Liquid Manure Runoff

[foxtrapper1972]

Here in Lancaster County I see quite a bit of liquid manure being spread on fields. I've noticed a stir of activity to spread the stuff when the ground is frozen and rain is coming. Unless there is some good reason I must assume the farmers are looking to dispose of the stuff rather than use it to enrich soil? Maybe there are farmers on this forum who can help me understand the reason for doing this. Lancaster farm streams are pretty much lost. Although many have limestone origins they are silted and polluted beyond hope.

 

[Mike]

It is not supposed to be spread on snow and I am not certain, but I believe that it is not supposed to be spread on frozen ground. Furthermore, if not turned under within about three days most of the nitrogen value of the manure is lost to the atmosphere. Somewhat speculating here, but it may be that the farmers' storage facilities are full or near-full and they see a pending rain event as a problem for getting into the fields to spread manure during the event and for sometime thereafter due to soft, muddy conditions.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

"Not supposed to" by law? If so who enforces?

 

[duckfoot]

1. "Hey Bill, my slurry vat is getting full again...do you mind if I spread on your fields this time?"

2. "If 500 gallons of slurry makes 5,000 bushels of corn, then 1,000 gallons of slurry must make 10,000 bushels of corn."

 

[foxtrapper1972]

What other industry do you know that gets to pour their waste product on the ground and into waterways? If it were a matter of adding useful material to the soil that is different. Clearly they are just washing the stuff away at the expense of our environment.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I am all for trying to keep agricultural runoff from getting into our ground water and streams as it is one of the biggest pollutants we face. I think the best way to do this is to maintain good riparian buffers, and not just a couple feet of grass but a good mix of trees, shrubs and grasses.

Next if you have ever worked on a farm or have ever been close to a farming operation you know it is impossible for them to operate line for line out of the books. I don't believe that many farmers want to pollute waterways, but when your faced with a scenario such as their manure vats are almost ready to over flow, it's spring it's spring after a long cold winter, where they haven't been able to spread manure for months. The forecast is calling for heavy rain and warm temps. They know they will not be able to get on the fields without causing damage and a lot more field prep time for weeks, so they are left with one choice spread some manure to make room. Now could they spread at that time as far away from water sources as possible? Yes they probably should.

I just don't think it's fair to put so much blame on the farmers, in many cases they are very underpaid for what they contribute to society. Without them there is no food, and most of the farmers I know or that are in my family are avid sportsmen that wish to improve the environment and habitat. Many of them are not just mindlessly polluting water ways. Personally, I'd rather have farmers spreading natural fertilizer and using less chemical fertilizers and herbicide sprays. I don't know how much research there is on this but I would go out on a limb and say that the chemicals and sprays have a worse effect on the environment than does manure.

 

[FarmerDave]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
Here in Lancaster County I see quite a bit of liquid manure being spread on fields. I've noticed a stir of activity to spread the stuff when the ground is frozen and rain is coming. Unless there is some good reason I must assume the farmers are looking to dispose of the stuff rather than use it to enrich soil? Maybe there are farmers on this forum who can help me understand the reason for doing this. Lancaster farm streams are pretty much lost. Although many have limestone origins they are silted and polluted beyond hope.

Why are you asking about frozen ground now?

Anyway, there is a reason for this, but not necessarily a good one. More like an excuse.

Less likely to get the truck stuck if the ground is frozen. That is likely the main "reason." That and full tanks?

 

[salmonoid]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
Here in Lancaster County I see quite a bit of liquid manure being spread on fields. I've noticed a stir of activity to spread the stuff when the ground is frozen and rain is coming. Unless there is some good reason I must assume the farmers are looking to dispose of the stuff rather than use it to enrich soil? Maybe there are farmers on this forum who can help me understand the reason for doing this. Lancaster farm streams are pretty much lost. Although many have limestone origins they are silted and polluted beyond hope.

Why must you assume that farmers are only looking to dispose of the stuff and not enrich the soil? I don't think it is an either/or reason; it is a both/and. They have finite storage capacity and the same tanks that hold the manure also capture rainwater; ergo, if they are near capacity, they have to dump it somewhere. It is "free" fertilizer, so it does enrich the soil in the process.

FarmerDave has also identified a practical reason for using frozen ground - the big tractors and manure trucks/trailers don't get stuck as easily.

There aren't very many practical ways to dispose of manure. I know of one farm that was looking into plans to develop a digester, that would produce methane that they could then use as fuel on the farm. But it is an expensive proposition and most farmers (except the large-scale industrial type operations) don't have the capital to develop such infrastructure; it's much easier to dump it in the fields.

I'm expecting to see the manure trucks moving in the next few days near where I live. The rye was cut Saturday and with rain expected mid-week, they'll probably pull the rye today and dump manure tomorrow.

I am not a farmer, but know several farmers and I must say that it is easy to sling the manure at them, so to speak, without being in their shoes and having the real problem of disposing of it somehow. If everyone were to stop eating, the problem would go away

 

[JackM]

If manure is a pollutant, then it should be regulated like anything else. Industry has to pay to dispose of its waste, and so should agriculture.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Jack, manure is regulated. We have set gallons per acre that can go on a field. The gallons per acre is logged and turned in. Once a field is full the manure has to go elsewhere.

Yes there is a correlation in the truck, to tank output (which output) and gear (1st high, 1st low, 2 high, etc) to gallons per acre.

Others have answered the timing part of the question.

 

[duckfoot]

For the sake of the argument, let me clarify some things:

1. Manure is spread on the fields as fertilizer.
2. It is an effective fertilizer for its nitrogen content, which enhances plant growth. This is the reason anyhydrous ammonia is a popular fertilizer...ammonia is the most effective nitrogen chemical around.
3. Manure itself is not a pollutant.
4. The OVERDOSE of nitrogen into the watershed is the pollutant.

It becomes a pollutant because like land plants (corn, soy, etc.), it enhances the growth of water plants and algae blooms, which create an anoxic (oxygen depleted) waterway that is bad news for fish and other dO2 needing critters.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
If manure is a pollutant, then it should be regulated like anything else. Industry has to pay to dispose of its waste, and so should agriculture.

I see. So what you seem to be proposing here is that manure be hauled to treatment plants and farmers should only use chemical fertilizers.

That makes sense.


NOT!

 

[mario66pens]

FarmerDave wrote:

JackM wrote:
If manure is a pollutant, then it should be regulated like anything else. Industry has to pay to dispose of its waste, and so should agriculture.

I see. So what you seem to be proposing here is that manure be hauled to treatment plants and farmers should only use chemical fertilizers.

That makes sense.


NOT!

…You took a very common sense statement and spun it into something completely different.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Manure is not waste to farmers, it is an invaluable tool that allows them to grow better crops that prevents them from having to buy more feed. Manure is in many applications a better fertilizer than chemicals and it is free of cost to farmers.

 

[FarmerDave]

mario66pens wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

JackM wrote:
If manure is a pollutant, then it should be regulated like anything else. Industry has to pay to dispose of its waste, and so should agriculture.

I see. So what you seem to be proposing here is that manure be hauled to treatment plants and farmers should only use chemical fertilizers.

That makes sense.


NOT!

…You took a very common sense statement and spun it into something completely different.

"VERY common sense?" LOL! Where?

I agree to spinning it into something it wasn't. Why should you have all the fun. But the only reason I did was because I felt it was lacking in CS.

Lets break it down into two sentences.

If manure is a pollutant, then it should be regulated like anything else.

1. The handling of Manure is regulated and does explain the big liquid schit tanks in the first place.
2. Manure is not a pollutant when handled properly. It is only a pollutant if it enters a stream and by then, regulations are already broken.

Industry has to pay to dispose of its waste, and so should agriculture.

"So should Agriculture?

If a farmer can either use it as fertilizer, or sell it as fertilizer, then why not? Afterall, it is fertilizer. But assuming for some unforeseen reason they can't use or sell it. Then of course he must "dispose" of it properly.

Manure is only a potential pollutant. Farmers are regulated on how they can handle their potential pollutants, just like industry is regulated on how they must handle their potential pollutants. The reason for regulation is to keep those potential pollutants from becoming pollutants, is it not? If either mishandles their potential pollutants, they can be fined. Hell, even milk is considered a potential pollutant and regulated accordingly.

Are there farmers who break the regulations and abuse the environment? Yes there are, and they suck and are usually fined if caught. Does catching them require more regulation? Of course not. If you see a violation, turn them in.

Furthermore, have you ever heard of the three Rs of environmentalism? Something dear to me and full of common sense. these are Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Notice how "dispose of" is not in there.

Common sense?

Maybe they should just put a restriction on the bore of the spreader nozzle.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

I am not saying that the farmer is a bad guy.., I don't want to interfere with the way a man makes a living. And I understand the difficulties. However there are reasons that rules are in place and apparently are being ignored and not enforced. If you could see some of the situations here maybe it would clarify why I have some concerns. Very steep terrain...not terraced along waterways. Gullies and ditches form and after a rain the stuff washes off the fields and directly in to streams and rivers. I won't name names but one of the individuals involved is (or was ) a high ranking politician. The Susquehanna River is in very poor shape and part of the reason is all the excess nutrients. There is definitely a point where it is no longer fertilizer and is just pollution plain and simple.

 

[FarmerDave]

Foxtrapper, I for one did not think your concerns were invalid. Quite the opposite. They are valid concerns.

If he is flocking up a creek, feel free to interfere.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Yes this is a major issue that needs attention, it's just that it seems some times farmers get all the blame when they are just trying to survive. Yes there are some operations that are blatantly polluting waterways and they should be held responsible, but don't hold it against the rest of the farmers out there.

 

[franklin]

BrookieChaser wrote:
Jack, manure is regulated. We have set gallons per acre that can go on a field. The gallons per acre is logged and turned in. Once a field is full the manure has to go elsewhere.

Yes there is a correlation in the truck, to tank output (which output) and gear (1st high, 1st low, 2 high, etc) to gallons per acre.

Others have answered the timing part of the question.

Yep. Couple years ago there was a case where a farmer on Elk Creek (the trib to Penns near Milheim) put too much manure on his field and caused a fish kill at a private hatchery. The farmer was fined for exceeding the amount of manure he could apply and, as I remember, the conditions of the field. At the time there was a thread on this forum about the incident and all the details.

Ill add that I've also been reading about efforts to tighten up the dairy cattle waste run off in Lancaster County as part of the effort to clean up the Chessy.

 

[duckfoot]

franklin wrote:
Ill add that I've also been reading about efforts to tighten up the dairy cattle waste run off in Lancaster County as part of the effort to clean up the Chessy.

One of my undergraduate research papers was about that very thing.