wgmiller
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,847
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/346896
pcray1231
Well-known member
I know its a big change for these guys, and I understand why. Kind of intimidating for a small family farmer to get the scrutiny of environmental regulations.
Nonetheless, its the way forward. They're in a business, and if they want to remain that way, you gotta play by the rules.
Agree with them, though, that any efforts already taken voluntarily need to be taken into account.
Nonetheless, its the way forward. They're in a business, and if they want to remain that way, you gotta play by the rules.
Agree with them, though, that any efforts already taken voluntarily need to be taken into account.
osprey
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,031
Do it the way the dairy farmer on Big Spring does it , limiting the watering hole to just a few feet instead of hundreds _________I I_______
pcray1231
Well-known member
If you read the article, its far more than just the cows. Fertilizer is probably gonna be the big push.
C
crs5942
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 284
Stream bank erosion of "Legacy Sediments" is probably the main source of nitrogen going into the Bay. The phosphorus is probably coming from the inorganic fertilizers. There is no way to drastically cut the nitrogen load without addressing the eroding stream banks. There is phosphorus in the stream bank sediments, but the nitrogen seems to be the bigger problem from the eroded sediments. Most farmers seem to think that stream bank erosion is due to the livestock trampling the banks. If we really want to save the Bay then we should restore all the cattle pastures to wetlands. Make the stream valleys a carbon/phosphorus/nitrogen sink rather than a source.
TimMurphy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,753
Dear Board,
Farmers are generally regarded as good stewards of the land that they farm. Because they are held in that regard they will fight many of these regulations to the bitter end. They are already fighting the regulations in NY State so PA is sure to follow.
Great irony lies in the fact that the watermen of the Chesapeake Bay who can no longer harvest oysters or net fish will have to get "real jobs" because farming is in the blood of those upstream and those people upstream will change their ways grudgingly, if at all.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
Farmers are generally regarded as good stewards of the land that they farm. Because they are held in that regard they will fight many of these regulations to the bitter end. They are already fighting the regulations in NY State so PA is sure to follow.
Great irony lies in the fact that the watermen of the Chesapeake Bay who can no longer harvest oysters or net fish will have to get "real jobs" because farming is in the blood of those upstream and those people upstream will change their ways grudgingly, if at all.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
jdaddy
Active member
The good news for these small farmers is that there are a lot of conservation groups out there that want to work with them. It is amazing how often our TU group approaches farmers to help them out and they decline the request.
pcray1231
Well-known member
I agree Tim. But farming is an industry. Like industry, there are constant and ever changing rules to follow.
Historically, small family owned businesses in all industries tended to get away with not following those rules. Why? Because following them means keeping up to date on a lot of complicated regulations, which likely means employing people and equipment which specialize in those situations. Regulations are expensive for the regulated. So small business was always able to get exceptions to those rules because small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and politicians respect that. Farming just so happens to be an industry primarily run by such small, family owned businesses.
But things are a changing. Our population is growing. And regulating only the big businesses is no longer acceptabe to keep environmental concerns in check. Small business MUST adapt or die. Farmers MUST adapt or be put out of business. It's a price they must pay. We should do everything possible to help them on their journey, but they need to realize they're going on that journey whether they like it or not.
In a highly regulated society, it is very hard for small business to survive.
Historically, small family owned businesses in all industries tended to get away with not following those rules. Why? Because following them means keeping up to date on a lot of complicated regulations, which likely means employing people and equipment which specialize in those situations. Regulations are expensive for the regulated. So small business was always able to get exceptions to those rules because small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and politicians respect that. Farming just so happens to be an industry primarily run by such small, family owned businesses.
But things are a changing. Our population is growing. And regulating only the big businesses is no longer acceptabe to keep environmental concerns in check. Small business MUST adapt or die. Farmers MUST adapt or be put out of business. It's a price they must pay. We should do everything possible to help them on their journey, but they need to realize they're going on that journey whether they like it or not.
In a highly regulated society, it is very hard for small business to survive.
TimMurphy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 2,753
Dear Ray,
I'm not dismissing what you said just merely saying the oyster fisherman is pretty much screwed, heyna?
It all flows downhill.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
I'm not dismissing what you said just merely saying the oyster fisherman is pretty much screwed, heyna?
It all flows downhill.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
franklin
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,660
No mention of tilling practices? I would think that contributes more overall sediment in the Susquehanna watershed than erosion from cows in streams.
jdaddy
Active member
I think they are more concerned about nitrates in the matter at hand.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,663
If cows were fenced out of the streams, I don't know how much it would help fish populations in the Chesapeake, but fish populations in many PA trout streams would certainly go up.
franklin
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,660
The article does not mention erosion. When discussing cows in a stream bed erosion is my (our?) first reaction. They probably want the cows out of the stream to reduce the amount of manure deposited right in the stream.
Maurice
Administrator
Staff member
Keeping cows, and other livestock, out of the stream is a three pronged effect.
1. reduces and/or eliminates direct nitrate pollution.
2. reduces streambank erosion by allowing the buffers to grow.
3. forested riparian buffers planted inside the fencing act as a filter for runoff from surrounding fields.
Fencing is only one step though. Its cost effective but a hard sell to farmers who stand to lose over .5 acres per 200 linear feet of stream.
It is more important to reconnect the streambanks with the flood plains where severe erosion is occurring. The erosion carries fine sediments laced with nutrients from long ago. (legacy sediments). These endeavors are much more expensive however and cannot be abated by fencing out cattle and planting trees. Reasonable slopes need to be excavated and structures placed in stream to control the channel while vegetation takes root and matures.
Streambank fencing is a small but important step toward these goals....but it is a step.
1. reduces and/or eliminates direct nitrate pollution.
2. reduces streambank erosion by allowing the buffers to grow.
3. forested riparian buffers planted inside the fencing act as a filter for runoff from surrounding fields.
Fencing is only one step though. Its cost effective but a hard sell to farmers who stand to lose over .5 acres per 200 linear feet of stream.
It is more important to reconnect the streambanks with the flood plains where severe erosion is occurring. The erosion carries fine sediments laced with nutrients from long ago. (legacy sediments). These endeavors are much more expensive however and cannot be abated by fencing out cattle and planting trees. Reasonable slopes need to be excavated and structures placed in stream to control the channel while vegetation takes root and matures.
Streambank fencing is a small but important step toward these goals....but it is a step.
Chaz
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,451
What wasn't said is that these streams can be fenced off at no cost to the farmers if they take action themselves, there are plenty of people out there to get the funding, hire the fencing contractors, plant vegetation, and do the clean-ups. It's a win/win for everyone. We get cleaner water the farmer gets a fence. And they do allow water access for catlle, it's not like it's closed off completely.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,663
Have you ever heard the expression "cow-bombed" in regard to streams?
It means the stream has been "udderly" destroyed...
:-o
It means the stream has been "udderly" destroyed...
:-o
