merrill and I didn’t actually meet face-
to-face, but we bonded. We talked long after the
interview was over. And I was impressed enough to buy
a 35-lb cooler full of ground sirloin, strips, and
fillets. Enough to get me through those first few
weeks of my diet.
So even though I’m still fat, and tomorrow, the
bathroom scale was going to be just as unforgiving,
I’m starting to feel a little bit better about myself. For
the first time, I feel connected to my food. I feel a
bond to the farmer. And I feel like I was supporting
something worthwhile. And you know what, it
feels good.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David
Hammond.
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.
Across the country, forests, streams and coastlines are getting extra doses of nutrients containing the element nitrogen. Researchers say the long-term impact of these unwanted compounds on the environment could be serious. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Daniel Grossman reports on some efforts to reduce nitrogen pollution:
Transcript
Across the country, forests, streams and coastlines are getting extra doses of nutrients
containing the element nitrogen. Researchers say the long-term impact of these unwanted compounds on the environment could be serious. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Daniel Grossman reports on some efforts to reduce nitrogen pollution:
A thunderstorm soaks the land and lights the sky. The electric jolts of the lightning change nitrogen in the air into compounds needed for plants to grow. Lightning, as well as microbes in the soil, converts annually nearly 100 million tons of atmospheric nitrogen into plant nutrients. Humans make the same compounds in factories and call them fertilizer, a mainstay of agriculture. Between these synthetic chemicals and a smaller quantity of related compounds produced when fossil fuels are burned, humans produce more nitrogen-rich nutrients than nature makes on the seven continents. University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman says such extra nutrients are a concern.
“Right now half or more of the nitrogen we put on a farm field just washes through the soil and down into the groundwater into lakes, rivers, streams and into the ocean.”
This wasted nitrogen often travels great distances causing widespread damage. Tilman says on land, the nutrients cause exotic weeds to outgrow native plants. In the ocean, the nutrients cripple critical habitats. The ecologist says nitrogen pollution must be cut. One place to start is on the farm.
“We have to find some way to grow crops where the crops take up much more of the nutrients that we apply.”
(Sound of walking through grass. Quiet bird calls in background.)
Near Chesapeake Bay, farmer and agricultural scientist Russ Brinsfield walks across a patch of tall dry grass.
We’re on the edge of a field, about a sixty-acre field of corn, on the beautiful Eastern Shore of Maryland.
This field is a research plot at the Maryland Center for Agro-Ecology. Here Brinsfield is studying agriculture’s environmental impact. Chesapeake Bay’s waters have high concentrations of farmer’s nutrients, causing blooms of the toxic algae Pfiesteria. The pollution has also caused declines in sea grass beds. Brinsfield says solutions to the problem fall into two categories.
“The first series of practices are those practices that we’ve been able to demonstrate that by a farmer implementing them he can reduce his inputs without affecting his outputs… that at the end of the year have added profit to his bottom line.”
For instance, testing the soil’s nitrogen level before fertilizing. And splitting fertilizer applications into two doses rather than one so that nutrients are added only when plants need them. Such simple measures are good for environment and the bottom line. Brinsfield says in the last 10 years most farmers on the Eastern Shore of Maryland have cut fertilizer use this way. Then there’s the other category of improvements.
“We’re going to have to do some things-ask some farmers to do some things-that may cost them more to do than what they are going to get in return from that investment.”
For example, in the winter, many fields here are fallow and bare. That means top soil erodes when it rains, taking with it residual fertilizer. It wasn’t always this way.
“I can remember my dad saying to me, ‘every field has to be green going into the winter, Son.’ So all of our fields were planted with rye or wheat or barley. It served two purposes. First, the animals grazed it. And second, it held the soil intact.”
And intact soil retains its fertilizer. Such winter cover crops also prevent fertilizer loss by storing nutrients in plant leaves and stalks. This used to be dairy country and cover crops grazed by cows made economic sense. Now farmers mostly grow grains. Planting a cover crop could cut nitrogen flow from farms by 40 percent but it costs farmers about $20/acre and provides no economic benefit to them. Brinsfield says farmers need an incentive.
“For the most part, farmers are willing to participate and to do those things that need to be done, as long as they can still squeak out a living.”
To help them squeak out a living, the state pays some farmers to sow cover crops. The state also pays them to plant buffers of grass and trees that suck up nutrients before they leave the farm. Today farms in six states that are part of the Chesapeake’s huge watershed contribute about 54 million pounds of nitrogen to the bay. The goal is to cut this figure approximately in half by two thousand and ten. Robert Howarth, a marine biologist and expert on nitrogen pollution at Cornell University, says though ambitious, this target can be achieved.
“I think most of the problems from nitrogen pollution have relatively straightforward technical fixes. So the real trick is to get the political will to institute these.”
Howarth says much of the nitrogen problem could be eliminated with a blend of government subsidies and regulations. But more will be needed as well… solutions of a more personal nature.
(sound of Redbones Barbeque)
There’s a pungent, smoky aroma in the air at Redbones Barbeque in Somerville, Massachusetts. The crowded bistro serves up a variety of ribs, chicken, sausage and other meats, dripping with savory sauces. University of Minnesota ecologist David Tilman says when someone eats a meal they are responsible for the little share of fertilizer a farmer somewhere had to apply to grow a crop. If the meal is from farm-raised animals, like the heaping plates of meat served here, the amount of fertilizer is much greater than if it’s from plants.
“It takes from three to ten kilograms of grain to produce a single kilogram of meat.”
Tilman says if Americans ate less meat, they could dramatically reduce fertilizer usage. However, per capita consumption is rising. Meat consumption is on the rise globally as well. David Tilman would like that to change. He says if current trends continue, human production of nitrogen nutrients will grow to triple or quadruple what nature makes on all Earth’s lands. Professor Tilman says that in many places the impact on the environment would be catastrophic.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Daniel Grossman.
The largest meatpacker in the world has agreed to pay millions of dollars in penalties because of pollution at its plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The largest meatpacker in the world has agreed to pay millions of dollars in penalties because of pollution at its plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
Iowa Beef Packers, known as IBP Incorporated, has agreed to pay more than four million dollars in penalties and make ten million dollars in pollution prevention improvements at several of its plants. That agreement settles a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Among a number of violations at several plants, the EPA had charged that IBP was releasing large quantities of ammonia into the Missouri River and one of its plants emitted 19 times the maximum amount of the pollutant, hydrogen sulfide, from its smokestacks. Besides paying the penalties, IBP will upgrade its wastewater treatment facilities and install required air pollution control equipment. In a release, IBP states that it doesn’t “agree with the nature and extend to the claims made in the federal government’s lawsuit.” but it’s glad to put the matter behind it. IBP was recently acquired by Tyson Foods. Government officials say with the settlement, they hope IBP will now be a better neighbor. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Author David Kirby says cattle eating cattle by-product could risk another outbreak of mad cow disease. The FDA says there’s no measurable risk. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)
