# Anyone paying attention yet?



## Bubbagon (Mar 8, 2010)

Maybe this year out legislators will get it. Probably not. 
...and this summer has been MILD. Imagine if we had a few weeks of mid 90's.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/toledo-water-crisis-in-second-day-but-problems-long-coming/


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

Largest inland body of water in Ohio ruined? Ohio EPA tried dredging and Alum treatments to no avail apparently:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/05/22/grand-lake-algae-blooming-again.html


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

Yeah, as Bubba said, it's been a mild summer as far as the sun and the temps go towards causing these blooms to pop out. If we get some hot and dry August and September weather, it's likely to become a record year for these occurrences yet. 

Bubba, I know you've seen it too even on the lower Darby in hot weather, especially downstream of the homes on the creek with obviously leaky septic systems. Sometimes the entire drive between access points reeks of manure. One day in late August, Stuck and I figured we'd take a dip to cool off because it was in the mid-90s, and we got right back out when we realized we were right next to a pool of green slime.










That capture photo of swirling slime from the video looks exactly what I saw a week ago on the Muskingum right below where Wills Creek comes in. Out of curiosity I just checked the satellite to see what that watershed looks like. Not surprisingly I found what is in the second photo less than a mile upstream from that confluence. At first I thought it was sewage treatment, but actually there is a big pipe leading from it up to the Conesville AEP plant. In any case, you can see the lagoons full of algae that are obviously leaking into the watershed in this wet year. Or maybe it is more correct to say that whatever those lagoons is supposed to be filtering out which causes algal blooms is finding its way into the shed.










I did a little research, and that would be a wastewater treatment plant for the water used in the scrubbers at the plant. I guess those dark areas are coal ash.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

I've seen the Whetstone Creek branch of Delaware Reservoir look like that, too. It left a hell of a green water line on the white canoe.


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Bubbagon said:


> Maybe this year out legislators will get it. Probably not.
> ...and this summer has been MILD. Imagine if we had a few weeks of mid 90's.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/toledo-water-crisis-in-second-day-but-problems-long-coming/


Responsible commentators that have been working on the issue of the algae blooms all say the same thing... The farmers are only small part of the problem.
The problem is complex and the recent situation in the Western Basin was more of a perfect storm.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+causes+algal+blooms?




> Runoff and erosion from fertilised agricultural areas, erosion from river banks, river beds, land clearing (deforestation), and sewage effluent are the major sources of phosphorus and nitrogen entering water ways.
> 
> http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water-M...-blooms/What-causes-algal-blooms/default.aspx





> Nature mostly takes care of the temperature and light, but the increased presence of nutrients such as phosphorous is largely due to poor farming practices such as high use of fertilizers and presence of livestock near water supplies, as well as effluent and run-off from towns and cities near waterways. The ponding of water and reducing river flow rates tends to improve the light and sometimes the nutrient environment for algal growth making water turbulence a major factor in bloom development. Pesticides and other chemicals may affect the natural grazers which would otherwise control algal growth and their presence increases the risk of blooms.
> 
> http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Centers/HABS/faqs_causes_habs.html





> Q. Are farms the primary source of the phosphorus that causes blue-green algae?
> 
> That question leads to lots of finger-pointing. A February report by the International Joint Commission, a U.S.-Canadian organization that advises both nations on the Great Lakes, said municipal sewage plants were the primary source of Lake Erie phosphorus prior to a 1972 agreement to improve water quality. Since then, the report said, the leading culprit is runoff from farm fields, lawns, city streets and parking lots. Even deposition from the atmosphere makes a small contribution.
> 
> ...





> The Maumee River drains more than four million acres of agricultural land and dumps it into Lake Erie at the Port of Toledo, according to Dr. Reutter. While the current algal bloom is mostly a problem of Lake Erie's western basin, winds can shift the blue-green algae around and cause problems elsewhere.
> 
> The bloom is thriving on all the nutrients flowing from the river.
> "Essentially we're giving them a lot of candy," said Isabel Escobar, a chemical and environmental engineering professor at the University of Toledo, of the algae.
> ...


----------



## fishngolf (Jul 18, 2009)

Is it ok to eat fish out of those toxic dumps?


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

fishngolf said:


> Is it ok to eat fish out of those toxic dumps?


If you are talking about algae, generally yes, they are safe to eat with caution. Just don't contaminate the meat with the gut contents. But thats something you try to avoid anyhow due to the bacteria living in the gut.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

Everything weve seen to this point in the ongoing testing indicates that if the fish is cleaned properly and the skin removed, it should be safe for consumption, Mr. Spangler said.
Read more at http://www.toledoblade.com/Medical/...to-eat-officials-say.html#0fimfi8CC6wU2hJ9.99


----------



## robertj298 (Feb 23, 2009)

KaGee said:


> Responsible commentators that have been working on the issue of the algae blooms all say the same thing... The farmers are only small part of the problem.
> The problem is complex and the recent situation in the Western Basin was more of a perfect storm.


So, your saying that farm fertilizer runoff has just a small effect and we shouldn't worry about it?


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

I fish bass tournaments on the western basin and lower Detroit River,I've been doing so for twenty or more years now.The yellowish-green slime on the water from Pelee Island west to the Detroit River is getting worse every year.Last summer you didn't even see jet-skiers along the Canadian shoreline,or any swimmers due to algae infested waters.I really want to say my piece but no matter how much I sugar coat it I would get the forum locked.One prominent poster to this topic says there's a large number of reasons for this perfect storm to happen,evidently the same storm seems to pass by this way every year about now.The "storm" has it's origins basically in the same place every year-Maumee River.For whomever spokesman folks want to try to push up on a podium to explain to a half million people what went wrong is laughable.What went wrong is everybody knows that farmers along the Maumee watershed are using tiles to drain their fields(manure fertilizers),sewage treatment plants along the watershed allowing sludge to enter the water and careless home and landowners along the watershed allowing the chemicals from their treated lawns and their septic tanks leaking into the system is what went wrong.Is anybody doing anything about it? Has anybody done anything about it? Will anybody do anything about it? The answer to all three is the same answer to the question will anybody do anything about the bighead carp problem heading our way-no,of course not.In the hopes of keeping this topic open I will only say that as long as deep pocket shipping companies,and huge mega-buck AG companies keep pumping dollars to the folks that could make a difference nothing will change.Hope I didn't cross any rules here,just worried about our piece of the best fishing hole in the country.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

MassillonBuckeye said:


> If you are talking about algae, generally yes, they are safe to eat with caution. Just don't contaminate the meat with the gut contents. But thats something you try to avoid anyhow due to the bacteria living in the gut.



I'M REALLY BEGINNING TO WONDER IF FISH ARE AS SAFE AS FIRST THOUGHT...it seems that allot of this toxin my be stored like any other in the fat, organs, muscle, etc...these toxins are being injected into the bloodstream through the gill and food intake and who really knows the consequences....This is one of many reserch papers that are muddy!


This factsheet by the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center (SRAC) gives information on algal toxins in aquaculture.

Algal toxins can cause problems in the freshwater aquaculture of both vertebrates (fish) and invertebrates (shellfish). Such problems include:

off-flavor (Tucker, 2000; SRAC Publication No. 192),
indirect toxicity through changes in water quality (SRAC Publication No. 466), or
direct toxicity.
Algal toxins are organic molecules produced by a variety of algae in marine, brackish and fresh waters, as well as on wet soils (Falconer, 1993). They are a problem in aquaculture when they are produced in sufficient quantities, with sufficient potency, to kill cultured organisms, decrease feeding and growth rates, cause food safety issues, or adversely affect the quality of the product (Shumway, 1990).

Algal Blooms
The production of algal toxins is normally associated with algal blooms, or the rapid growth and exceptionally dense accumulation of algae. The term Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) is used to describe a proliferation of algae, or phytoplankton. Severe blooms of even non-toxic algae can spell disaster for cultured animals, because blooms deplete the oxygen in the shallow waters of many aquaculture systems. The number of HABs around the world is increasing (Shumway, 1990; Sunda et al., 2006), especially in the U.S. where almost every coastal state is now threatened, in some cases by more than one species of harmful algae. Scientists are unsure why this trend is occurring. The causes may be natural (species dispersal) or human-related (nutrient enrichment, climate change, and/or transport of algae in ship ballast water) (Johnk, et al. 2008; Sunda et al., 2006).

The effects of algal blooms vary widely. Some algae are toxic only at very high densities, while others can be toxic at very low densities (a few cells per liter). Some blooms discolor the water (thus the terms red tide and brown tide), while others are almost undetectable with casual observation (Shumway, 1990).

HABs can affect public health and ecosystems when:

filter-feeding shellfish (clams, mussels, oysters, scallops) feed on toxic phytoplankton and accumulate harmful toxins that are passed up the food chain;
fish, shellfish, birds and even mammals are killed by eating organisms that have consumed algal toxins;
light cannot penetrate the water, thus changing the function and structure of the aquatic ecosystem;
discoloration makes water aesthetically unpleasant;
the decaying biomass of a bloom depletes dissolved oxygen (especially critical in aquaculture); or
blooms kill other algae important in the food web (Codd et al., 2005b; Landsburg, 2002).
HABs can cause serious economic losses in aquaculture if they kill cultured organisms or cause consumers concern about food safety. Preliminary estimates show that the effect of HAB outbreaks on the U.S. economy is more than $40 million per year, or $1 billion per decade (Landsburg, 2002; Hudnell, 2008).

Toxin-producing algae may become more prevalent in the future (Sunda et al., 2006; Johnk et al., 2008), especially in eutrophic freshwater systems. This publication focuses on algal toxins in freshwater pond aquaculture in the South and southeastern United States. The most common toxin-producing algae in this region are cyanobacteria, golden algae (Prymnesium parvum) and euglenoids.

Cyanobacteria: The Blue-Green Algae
Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) inhabit fresh, brackish, marine and hypersaline waters, as well as terrestrial environments. Cyanobacteria grow in many habitats from thermal springs to the arctic. They play important roles in the biogeochemical cycling of elements and in the structure, function and biodiversity of aquatic communities (from microbes through vertebrates). Some cyanobacteria can reduce both N2 and CO2. Some can convert N2 into NH3 and, ultimately, into amino acids and proteins.

Cyanobacteria have a relatively simple prokaryotic structure and lack membrane-bound organelles (nucleus, mitochondria and chloroplasts). With murien in the cell wall and reproduction by binary fission, cyanobacteria are structurally and physiologically like other gram-negative bacteria, but they conduct photosynthesis like plants in aquatic systems. Cyanobacteria are much larger than other bacteria and make a major contribution to world photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation (Codd et al., 2005a; Huisman et al., 2005; Hudnell, 2008).

Cyanobacteria occur in unicellular, colonial and filamentous forms and most are enclosed in a mucilagenous sheath, either individually or in colonies. As single cells, large colonies and filaments (trichomes), blue-green algae can become the dominant algae in nutrient-rich waters. They can form blooms so thick it appears that blue-green paint covers the surface of the water.

Several species found in the South and Southeast produce substances that cause taste and odor problems in water supplies and aquacultural products (Tucker, 2000). Some blue-green algae, particularly Anabaena and Microcystis, produce toxins poisonous to fish and to wildlife and livestock that drink contaminated water. There are also documented cases of blue-green algal toxins harming people in other parts of the world who drank poorly treated water.

Cyanobacterial Ecology in Aquaculture Ponds
Cyanobacteria can colonize and rapidly grow to great masses in aquaculture ponds. Factors that affect their growth are nutrient status, salinity or ionic strength, light conditions, turbulence and mixing, temperature and herbivory (Sunda et al., 2006). In aquaculture situations, eukaryotic algae (green, diatoms, etc.) can often grow faster than cyanobacteria. However, cyanobacteria can out-compete algae for nutrients, thrive with low dissolved oxygen, and photosynthesize more efficiently at low light levels. Cyanobacteria are less affected by turbidity, high concentrations of ammonia and warm temperatures. They can seize the advantage in eutrophic aquaculture situations. Cyanobacteria can affect the production of zooplankton and consequently the production of fish. They also produce allelochemicals that can inhibit competing algae and invertebrate grazers (Gross, 2003; Berry et al., 2008).

There is compelling evidence that cyanobacteria and their toxins (both neurotoxins and hepatotoxins) affect zooplankton (cladocerans and rotifers) population structure, and that this may influence the ecological processes responsible for cyanobacterial success (Berry et al., 2008). Zooplankton generally avoid cyanobacteria as a food source (Gross, 2003), which means that zooplankton feed on algae that compete with cyanobacteria. In the process, they release essential nutrients, further fertilizing cyanobacterial growth. During cyanobacterial blooms, when alternative food sources for zooplankton have been exhausted, Daphnia populations may decline. Some zooplankton (Daphnia pulicaria, Daphnia pulex) species have adapted to survive in the presence of certain toxic cells (Sunda et al., 2006; Gross, 2003). This changes the zooplankton population dynamics. Feeding pressure by adapted zooplankton on cyanobacteria is reduced by fish predation, which again releases nutrients that fuel cyanobacterial growth. It may be premature to propose that cyanobacterial dominance is guided by cyanotoxin production. However, feeding deterrence is one of the roles suggested for these metabolites (Berry et al., 2008). Whether the compounds causing toxicity and deterrence are one and the same has recently been questioned (Berry et al., 2008). While daphnids are killed when feeding on toxic Microcystis cells, they show no selection between ingesting toxic or nontoxic cells, which indicates that microcystins are not responsible for feeding inhibition (Berry et al., 2008).

Problems with Cyanobacteria in Aquaculture Ponds
Cyanobacteria can rapidly overtake an aquaculture pond and contribute to unstable conditions. Cyanobacteria blooms can decrease fish production and kill fish because of oxygen depletion. Cyanobacteria can also cause off-flavor and objectionable odor in fish.

However, the role of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins in fish kills and other problems is not clear at this time. There are more than 1 million fish ponds in the Southeast and many of them have relatively frequent blooms of cyanobacteria that may produce toxins (e.g., Microcystis, Anabaena, etc.). Yet there are only a few reports of fish kills that are directly related to algal toxin production (Zimba et al., 2001). So the mere presence of toxin-producing algae does not necessarily mean that enough toxin will be produced to harm fish in culture.

Cyanobacterial Toxins
Cyanobacterial toxins can be classified several ways. They may be classified according to their chemical structures as cyclic peptides (microcystin and nodularin), alkaloids (anatoxin-a, anatoxin-a(s), saxitoxin, cylindrospermopsin, aplysiatoxins, lyngbyatoxin-a) and lipopolysaccharides. However, cyanotoxins are more commonly discussed in terms of their toxicity to animals. While there are several dermatotoxins (e.g., lyngbyatoxin and aplysiatoxins), which are produced primarily by benthic cyanobacteria, most cyanotoxins are either neurotoxins or hepatotoxins (Codd et al., 2005a).

Neurotoxins. Neurotoxins are organic molecules that can attack the nervous systems of vertebrates and invertebrates. Three primary types of neurotoxins have been identified: 1) anatoxin-a, an alkaloid, inhibits transmissions at the neuromuscular junction by molecular mimicry of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine (blocks post-synaptic depolarization); 2) anatoxin-a(s) blocks acetylcholinesterase (similar to organophosphate pesticides); 3) saxitoxins are carbamate alkaloids that act like carbamate pesticides by blocking sodium channels.

Neurotoxins are produced by several genera of cyanobacteria including Anabaena, Aphanizomenon, Microcystis, Planktothrix, Raphidiopsis, Arthrospira, Cylindrospermum, Phormidium and Oscillatoria. Neurotoxins produced by Anabaena spp., Oscillatoria spp. and Aphanizomenon flos-aquae blooms have been responsible for animal poisonings around the world (Carmichael, 1997; Briand et al., 2003).

Neurotoxins usually have acute effects in vertebrates, with rapid paralysis of the peripheral skeletal and respiratory muscles. Other symptoms include loss of coordination, twitching, irregular gill movement, tremors, altered swimming, and convulsions before death by respiratory arrest.

Hepatotoxins. Hepatotoxins are produced by many genera of cyanobacteria and have been implicated in the deaths of fish, birds, wild animals, livestock and humans around the world (Briand et al., 2003; Carmichael, 1997). The cyclic heptapeptides, or microcystins, inhibit eukaryotic protein phosphatases type 1 and type 2A, resulting in excessive phosphorylation of cytoskeletal elements and ultimately leading to liver failure (Codd, 2005b). These toxins target the liver by binding the organic anion transport system in hepatocyte cell membranes. Microcystins are the largest group of cyanotoxins, with more than 70 structural variants (Malbrouk and Kestemont, 2006). Microcystin is the only cyanotoxin for which the biosynthetic pathway and gene cluster have been identified (Huisman et al., 2005). Microcystins are produced in fresh waters by species of Microcystis, Anabaena and Planktothrix. Symptoms of poisoning in fish include flared gills because of difficulty breathing and weakness or inability to swim. Channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, can become intoxicated at ~50 to 75 ?g microcystin/L (Zimba et al., 2001). All fish may be killed within 24 hours of exposure. At necropsy, severe lesions may be observed in liver tissues.


Microcystis aeruginosa (photos by John H. Rodgers, Jr.).
One potent hepatotoxin, cylindrospermopsin, is produced by Cylindrospermopsis raciborskii, a relatively small cyanobacterium. Cylindrospermopsin is an alkaloid that suppresses glutathione and protein synthesis. C. raciborskii has been in the South and Southeast for decades and is becoming more widespread. Mammals (such as humans) are relatively sensitive to cylindrospermopsin and may be affected when they eat fish that have been exposed to the toxin. A study reporting the bioaccumulation of cylindrospermopsin in muscle tissue of the redclaw crayfish (Cherax quadricarinatus) and visceral tissues of rainbow fish (Oncorhynchus mykiss) shows that exposure could occur from farm-raised freshwater aquatic foods. Fish are generally more tolerant of algal toxins than mammals and tend to accumulate them over time (Carson, 2000). Although C. raciborskii has not yet been a problem in aquaculture, it could become a problem in the future.

Environmental Effects on Toxin Production
The effects of environmental factors on toxin production are much studied and widely disputed (Codd, 2000; Codd et al., 2005a). Blooms in the same body of water can be toxic or non-toxic from one year to the next. A different strain composition (i.e., toxic versus non-toxic), which cannot be distinguished microscopically if belonging to the same species, is a common explanation for this occurrence. However, some species are known to produce high or low levels of toxicity under different laboratory conditions. The stimulus for toxin production in such species is not known. Environmental parameters such as light intensity, temperature, nutrients and trace metals have been mimicked under laboratory conditions and their effect on cyanotoxin production investigated. Studies on light intensity are not definitive, but it is known that intense light increases the cellular uptake of iron, which may be responsible for more toxin production. However, low concentrations of iron lead to higher microcystin concentrations (Huisman et al., 2005). Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are essential for cyanobacterial growth. Phosphorus is usually the limiting factor in ponds, so small increases in this nutrient may influence toxin production simply as a result of increasing algal growth. Generally, decreased amounts of microcystin (produced by Anabaena, Microcystis and Oscillatoria) and anatoxin-a (produced by Aphanizomenon) have been reported under the lowest phosphorus concentrations tested (Watanabe et al., 1995).

Managing Toxic Cyanobacteria
Monitoring and diagnosing the problem. While not all blooms of toxin-producing cyanobacteria result in toxin production, most do. Once a bloom is observed, the onset of toxicity will be rapid (hours to a day or two). To confirm the problem, a diagnostician will need fresh samples (unpreserved) of the water containing the suspected cyanobacteria (Rottmann et al., 1992). A sample of both sick and dead fish will also be needed, along with information on fish behavior and any other symptoms observed. Young fish are generally more sensitive than older fish. The diagnostician may look for lesions on fish livers, although this is inconclusive as the sole method of diagnosis (Zimba et al., 2001).

Treatment. Most of the time, managing a pond specifically to prevent toxic blue-green algae blooms is not justified, and the treatments themselves are risky. An algicide should not be applied without considering the size of the affected pond, the number and type of fish at risk, the age and condition of the fish, the sensitivity of the cyanobacterium to treatment, and the cost of the treatment. Non-chemical treatments include 1) physical mixing and aeration, 2) increasing flow rate or flushing to decrease hydraulic retention time, and 3) decreasing or altering nutrient content and composition. Some of these options may not be viable at all sites and in all situations.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

KaGee said:


> Responsible commentators that have been working on the issue of the algae blooms all say the same thing... The farmers are only small part of the problem.
> The problem is complex and the recent situation in the Western Basin was more of a perfect storm.


With all due respect, that's your farm lobby at work. It's a massive problem with pretty easy fixes that wouldn't screw farmers. It might require a change of farming practices, but it won't put them out of business. No one likes to be told what to do on their own land though, which I get... Just really screwing up our water.


----------



## Gottagofishn (Nov 18, 2009)

What can you say..... Big headed carp, Fracking, importing hazardous waste, wind farms on the lake. It really doesn't matter to any lawmaker unless they are directly impacted by the situation. 
Otherwise, money rules....... 

When all the cities along the lake are clogged with the green goo then maybe they will decide it's time to do something..... maybe......


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

This keeps coming up, and I wish you guys would stop blaming the farmers. I I posted the below in a thread last year. Nothing has changed, and nobody can answer. I believe the answer is at the end, but, I guess it's easier to blame someone else, instead of fixing the real cause:

_why do so few inland lakes have the problem? Most inland lakes are completely surrounded by farmland.

A couple in SE Ohio, actually 3, that are not surrounded by farmland, but, nevertheless do have the algae, are Burr Oak Lake, Lake Hope, and Cutler Lakes. All 3 have had the same algae blooms. Where would it be their agricultural run off came from? There's practically nothing but trees within their watershed. Trees and people. Seriously, look at Google Earth. The few open fields you will find, especially around Burr Oak and Cutler, are old hayfields, not row crops. You'd be hard pressed to find one of those fields that's been fertilized in the last 20 years.

What I'm trying to say is, there is more involved than just farm run off. With the price of fertilizer, farmers aren't just dumping it. A lot of them are even using GPS to make sure they put on just enough, and NO extra. As long as the farmer takes the blame, we'll all just assume that's the cause, instead of looking for other causes. Again, the scientific explanation of blaming farmers does not support Burr Oak, Lake Hope, or Cutler Lake. If the supposed warmer climate is causing it, why don't all southern Ohio lakes have the same problem? They have a slightly warmer climate than Lake Erie, so?

*Maybe it could be, municipalities don't dump their waste water directly into other lakes, like they do Erie? (Well, except for Celina. Oh wait. Doesn't Grand Lake St. Mary's have the same problem?)* That kinda leaves out the scapegoat, or, I mean farmer. _


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2014)

a friend told me last night that we treat this planet as if we have another to go to once we destroy this one. and there is no end even remotely in sight. $$$$$


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Mushijobah said:


> With all due respect, that's your farm lobby at work. It's a massive problem with pretty easy fixes that wouldn't screw farmers. It might require a change of farming practices, but it won't put them out of business. No one likes to be told what to do on their own land though, which I get... Just really screwing up our water.


Excuse me... With all do respect, you and all the other's commenting here are not from the area. My comments are related to the Western Basin of Lake Erie. Never said farmers don't play a part. According to what we were being told here, homeowners also play a part with their run-off of fertilizer. The Detroit area plays a part, equal to the Maumee. They were allowing millions of gallons of raw sewage to escape into the Detroit River earlier in the year. Industry and the weather played a part. It's a complex issue and it's not a simple fix according to the experts that were brought in front of us. YMMV.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

KaGee said:


> Excuse me... With all do respect, you and all the other's commenting here are not from the area. My comments are related to the Western Basin of Lake Erie. *Never said farmers don't play a part. *According to what we were being told here, homeowners also play a part with their run-off of fertilizer. The Detroit area plays a part, equal to the Maumee. They were allowing millions of gallons of raw sewage to escape into the Detroit River earlier in the year. Industry and the weather played a part. It's a complex issue and it's not a simple fix according to the experts that were brought in front of us. YMMV.


Honestly, what does "being from the area" have to do with the validity of anyone's argument? That's the second time you said that. I could be a Australian Aborigine and know more about the issue than someone from Toledo. As taxpayers and users of Ohio waterways who are seeing similar problems around the state we all have some skin in this game, and unless you can find evidence that our opinions are invalid you aren't going to score any points for the speech and debate team with the you-aren't-even-from-here approach.

No, you didn't say farmers don't play a part, you said it was a "small" part. Can you provide any research to back up that opinion that farm runoff is only a small part of the problem? Are you an expert in the field? In rhetorical terms I put a lot more credence in Mushijobah's expert opinion than I do yours as I know he has a degree in this area and actually works in the field.

No one is blaming farmers (we all eat their butter and eggs), but a concerted effort to reduce application of fertilizers and runoff is a pretty straightforward way to start. How about the rest of you stop putting all that crap on your lawns? The modern suburban lawn is one of them most senseless, piece-of-crap values ever foisted upon the American public.

I'm going to guess that when Mushi said that runoff was a problem with some "easy fixes" he means that with some common sense and some spade work, we can really start making some headway on the issue. Saying that it is a "complex issue with no simple fix" isn't going to get us anywhere. In fact, I suspect it is often a smokescreen designed to get people to forget about it until the next time they can't turn on their taps or take their kids to the lake. It is a complex issue with many simple fixes. Start with the simplest ones and go from there.

Then if someone has a few hundred billion dollars around we can fix all the inadequate sewage systems in the country.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

I would guess that the answers to the questions of origination would be found farther upstream, by sampling the tributaries. A few years ago, OEPA surveyed/sampled the Upper Scioto and they were able to pinpoint individual creeks (often with CAFOs in their watersheds) where dissolved oxygen and other parameters were out of normal.

The next question is, who's going to pay for that work?


----------



## chadwimc (Jun 27, 2007)

FOSR said:


> I would guess that the answers to the questions of origination would be found farther upstream, by sampling the tributaries. A few years ago, OEPA surveyed/sampled the Upper Scioto and they were able to pinpoint individual creeks (often with CAFOs in their watersheds) where dissolved oxygen and other parameters were out of normal.
> 
> The next question is, who's going to pay for that work?


Why other people, of course...


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

KaGee said:


> Excuse me... With all do respect, you and all the other's commenting here are not from the area. My comments are related to the Western Basin of Lake Erie. Never said farmers don't play a part. According to what we were being told here, homeowners also play a part with their run-off of fertilizer. The Detroit area plays a part, equal to the Maumee. They were allowing millions of gallons of raw sewage to escape into the Detroit River earlier in the year. Industry and the weather played a part. It's a complex issue and it's not a simple fix according to the experts that were brought in front of us. YMMV.


 If you noticed in my post I not only blamed the farmers,I also blamed the homeowners and the sewage treatment plants.Where I disagree with you in a huge way is when you state that this a complex problem.I don't believe that for one second,I believe it is a very simple problem to fix-go straight to the root of the problem-in other words the farmers,homeowners and sewage facilities that are creating the problem.If the problem is not taken care of immediately impose heavy fines first and if that doesn't take care of things shut them all down.Sure some on here will say what right does the government have to shut down somebody's farm,or kick them out of their house blah,blah,blah.They have the same right as they would to shut down an illegal meth lab in somebody's house.I would think destroying Lake Erie and any other body of water by illegally dumping crap into them is just as serious as some wacko making meth in his home.As for the guy that said we shouldn't keep blaming the poor little farmers,you obviously miss the point,it's not the little guys it's mega bucks farms,big time AG companies,fine folks like Monsanto and others that are causing all of this and as long as "certain people" are receiving "funds" from these folks-nothing will be done except what always gets done-talk.How did we get gobies,zebra mussels and now bighead carp? Sure we all know the answer,same as we know how the algae is here.It's all because dudes on both sides of the spectrum can only fight each other instead of agreeing on what should be done until it's too late to do anything.How many billions of dollars to the Ohio economy will be lost forever if Lake Erie reverts back to what it was back in the 60's? I truly fear with the dollars first crowd that makes all the calls these days we're heading there sooner than later.


----------



## reo (May 22, 2004)

FACT: BILLIONS of dollars have been and ARE being spent on reducing combined sewage overflow in every major great lakes city. Concrete action to address this problem.

FACT: HABs consistently originate in Maumee and Sandusky Bays where AG runoff has far more influence than CSOs or lawn fertilizer. Detroit River water ain't making its way into these bays. 

QUESTION: Why are HABs much less common off Cleveland or Buffalo?

QUESTION: What concrete action is big AG taking to reduce phosphorous runoff to address this problem?? 

My observations though neither empirical or scientific are: More fields tiled every year, more riparian corridors removed every year and no reduction of manure spread especially by large feed lot and egg farm type operations.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

KaGee said:


> Excuse me... With all do respect, you and all the other's commenting here are not from the area. My comments are related to the Western Basin of Lake Erie. Never said farmers don't play a part. According to what we were being told here, homeowners also play a part with their run-off of fertilizer. The Detroit area plays a part, equal to the Maumee. They were allowing millions of gallons of raw sewage to escape into the Detroit River earlier in the year. Industry and the weather played a part. It's a complex issue and it's not a simple fix according to the experts that were brought in front of us. YMMV.


A lot of us are more deeply involved in understanding the problem than just living in the area or listening to what the Farm Bureau has to say. They are, of course, very pro agriculture and are very slow to criticize hurtful land management practices. The combined sewer overflows and sanity sewer overflows from the cities are a problem but are being reigned in at an unprecedented rate with upgrades to plants, sewer systems, gree-infrastructure, stormwater mgmt.. I don't see agriculture in general moving with the same gusto. 

Refer to Streamstalkers post. He is much more eloquent than I! Again, with all due respect


----------



## FSHNERIE (Mar 5, 2005)

It's just Sad. Glad I sold my Boat when I did. I don't see it getting any better. This has been a on going problem for years. Really..... no one knows how to fix this problem. 

Tight Lines............


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Mushijobah said:


> sewer overflows from the cities are a problem but are being reigned in at an unprecedented rate with upgrades to plants, sewer systems, gree-infrastructure, stormwater mgmt.. I don't see agriculture in general moving with the same gusto.


Right and wrong. You might not see what farmers are doing, but things have definitely changed, mainly the spreading of, um, human waste. It's being knifed in, along with all the tampons, condoms, cigarette butts, unfiltered drugs, etc., but that's another issue. Problem is, the algae didn't stop. It's like farming practices had a very small impact. Like it or not, farming is a business. Businesses don't waste money. Fertilizer costs money. It wasn't being wasted to begin with.

Why would anyone think the crap from 10 cattle was worse than the crap from 100 people? Anyway, now, finally, if you haven't noticed, there is a flurry of activity to upgrade municipal sewer systems all around the state. It would be false hope for the farmers to expect an apology.


----------



## Lowell H Turner (Feb 22, 2011)

I cannot help but to add that it`s NOT just a case of what is (or isn`t) being done right now. Phosphate, 1 of the MAIN `ingredients` of these blooms is PERSISTANT. After the Civil War when it was VERY cheap and abundant it was used, literally year after year after year by farmers AND individuals AND industry... For DECADES no one gave much thought to the quality of the water they discharged, whether from a field, house or factory where most of it ended up running off into the nearest stream, which led to a lake, wet land, swampy area, ect. Along with siltration and sedimentation, it quietly REMAINED awaiting a strong storm or depending on it`s depth, even a powerful high thrust prop to put it back into suspension, ready to be consumed by the algae...along with extensive paving, de-forestation, urban sprawl, and climate change we are beginning to literally SEE the accumulated effects of our past...


----------



## fishngolf (Jul 18, 2009)

:angry: Its just going to get worse unless some funded enviromental professionals look into the cause and solution. It seems there is alot involved ($$$$) which always isnt good. I have a bad feeling about the future of our drinking water, lakes and fish.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

I Fish said:


> Right and wrong. You might not see what farmers are doing, but things have definitely changed, mainly the spreading of, um, human waste. It's being knifed in, along with all the tampons, condoms, cigarette butts, unfiltered drugs, etc., but that's another issue. Problem is, the algae didn't stop. It's like farming practices had a very small impact. Like it or not, farming is a business. Businesses don't waste money. Fertilizer costs money. It wasn't being wasted to begin with.
> 
> Why would anyone think the crap from 10 cattle was worse than the crap from 100 people? Anyway, now, finally, if you haven't noticed, there is a flurry of activity to upgrade municipal sewer systems all around the state. It would be false hope for the farmers to expect an apology.


Agreed!
I'm from a small farming community with family owned and Corporation farms...most try to use the least amount of fertilization as possible and rotate crops every year!
We are walking a fine line between messing with our water supply and messing with our food supply! Farming practices in at least my area, changed a long time ago, extra fertilization meant loss of income....heck most farmers don't spread manure in Winter anymore and TRY to leave buffers between fields and streams.

You can still walk the Creek (Buck Creek) that goes through Springfield and dumps into the Mad River and see discharge from sewers and businesses...PLUS all the fertilization from homeowners.
EVERY TIME it rains, warning signs are put up downtown to WARN people of high bacterial or toxic levels of things in the water and not to swim...THIS IS THE NEW DOWNTOWN KAYAK AREA....for People to enjoy...and almost every rain it is CLOSED! This is not a FARMING issue!

You cannot have shallow lakes and build entire cities at the waters edge, years and years of septic, sewer, lawn care, etc have been discharged into the lake and now time has caught up to them. Maybe some farmers refuse to modernize, if so they need to be fined, ordered to clean up, or be shut down, but most of the problems arise from peoples need to live right next to water and then not know how to take care of the water that sustains their life!
These are the ones who destroyed most of the vital wetlands around the lakes and feeder creeks, etc that buffered alot of the nutrients etc, but we have just overwhelmed the system as usual and have no idea how to cheaply fix it!

The Zebra muscles and other exotics in Lake Erie were thought to be able to clean the lake and take out all the nutrients...well now, that just isn't the case...so many nutrients are in there and more is flowing in, that the lake is a mess, so how do you correct over 100 years of nutrients in the lake, sediment, etc...this ought to be fun to watch!


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

Well...Here's a NEW one today! This one is caused by CORN FIELDS that lay bare most of the year!



ORLANDO Fla. (Reuters) - Scientists say a man-made "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico is as big as the state of Connecticut.

The zone, which at about 5,000 square miles (13,000 sq km) is the second largest in the world but still smaller than in previous years, is so named because it contains no oxygen, or too little, at the Gulf floor to support bottom-dwelling fish and shrimp.

The primary cause of the annual phenomenon is excess nutrient runoff from farms along the Mississippi River, which empties into the Gulf, said Gene Turner, a researcher at Louisiana State University's Coastal Ecology Institute.

The nutrients feed algae growth, which consumes oxygen when it works its way to the Gulf bottom, he said.

"It's a poster child for how we are using and abusing our natural resources," Turner said.

Turner said the zone has at least twice in recent years reached the size of Massachusetts, about 8,200 square miles (21,000 sq km).

The Gulf dead zone, which fluctuates in size but measured 5,052 square miles this summer, is exceeded only by a similar zone in the Baltic Sea around Finland, Turner said.

The number of dead zones worldwide currently totals more than 550 and has been increasing for decades, according to a report by Turner and Nancy Rabalais from the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium.

The elongated Gulf zone typically hugs the Louisiana coastline from the Mississippi River Delta to the state's border with Texas, and some years extending offshore of Texas and Mississippi, Rabalais said.

The scientists said a growth in farmed land along the Mississippi River in the 1960s began increasing pollution. In the 1970s, levels of oxygen in parts of the Gulf fell below the needs of bottom-dwelling fish. The zone has been generally growing ever since.

Floods, droughts, storms and other factors affect the volume of nutrients flowing into the Gulf and account for year-over-year fluctuations, Turner said.

"It seems to have leveled out in size, but it could get worse" depending on changes in pollution levels, Rabalais said.

The report said federal farm policy impacts the amount of pollution in the river. Turner said corn fields, which lay bare most of the year and leach nutrients, are one of the biggest contributors to the problem.

A federal task force organized with river states in 2001 to reduce nutrient runoff has had no substantial success, he said.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

I Fish said:


> Right and wrong. You might not see what farmers are doing, but things have definitely changed, mainly the spreading of, um, human waste. It's being knifed in, along with all the tampons, condoms, cigarette butts, unfiltered drugs, etc., but that's another issue. Problem is, the algae didn't stop. It's like farming practices had a very small impact. Like it or not, farming is a business. Businesses don't waste money. Fertilizer costs money. It wasn't being wasted to begin with.
> 
> Why would anyone think the crap from 10 cattle was worse than the crap from 100 people? Anyway, now, finally, if you haven't noticed, there is a flurry of activity to upgrade municipal sewer systems all around the state. It would be false hope for the farmers to expect an apology.


Same old straw man tactic I keep hearing. It's not just fertilizer. It's not just manure. It's not just topsoil erosion. It's not just riparian tree depletion. It's not just CAFOs. It's not just the increased use of drainage tiles. It's a massive combination of the above. Streams and lakes don't function well when they recieve a torrent of WARM (fast runoff from open dirt or tiles, not ground infiltration) water filled with sediment, nutrients. *It is the disease*. The lake algae is merely a horrific symptom. 

As I've mentioned before, cities are doing their part. For example, Scioto Watershed, Columbus is spending 2-4 BILLION on sewer overflows. They will be artifacts when all is said and done. They have the money and collective power to do these sorts of things.

Now tell me, how is Farmer Smith, Miller, Stevenson, Hoyer, Royer, Dunlap, Edinburough, Blevins, Farm Corp LLC, Farm World Inc, and Mega Farm LTD going to collectively come together and agree on best practices? It takes laws, tax breaks, etc. No one would change how they do things for a reason they don't believe in. No one wants to believe that they are hurting rivers, lakes, forests, wildlife populations, etc.


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

Mushijobah said:


> Same old straw man tactic I keep hearing. It's not just fertilizer. It's not just manure. It's not just topsoil erosion. It's not just riparian tree depletion. It's not just CAFOs. It's not just the increased use of drainage tiles. It's a massive combination of the above. Streams and lakes don't function well when they recieve a torrent of WARM (fast runoff from open dirt or tiles, not ground infiltration) water filled with sediment, nutrients. *It is the disease*. The lake algae is merely a horrific symptom.
> 
> As I've mentioned before, cities are doing their part. For example, Scioto Watershed, Columbus is spending 2-4 BILLION on sewer overflows. They will be artifacts when all is said and done. They have the money and collective power to do these sorts of things.
> 
> Now tell me, how is Farmer Smith, Miller, Stevenson, Hoyer, Royer, Dunlap, Edinburough, Blevins, Farm Corp LLC, Farm World Inc, and Mega Farm LTD going to collectively come together and agree on best practices? It takes laws, tax breaks, etc. No one would change how they do things for a reason they don't believe in. No one wants to believe that they are hurting rivers, lakes, forests, wildlife populations, etc.


.............and obviously nobody else wants to believe the farmers are a huge cause of the problem.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Intimidator said:


> You can still walk the Creek (Buck Creek) that goes through Springfield and dumps into the Mad River and see discharge from sewers and businesses...PLUS all the fertilization from homeowners.
> EVERY TIME it rains, warning signs are put up downtown to WARN people of high bacterial or toxic levels of things in the water and not to swim...THIS IS THE NEW DOWNTOWN KAYAK AREA....for People to enjoy...and almost every rain it is CLOSED! This is not a FARMING issue!


you do realize that the cities are required by law to do this, right? Since they have National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits? Farms (other than CAFOS) are exempt from these permits, so they could be dumping pig and cow manure directly into a creek and not require any signs. 

Oh, and those sewers you see? Storm sewers. They are the same thing as a drainage tile. Drainage tiles drain muddy fields, though. Sanitary sewers goto a treatment facility.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Harbor Hunter said:


> .............and obviously nobody else wants to believe the farmers are a huge cause of the problem.


No, just people who are farmers, are the farm lobby, are the farm bureau, are in a farm community, are family of a farmer, or that choose not to listen to OEPA's studies. Trust me, I don't believe every scientific study I hear, but when it's easily testable and the results are repeated, then it is valid.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

> This product brings together 1960-2012 data on fertilizer consumption in the United States by plant nutrient and major selected product, as well as consumption of mixed fertilizers, secondary nutrients, and micronutrients. Share of crop area receiving fertilizer and fertilizer use per receiving acre, by nutrient, are presented for the major producing States for corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat. Additional data include fertilizer farm prices and indices of wholesale fertilizer price. Fertilizer price data are through 2013.


http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-and-price.aspx#.U-J4hPm-18E


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

A while back I heard an interview with someone describing modern farming vs. the old ways, when manure produced on the farm was used on the same farm, so there was no need to buy artificial fertilizers. Now by contrast farmers have to buy expensive fertilizers, and manure disposal is a costly bother.

As he put it, this change took an elegant solution, and neatly broke it into two problems.


----------



## Flathead76 (May 2, 2010)

KaGee said:


> Excuse me... With all do respect, you and all the other's commenting here are not from the area. My comments are related to the Western Basin of Lake Erie. Never said farmers don't play a part. According to what we were being told here, homeowners also play a part with their run-off of fertilizer. The Detroit area plays a part, equal to the Maumee. They were allowing millions of gallons of raw sewage to escape into the Detroit River earlier in the year. Industry and the weather played a part. It's a complex issue and it's not a simple fix according to the experts that were brought in front of us. YMMV.


Well since I live in Toledo and work for the water department I will chime in. All that I can say is even with the water ban lifted none of us at work are drinking tap water. This situation is not a perfect storm and the conditions have been getting worse every year for years. Your talking about a 70 year old water plant that needs serious improvements due to years of not making proper repairs. These conditions will contiue to continue getting worse every year because of the examples in your quote above. Unless run off issues are addressed your perfect storm will continue to get worse each and every year.


----------



## FISHGUY (Apr 8, 2004)

I keep reading all the info on what people think causes the alge ! and I have a question that I have not seen brought up. Has anybody looked at the way we farm now ? How long has it been since you have seen a farmer plow or till his land. They now chizzle plow or no till. The fertilizer is applied on un plowed fields about the same as putting it on a blacktop parking lot my thougt is you are going to have more run off. It would be interesting to see how this way of farming is having an affect on creating more alge. Just a thought. Tight Lines


----------



## MassillonBuckeye (May 3, 2010)

FISHGUY said:


> I keep reading all the info on what people think causes the alge ! and I have a question that I have not seen brought up. Has anybody looked at the way we farm now ? How long has it been since you have seen a farmer plow or till his land. They now chizzle plow or no till. The fertilizer is applied on un plowed fields about the same as putting it on a blacktop parking lot my thougt is you are going to have more run off. It would be interesting to see how this way of farming is having an affect on creating more alge. Just a thought. Tight Lines


I linked fertilizer sales figures from the department of agriculture a couple posts ago if you'd like to take a look. Doesn't tell the whole picture obviously, but I was a little surprised at what I found.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Mushijobah said:


> No, just people who are farmers, are the farm lobby, are the farm bureau, are in a farm community, are family of a farmer, or that choose not to listen to OEPA's studies. Trust me, I don't believe every scientific study I hear, but when it's easily testable and the results are repeated, then it is valid.


Funny, but I've yet to see an explanation for Burr Oak, Lake Hope, and Cutler Lake, but, I guess they don't quite fit the farmer bad, clean water good model, do they? I'm not saying clean water is bad, just that I don't think farmers are as bad as they are being painted.

I guess I'm just tired of the public always does good, while the individual always does bad mentality.


----------



## driftin tim (Sep 18, 2012)

We have had algae blooms the last couple of years in southwest Ohio at East Fork Lake. I get angry because I buy a new boat for my retirement enjoyment and its not safe for the grandchildren or any of us to go into the water. Then we get some typical DNR brilliant guy get interviewed by the media and tells people that you can still use the park and boat. In other words we aren't going to do anything about the problem but test the water and give advisories. I am tired of government bureaucrats that never want to get to the root cause of problems, take their paycheck and liberal pensions and tell you when it is safe to swim in the lake. As others have pointed out this problem gets worse each year.

I believe the problem is caused by waste treatment effluent, erosion runoff of nitrogen,phosphorus, and other chemicals by farmers who I love. They were encouraged to go with no plowing and tilling the last few years. Companies like Monsanto have developed seeds that are resistant to weed killer (like Round off). The farmers probably don't mind paying a premium for these seeds because the can save money on fuel and time to prepare the fields. When the spring rains hit these chemical run off the soil get into the creeks, the rivers and then lakes. Then it gets hot then Bingo algae blooms in the lake close to the source of entry. I am not an expert but I truly believe this is what is happening. What is upsetting is the bureaucrats and politicians don't seem to understand the problem or figure out the causes of the problem. They probably will spend money on government studies. I will probably be dead before they act.


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

I Fish said:


> Funny, but I've yet to see an explanation for Burr Oak, Lake Hope, and Cutler Lake, but, I guess they don't quite fit the farmer bad, clean water good model, do they? I'm not saying clean water is bad, just that I don't think farmers are as bad as they are being painted.
> 
> I guess I'm just tired of the public always does good, while the individual always does bad mentality.


 I'll take a stab at your question.It doesn't matter what surrounds Burr Oak or Cutler,woods,swamps,farmland or whatever else.What matters is the feeder streams entering the lake,do you realize how big of a watershed Sunday Creek and Salt Creek are? If field runoff goes into Sunday Creek or any of it's tributaries 30 miles away it will reach the lake same as Salt Creek entering Cutler.Somebody tried to trap me on this subject the other day and said if all it takes for a lake to become algae infested is to have a stream polluted with farm runoff flowing into it then why do the upground lakes in NW Ohio get toxic algae blooms in them as well-they don't have any feeder streams-right? Wrong,the upgrounds all pump water from streams into them.But it really doesn't matter who is polluting the streams does it? Mega farms,sewage treatment plants or lawn chemicals from homeowners it's still all going to continue until we're left with a dead sea again.BTW I thought for sure that I read when Grand Lake St.Marys was all messed up a short time ago that nearly ALL of the people that study such things laid the blame directly and pretty much solely on farming practices in the area,I could be wrong on that but I thought I read that somewhere.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Today this subject was on the WOSU call-in show:

http://wosu.org/2012/allsides/drinking-water-safety/


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

FOSR said:


> Today this subject was on the WOSU call-in show:
> 
> http://wosu.org/2012/allsides/drinking-water-safety/


Dang! You beat me. You must be listening to it also. The OSU prof gives it a damn good breakdown. And the reporting is balanced: "It's not just Ag!"


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Harbor Hunter said:


> As for the guy that said we shouldn't keep blaming the poor little farmers,you obviously miss the point,it's not the little guys it's mega bucks farms,big time AG companies,fine folks like Monsanto and others that are causing all of this .



Let me tell you something- it's the little livestock farms that are putting more nutrient load in the water than CAFO's or even big crop farms. That's a fact. And Monsanto is a chemical company, they don't manufacture fertilize. Try to get your facts straight. 
Without a doubt, farms are contributing to the problem. A little better stewardship is needed in certain watersheds, but it's being addressed. Joe blow down the street putting 450lb of actual N on his yard and god knows how much P and K, plus the golf courses laying on fertilize and then irrigating it before a big rain, and out fall from WWTP's are a HUGE problem. Huge. It's just easy to point the finger at the farmer.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Harbor Hunter said:


> I'll take a stab at your question.It doesn't matter what surrounds Burr Oak or Cutler,woods,swamps,farmland or whatever else.What matters is the feeder streams entering the lake,do you realize how big of a watershed Sunday Creek and Salt Creek are?


Yes, I do know how big it is. Try looking at Google Earth. You'll be able to rule out farmers pretty quick. Yes, I know there are a few farms, but, a lot of them are no longer in production. Those few fields you see aren't being tilled/fertilized. It's only the east branch that feeds Burr Oak. The eastern most feeder starts about where Glass Road intersects SR 555, and the western most branch starts just a little above San Toy Lake. Look at that on Google Earth and tell me how many actual operating farms you see. Lake Hope is probably a better example. 




But it really doesn't matter who is polluting the streams does it? Mega farms said:


> IMO, you're wrong. It does matter who or what is causing. If it doesn't get fixed, it will be more of the same. You are right about them blaming the farmers at Grand Lake. That's why I think the focus is on the farmers. Sure, some of it may be their fault. The point I'm trying to make is farming practices haven't changed much. Why then didn't we have all of the outbreaks 20, 30 years ago? What has changed is peoples lawn care practices, and, the population has increased. Look at all the former farming ground that are now 3 bed/2 bath houses with 2, 3, maybe 5 acres manicured lawns.
> 
> They use the same fertilizer on their yards as the farmer uses on his fields. The farmer is there to make money. He's not wasting his money on extra fertilizer just watch it run off. The home owner is going to have a green yard, no matter the expense, or, amount of fertilizer. Once that fertilizer is in the water, there is no way to tell if it came from a corn field or somebody's yard. And all of that totally leaves out the cities and 30+ year old sewer plants.
> 
> The point I've been trying to make, over and over, is it's easiest to blame the farmers. Nobody wants to think that every time they flush the toilet, every time they fertilize their lawns, they are just as big, maybe bigger, part of the problem.


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

Sciotodarby said:


> Let me tell you something- it's the little livestock farms that are putting more nutrient load in the water than CAFO's or even big crop farms. That's a fact. And Monsanto is a chemical company, they don't manufacture fertilize. Try to get your facts straight.
> Without a doubt, farms are contributing to the problem. A little better stewardship is needed in certain watersheds, but it's being addressed. Joe blow down the street putting 450lb of actual N on his yard and god knows how much P and K, plus the golf courses laying on fertilize and then irrigating it before a big rain, and out fall from WWTP's are a HUGE problem. Huge. It's just easy to point the finger at the farmer.


 When did anybody say what Monsanto produced? They were just brought up as being part of the problem.Yes I agree with you the pig farms(which are farms)are a big part of the problem also.I don't think anybody is solely pointing a finger at farmers,the problem is farms,sewage treatment plants,homeowners,golf courses or whoever else allows anything from their properties to enter streams or lakes.That said the topic is about Lake Erie and I do believe the big farms along the Maumee River are a major factor,I also believe that raw sewage and chemicals being flushed down the Detroit River from Detroit are greatly adding to the problem.Like I said before once the lake is destroyed it's not going to matter who or what caused it then.It's kind of ironic after discussing this topic over the last couple of days but I live next to Clear Fork Lake and there is two large beautiful homes side by side with a small creek flowing between them that flows into the lake.Yesterday afternoon both of these homeowners had their yards treated by one of those chemical yard spraying companies,wonder how long before Clear Fork's waters resemble pea soup,but as long as our yards are all a nice lush green who cares?


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Small daily haul dairies with no manure storage are the worst offenders. You get into southern Michigan that's part of the Maumee drainage and you'll see what I mean. You brought Monsanto into the conversation like it was relevant, but it's not. Manure is the problem. Mega crop farms jack the cash rent so high that they skimp on fertilize, and CAFOs have such tights regs and under scrutiny from ODA that there are going to be very few problems from them in the future. 

The arm chair experts on farming are obvious in this thread....


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

NO ONE REALLY KNOWS FOR SURE??? There are too many conflicting studies with ZERO data...just opinion! 
THESE ARE ALL QUOTES AND IDEAS FROM MANY SOURCES...hardly ANY reference to Cattle or Pig Farms.
Look at the URBAN Sprawl around the lakes...this actually gets more mention than Cattle or Pig farms.
AND STILL, There is NO Data!
How do you Move people away from lakes, rivers, etc....you don&#8217;t, something else has to happen.

Quote;
&#8220;Generally scientists have have a hard time getting data that shows clear relationships between particular farming practices and runoff of fertilizers into lakes, despite their efforts.&#8221;

&#8220;The nitrogen and phosphorous in the runoff come from leaky septic tanks and from fertilizers used on farms and lawns. The algae problem was thought to have been successfully eliminated in the 1980s.So what happened?&#8221;
&#8220;Scientists THINK the root causes of today's algae problem are not the same as what caused algae blooms in decades past, even if the size and severity of the blooms is similar&#8221;
&#8220;Ultimately, algae blooms are caused by excess phosphorus in the water that provides the algae with the fertilizer it needs to grow exponentially, given enough sun and warm enough water temperatures. But the source of that phosphorus can vary.&#8221;
&#8220;From the 1960s to the 1980s, the main source of phosphorus was sewage plants. The algae problem was considered so serious that communities on the shores of the lake poured billions of dollars into sewage infrastructure upgrades and implemented laws banning phosphorus in laundry detergents....they found that upgrades were not sufficient due to population increases and more building close to the water.&#8221; 
&#8220;This time, the main problems are thought to be ones that governments have much less direct control over. To some extent, they include the application of fertilizers to lawns and golf courses, growing expanses of pavement in urban areas that cause water to drain more quickly into waterways without being filtered by vegetation, and invasive zebra mussels that release extra nutrients into the water as they feed.&#8221;
"We think farming is the major culprit behind the current levels of phosphorus that's in runoff and the phosphorus loads that are getting dumped into the western basin of Lake Erie," .

In the End, Farmers are really not to blame???
The commission's report suggested that NEEDED production changes to farming practices were largely to blame for recent blooms."The main changes that are responsible have to do with intensification of farming &#8211; getting more out of the land than we did historically," that includes things like:
&#8226;	More demand for livestock farming and greater application of their waste to fields to increase feed production!
&#8226;	Higher demand for food and application of fertilizers in general to sustain acreage production
&#8226;	An increase in corn farming in the U.S. Midwest, partly to meet a demand for ethanol fuel.
"Corn is demanding when it comes to fertilizers," In fact, there's so much corn being farmed in some parts of the region that it's not possible to deliver the amount of fertilizer they require in the spring, who studies soil fertility and nutrient use. "There just isn't enough rail cars to do that." As a result, companies sometimes offer discounts to farmers who buy and apply their fertilizer to the surface of their fields in the fall &#8211; a practice that appears to significantly increase the rate at which it gets washed into local waterways. &#8220;The U.S. Midwest has seen a huge increase in the farming of corn, which requires a lot of fertilizer.&#8221;
Ironically, some of the farming practices that help fertilizer wash into lakes began partly as a result of measures to reduce that problem back in the '60s and '70, scientists knew that erosion was a major cause of soil and fertilizer washing into the lake, so they tried to encourage farmers to reduce erosion by not tilling or turning over the soil in their fields. That worked, but it had unintended consequences. In the U.S., farmers who use no-till farming tend to spread fertilizer on the top of their fields, and not tilling the soil means that the fertilizer is more likely to be washed into waterways when it rains.
&#8220;It's not clear whether no-till farming itself is a problem, and it depends on the circumstances &#8212; it reduces fertilizer runoff in some cases and may increase it in others.&#8221; &#8220;It&#8217;s not that the [current] agricultural practices are &#8216;bad&#8217; per se,&#8221; &#8220;A lot of agricultural practices that are leading to more nutrient loading were actually implemented for sound environmental reasons.&#8221;
&#8220;Conservation tillage and no-till practices, for example, help farmers reduce soil erosion and keep organic material in the soil. However, by not turning the soil over, the practices also concentrate fertilizers near the surface where they are more likely to flow off of the land during strong storms.&#8221;
&#8220;Going back to the way things were would be no panacea,&#8221; &#8220;We would see the erosion issues we were seeing before. We need to be looking for practices that contribute to overall environmental health, and benefit both the farmers and the lake. On a fundamental level, farmers are not interested in fertilizing the lake; they&#8217;re interested in fertilizing the field.&#8221; 
&#8220;Many farmers already try to do the best they can to apply fertilizer efficiently and limit fertilizer runoff. The fertilizer industry recommends best practices to help them do that.&#8221;
"I think sometimes what gets lost is the complexity of the system a farmer is dealing with,"


CLIMATE CHANGE IS BEING BLAMED NOW???
&#8220;When the water temperature gets to a certain level, that's when the algal blooms can really take off.&#8221;
&#8220;Meanwhile, climate change has become an "aggravating factor, as intense storms and spring runoff are washing phosphorus from farm fields into the lake more quickly than in the past. And warmer water temperatures aren't helping.&#8221;
"Through climate change, we would get to that water temperature more quickly during the growing season."The problem facing Lake Erie is not only that it&#8217;s turning a pernicious green color, it&#8217;s under silent attack by toxins in water runoff making their way into the lake. Climate change may also be contributing to the issues surrounding Lake Erie, causing more storms, higher water temperatures and less control of fertilizer runoff.&#8221;

&#8220;Lake Erie is the smallest of the great lakes, and is oddly shaped with three large basins at its bottom. That coupled with its industry-lined tributaries has caused HABs to concentrate in the western corner of the lake, and causes much more damage to plant and animal life than in other lakes. This also creates a higher safety concern for humans.&#8221;

In 2011, Lake Erie had the highest HAB severity on record. Researchers believe an increase in temperatures over the past 10 years may be an additional factor, because phosphorous loads were not as high in Lake Erie in 2011 as in 2007. Data are just beginning to be collected with relation to climate change, and the results once calculated could prove useful.
&#8220;Compounding the changes in agricultural practices are changes in climate in the Great Lakes region, which could affect water quality in the lakes.&#8221; &#8220;In the Great Lakes we&#8217;re not seeing a clear signal from climate models in changes of total amount of precipitation, but the models do predict a change in when that precipitation will occur, with stronger events in spring&#8221; &#8220;&#8220;They also anticipate more events that are at the extremes&#8212;either very large storms or very dry periods that might average out to something similar like today,&#8221; 
Heavy rainstorms and droughts could both have effects on Lake Erie water quality. A series of intense spring storms in 2011, for example, drove a record algal bloom in the lake that summer. Other factors, like temperature and winds that drive lake circulation, also play a role in the size and intensity of algal blooms. Weak wind patterns and reduced lake circulation in 2011 allowed the large amounts of phosphorus washed into the lake by spring storms to sit in the western basin for longer than normal, leaving huge amounts available to feed algae once warm summer temperatures arrived.

NO SIMPLE FIX&#8230;. &#8220;Since humans don't have much control over the climate, solutions to the algae problem need to focus on human activity&#8221;
They are subtle processes that we don&#8217;t fully understand and that we are currently looking into.&#8221;
&#8220;The federal government also announced in 2012 that it would spend $16 million over four years to address Lake Erie's algae problem through the Great Lakes Nutrient Initiative. The money is going toward both research and policy development.&#8221; NOTHING ELSE!!!
"The amount we're losing that has an effect on the lake is maybe one per cent of the fertilizer that's actually applied. It's a small amount," he said. That means there isn't much of an economic incentive to prevent such small losses: "The cost of it is not that high." ONE PERCENT RUN-OFF OF FARM FERTILIZER???? How&#8217;d they get that Data??? NO ONE wants to hear that LOW NUMBER!! 
&#8220;Some Scientists are concerned that regulations aimed at preventing phosphorus runoff in the highest-risk conditions may be "overly prescriptive" for the vast majority of farms.&#8221;
Many think what is needed &#8220;is more research and better information about how phosphorus is getting into Lake Erie.&#8221;


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

There's some key points in the above post, and some of it is misinforming. I agree with the fall spread fertilizer and no till. If you're going to spread in the fall( especially on bean stubble) it's a good practice to chisel plow it in if you want it there the next year. We apply enough P and K with dry fert on bean stubble to supply the next years corn and the year after that's beans and chisel plow it in on everything but HEL ground. HEL gets it put on in the spring and worked in before planting corn. 
No till isn't the answer for all erosion, and isnt conducive to raising a crop on certain soils and areas. There's two types of no tillers- true conservationists that make it work well and tight asses that don't want to buy fuel or spend the time to do it right. The worst tool ever invented for erosion is the new vertical till tools that are all the rage with "no till" farmers.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Intimidator said:


> NO ONE REALLY KNOWS FOR SURE??? There are too many conflicting studies with ZERO data...just opinion!
> THESE ARE ALL QUOTES AND IDEAS FROM MANY SOURCES...hardly ANY reference to Cattle or Pig Farms.
> Look at the URBAN Sprawl around the lakes...this actually gets more mention than Cattle or Pig farms.
> AND STILL, There is NO Data!
> ...



For the missing data, you are probably looking in the wrong places. Here's what I used http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lake+erie+phosphorus

Try here too: http://lakeerie.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Reports/Task_Force_Report_October_2013.pdf

"Nutrient impairment continues to plague Lake Erie impacting an $11.5 billion tourism industry and 
causing increased treatment costs to public water supplies. The Phase I Phosphorus Task Force took a 
broad-based approach in identifying the potential contributing factors to the increases in algal blooms in 
Lake Erie. The Task Force concluded that there are multiple contributors to phosphorus into Lake Erie 
but agriculture is the leading source due to the majority of the land use in agriculture in the Maumee 
River (~80%) and is key to achieving substantive reductions."

Try these too:
http://www.heidelberg.edu/sites/def...s/1 Dissolved P-a Big Problem, 08-01-2011.pdf

http://www.ohioseagrant.osu.edu/_do...ne2011LakeErieNutrientLoadingAndHABSfinal.pdf

Don't let a little science get in the way of a good ole opinion rant! I'm done! Hopefully Lake Erie gets better soon!


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

It'll get fixed as soon as someone dies from it. Until then...it's just a bunch of people on different sides of the fence pointing fingers at one another. 

We put a guy on the moon and brought him back alive. We figured out how to split an atom. We broke the sound barrier. 

But yet...we can't figure out what causes our water to be poisoned. Folks...this has NOTHING to do with "who is to blame" rather it has become "who can we blame so that the government will throw billions our way..." 

My kid could take a jar of tap water, sprinkle in some Miracle Grow, pee in it, then poop in it, then set it in the sun....and in three days have his very own algae bloom. 

How hard is that to understand? Instead, people point fingers at each other like 3 boys playing baseball in the backyard when the ball went through the window. "it's not my fault" "he did it" "wasn't me"

It's EVERYBODY'S fault....and until that becomes the message, it won't get fixed.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

After the St Mary's deal, I truly think that farmers (both crop and livestock) are starting to do a better job, either by choice or enforced regulations. Other sources continue to get away with quite a bit and it's very irritating for the ag sector. It's a hot topic.Everybody needs to work together to start improving, or it will continue to get worse. The world- she's a changin'.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

Mushijobah said:


> For the missing data, you are probably looking in the wrong places. Here's what I used http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lake+erie+phosphorus
> 
> Try here too: http://lakeerie.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Reports/Task_Force_Report_October_2013.pdf
> 
> ...


Hey, I got it...SIMPLE....since only 1% of all fertilizer is causing the problem, and this "nutrient loading" only happens during SEVERE Storms....then all we have to do is cut back using fertilizer by 1%, and stop the severe storms!


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

Sciotodarby said:


> After the St Mary's deal, I truly think that farmers (both crop and livestock) are starting to do a better job, either by choice or enforced regulations. Other sources continue to get away with quite a bit and it's very irritating for the ag sector. It's a hot topic.Everybody needs to work together to start improving, or it will continue to get worse. The world- she's a changin'.


Exactly,I believe there are many contributing factors to this problem.The main ones are sewage treatment plants,big farms and home/property owners,but they are definitely not alone I'm sure there's many other causes as well,including climate.I agree with you 100% it makes no sense to go after farmers without going after sewage plants,chemical plants,other industries dumping who knows what into our rivers and lakes.There needs to be strict laws made and then strictly enforced from mega bucks companies on down to homeowners.I realize that this is only a fantasy because as we all know those in power are never going to enforce anything against those who so handsomely line their pockets-it's a nice thought anyway.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Harbor Hunter said:


> Exactly,I believe there are many contributing factors to this problem.The main ones are sewage treatment plants,big farms and home/property owners,but they are definitely not alone I'm sure there's many other causes as well,including climate.I agree with you 100% it makes no sense to go after farmers without going after sewage plants,chemical plants,other industries dumping who knows what into our rivers and lakes.There needs to be strict laws made and then strictly enforced from mega bucks companies on down to homeowners.I realize that this is only a fantasy because as we all know those in power are never going to enforce anything against those who so handsomely line their pockets-it's a nice thought anyway.


We have a winner!!!! WWTP's get away with it because it'll take millions or possibly billions of tax payer money to get all of the worst offenders "rearranged" for lack of a better term.


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

Our town mandated that we separate our sewers. We were an offender that had a combined storm/sanitary system. They assessed the project cost on our monthly utility bill over a few years and each homeowner was responsible for having the work done or run the risk of having your utilities shut off. Most have complied, but there are a few that have not. I did mine in the very beginning, and I sure as hell hope they follow through and shut off service to those who are flipping the bird to the town.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Sciotodarby said:


> We have a winner!!!! WWTP's get away with it because it'll take millions or possibly billions of tax payer money to get all of the worst offenders "rearranged" for lack of a better term.





BFG said:


> Our town mandated that we separate our sewers. We were an offender that had a combined storm/sanitary system. They assessed the project cost on our monthly utility bill over a few years and each homeowner was responsible for having the work done or run the risk of having your utilities shut off. Most have complied, but there are a few that have not. I did mine in the very beginning, and I sure as hell hope they follow through and shut off service to those who are flipping the bird to the town.


Same with Columbus. You now have cleaner water at WWTP discharge than you have in the river on the vast majority of days during the year. Improvements to Sanitary sewer lines and segregation of storm lines will eliminate Combined Sewer Overflows and prevent overwhelmed WWTP during wet weather periods. Lower Scioto is now the most diverse river (fish species) in the state due to improvements at WWTP. Went from like 18 species in the 80s (horrible WWTP efficiency) to 45-50 species now. Still a huge problem with nutrient enrichment from other sourced (Agriculture runoff, stormwater runoff from city, construction runoff).

Maumee is a different story unfortunately since the agricultural runoff/small town WWTP effluent empties into the Western Basin and stagnates. WWTP outfalls are easy to target (see Point Source Pollution) but costly. Lawsuits from Sierra Club/EPA are resolving this. Agricultural runoff and storm runoff is difficult because it comes from multiple properties (see Non Point Source Pollution) and is deeply intertwined with Ohio's economy (agriculture, Scotts, Agricultural Chem Companies, farm subsidies) among other things.


----------



## Gottagofishn (Nov 18, 2009)

Here's an article published by Scientific American describing the deadly algae "caused by agriculture". Their statement..... not mine. I would be inclined to think we are all in it although phosphorus seems to be the biggest culprit.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deadly-algae-are-everywhere-thanks-to-agriculture/


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Lol they have a hard enough time nailing down point source. A couple years ago there was a size able fish kill in a creek south of London. Immediately everybody blamed the dairy. Took the EPA a couple days for the EPA to figure out it was the London WWTP. They were running some waste water from Scott's in Marysville through the plant and the plant couldn't handle it and the effluent got a little hot. The same thing happens in Columbus and every where else, don't think it doesn't. My dad has been involved in water and waste water for over 30 years. I haul bio solids from a couple plants back home, and as a matter of a fact I'm loading lime at the East Lansing Michigan water plant as I type this. I'm fairly well informed and knowledgable on the subject.


----------



## Harbor Hunter (Aug 19, 2007)

I'm certainly not an expert on the topic,but here is somebody who is.International Joint Commission leader Rajesh Bejankiwar when asked what can be done to stop the spread of the toxic algae in Lake Erie "The most important thing that can be done is to reduce agricultural runoff".


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Who is paying Rajeesh?


----------



## PerchGuy (Dec 7, 2011)

Not the Farm Bureau.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Touché. Somebody is paying him to say what they want to hear. Believe that. Farm run off is no worse than it ever was before, it's the urban pollution that is new and the watersheds can't handle it.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

I should probably say that at times of the year it is worse than it used to be, but total nutrient load has to be close to the same.


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Sciotodarby said:


> Farm run off is no worse than it ever was before, it's the urban pollution that is new and the watersheds can't handle it.


Bingo!! Just what I've been trying to say all along. As far as run off/erosion/pollution from farming, it was way worse 30 or 40 years ago. We didn't have the algae problem then, so, I'd think it should be fairly obvious there is another cause or major contributor.

This is why I think they need to solve the problem at Burr Oak, Cutler Lake, and Lake Hope. Farming as a culprit is completely out of the equation in these cases. I'd bet with 99% certainty the culprit there will be a large factor in the problems at the Maumee.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

30-40-50-60 years ago when every farm had hogs, dairy, or fed fat cattle(or all 3), the more manure that washed off the lots and down the ditch was less the farmer had to deal with.


----------



## Bassbme (Mar 11, 2012)

A lot of interesting debate going on here. As many have said, there are certainly a lot of contributing factors to the algae problem. There is one that I haven't read mentioned yet though. What about Zebra and Quagga mussels? They produce a lot of waste that also fertilizes the water, not to mention dead ones that decompose. Is it that much of a contributing factor? I certainly don't know, but logic would dictate that they be in the conversation. After all, as Carl Sagan would say..... there are billions and billions of them.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

Bassbme said:


> A lot of interesting debate going on here. As many have said, there are certainly a lot of contributing factors to the algae problem. There is one that I haven't read mentioned yet though. What about Zebra and Quagga mussels? They produce a lot of waste that also fertilizes the water, not to mention dead ones that decompose. Is it that much of a contributing factor? I certainly don't know, but logic would dictate that they be in the conversation. After all, as Carl Sagan would say..... there are billions and billions of them.


Some of the quotes I posted from scientists, and other research, do blame the mussels as a factor!


----------



## reo (May 22, 2004)

"in the 1970's about two thirds of the nutrient loading came from urban sources. Today about two thirds of the nutrient loading comes from agricultural run off"

Dr. Jeffery M. Reutter Ohio Sea Grant, The Ohio State University


----------



## I Fish (Sep 24, 2008)

Sciotodarby said:


> 30-40-50-60 years ago when every farm had hogs, dairy, or fed fat cattle(or all 3), the more manure that washed off the lots and down the ditch was less the farmer had to deal with.


When I was a kid we had a 4 acre feedlot, with 80 to 100 yearlings in it. Right in the middle was a 1/2 acre pond. It's banks were mud and cow $heet, pretty much year round, and so was the 4 acres. That pond never once had an algae "outbreak". We used to fish it when it was dry enough we didn't go over our gum boots, and catch some of the biggest and healthiest bluegill I've ever seen, not to mention the bass that always broke our line. Now, these "scientists" want me to believe AG runoff from manure spreading is causing problems in Lake Erie? Uh, ok.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

Intimidator said:


> Some of the quotes I posted from scientists, and other research, do blame the mussels as a factor!


Mussels normally clean the junk out of the water , they make really good water filters. I read somewhere how some actually credit the comeback of lake erie partially due to a side effect of all the mussels.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

I think the runoff issue may be because of increased use of "modern" type fertilizers that are really potent but dont have to break down to release the nitrogen and nutrients. Manure wouldnt be as much of a problem since its organic and takes time to break down before releasing the nutrients , but chemical fertilizers go right into the system without needing to break down first. Manure also stays put better than granulated or liquis nutrients. I think it has to do with how fast the available nutrients are available to the system and the algae. I may be wrong , but thats how i understood it. Not everybody uses manure now like they did back in the day but they are more likely to overuse the chemicals.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

yonderfishin said:


> I think the runoff issue may be because of increased use of "modern" type fertilizers that are really potent but dont have to break down to release the nitrogen and nutrients. Manure wouldnt be as much of a problem since its organic and takes time to break down before releasing the nutrients , but chemical fertilizers go right into the system without needing to break down first. Manure also stays put better than granulated or liquis nutrients. I think it has to do with how fast the available nutrients are available to the system and the algae. I may be wrong , but thats how i understood it. Not everybody uses manure now like they did back in the day but they are more likely to overuse the chemicals.


On all the farms that we farm now that had any sort of livestock feeding on it years ago, you can still see where the manure was spread on the grid soil sample maps. They laid it on thick on few acres close to the barn so they could spread it fast. Back then they were even more heavily loaded with P and K, them combine that with a moldboard plow and erosion and you've got huge amount of nutrients going in the water. Commercial fertilizers have been used for well over 60 years, so they're nothing new.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

And applications of 10'000+ gallons of liquid dairy manure don't tend to stay put without real good management.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Saturday Morning Columbus Dispatch

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...ke-erie-lawmakers-say-time-to-act-is-now.html

State lawmakers who represent people along the Lake Erie shore called yesterday for stronger regulations on the farming industry to reduce the type of runoff that led to poisoned drinking water for 500,000 people in Toledo last weekend.

The legislators said that scientists have researched algae blooms for decades and that it is time to solve the problem.

Scientists say reducing phosphorus is key. Phosphorus in the Maumee watershed predominantly comes from manure and chemical fertilizers that run off farm fields. Combined sewer systems that overflow during heavy rain and lawn fertilizers that run off into watersheds also contribute.

&#8220;We don&#8217;t need to study it any further,&#8221; said Rep. Teresa Fedor, a Toledo Democrat. &#8220;We have the solutions. We need to implement those studies.&#8221;

Earlier this year, the state legislature passed a law asking farmers to get certified before they apply chemical fertilizer to their land. The program is voluntary; farmers won&#8217;t be required to participate until 2017.

The law does not regulate manure, which contributes to phosphorus in watersheds, and does not set limits for the amount of phosphorus that can enter the waterways.

State Sen. Edna Brown, D-Toledo, announced this week that she planned to introduce a bill to regulate manure on fields. It also would require farmers to participate in the certification program sooner.

Fedor said the state should declare that the Maumee watershed is &#8220;in distress,&#8221; a designation that would allow the state to limit the amount of fertilizer and manure that area farmers spread on their fields.

The state did that in 2011 for Grand Lake St. Marys in western Ohio. That lake has been plagued with toxic algae for years.

State Rep. Mike Sheehy, an Oregon Democrat, said he plans to introduce a bill next week that would make it illegal for farmers to spread manure on fields that are frozen or covered by snow.

Scientists say the manure can&#8217;t be absorbed into the soil and flows off those fields during spring rains and into streams and eventually the Maumee River, adding phosphorus to the water that ultimately flows to Lake Erie.

Cyanobacteria, also called blue-green algae, are common in most Ohio lakes. They grow thick by feeding on phosphorus from manure, fertilizer and sewage that rain washes from farm fields and treatment plants into nearby streams.

As many as 19 public lakes, including central Ohio&#8217;s Buckeye Lake, have been tainted in recent years by toxic algae.

Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Gov. John Kasich, said in an email yesterday that since Kasich took office in 2011, the state has spent almost $470 million on programs to clean up Lake Erie.

Despite that spending, state and federal experts predicted this month that Lake Erie will experience significant toxic algae this summer.

In 2011, an enormous bloom stretched 1,600 square miles from Toledo to Cleveland.

&#8220;We all share in the cause of this problem,&#8221; Sheehy said. &#8220;The problem is long-standing, long-developing, and no one person is totally responsible.&#8221;

State Rep. Chris Redfern, a Catawba Island Democrat and co-chairman of the legislature&#8217;s Lake Erie Caucus, said that scientists nationwide have been studying algae blooms for years.

The Ohio Sea Grant College Program and Ohio State University&#8217;s Stone Laboratory operate a lab on Lake Erie where scientists study algae. Heidelberg University&#8217;s National Center for Water Quality Research monitors phosphorus loads in Ohio&#8217;s rivers and streams.

&#8220;More must and should be done to protect our drinking waters,&#8221; Redfern said.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Basically they're going to make the small dairies and hog finishers follow the same regs as CAFOs. I totally agree with that. It doesn't matter what size the operation is that the manure comes from, it should all be handled the same.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Sciotodarby said:


> Basically they're going to make the small dairies and hog finishers follow the same regs as CAFOs. I totally agree with that. It doesn't matter what size the operation is that the manure comes from, it should all be handled the same.


Exactly. Should help. Along with continued WWTP/CSO improvements.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Manure near streams is one of the main reason why Columbus now strongly discourages feeding ducks and geese in the parks. 

Up until a few years ago, at parks like Griggs, there would be a few areas where the birds would congregate expecting treats - easily 100 or more ducks and geese. The pavement was plastered with bird poop that washed into the Scioto (as in, ten paved feet away).

And, with so many office buildings around the suburbs, mobs of geese will graze the lawns and crap on the parking lots and sidewalks, to the point where you have to watch your step. It can look like an army of chihuahuas has been crapping. Most of those paved surfaces drain directly into the storm sewers.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Mushijobah said:


> Exactly. Should help. Along with continued WWTP/CSO improvements.



Voluntarily doing the right things would have been the way to keep those sort of regulations to a minimum. Farmers are their own worst enemy at times, and it only takes a few to give the rest a black eye and cost everybody a bunch of money.


----------



## boatnut (Nov 22, 2006)

Let's eliminate ethanol production for starters. It's government mandated , heavily subsidized, hard on our engines and serves no really good purpose. With most of the country in a drought situation for last few years, a lot of crops are being lost, but still fertilized? I see estimates from 20 to 40 % of corn crop grown for ethanol. A total waste, IMO.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Have to fertilize the crop before it's planted, so if you could predict the weather from year to year and base your fertility program off what the crop needs will be, you should start farming. Ethanol is a bit of a joke, but that's another subject. A lot of Ohio corn goes to livestock feed here in the state, plus a bunch of poultry farms in the SE.


----------



## shwookie (Jun 15, 2007)

> &#8220;We all share in the cause of this problem,&#8221; Sheehy said. &#8220;The problem is long-standing, long-developing, and no one person is totally responsible.&#8221;


Seems too logical to implement. Doomed to fail as groups will continue to point their fingers at other groups and claim its someone else's fault.


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

I dont think there is gonna be any easy or overnight fixes to the problem , and they cant exactly put all the farmers out of work by shutting them down. In other places there is water retention of some sort so the fertilizers and chemicals dont run straight into the lake or trubutaries , but around here its so flat all the runoff goes into the drainage ditches which arent designed to hold water , only to funnel it into the nearest body of water basically. It goes too quick from the fields to the lake. How can they do anything about the problem unless they start requiring every crop field to have huge retention ponds to manage their own runoff and let the chemicals break down or settle out before entering the waterways ?


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

boatnut said:


> Let's eliminate ethanol production for starters. It's government mandated , heavily subsidized, hard on our engines and serves no really good purpose. With most of the country in a drought situation for last few years, a lot of crops are being lost, but still fertilized? I see estimates from 20 to 40 % of corn crop grown for ethanol. A total waste, IMO.


That makes sense but though the crops should never be destined for ethanol production they are still needed for food production and the livelyhood of the farmers. Unless I am mistaken , there really isnt "extra" crops grown for ethanol necessarily , the same crops would be produced even without it wouldnt they ?


----------



## billybob7059 (Mar 27, 2005)

I wonder if allowing for larger filter strips of land along creeks and more CRP land wouldn't be a cheaper way of tackling this problem, also increasing the amount of wetland acres in the water shed to help filter the extra nutrient loading. 
I also bet you the number of homes in the Maumee water shed has increased dramatically! So I think the state needs to look at how much fertilizer is put on lawns.


----------



## FOSR (Apr 16, 2008)

Yes those riparian strips do intercept nutrients - think growing trees and flowers instead of algae. They also catch sediment. And, they tend to shade the stream, less sun on the water = less algae.

http://soilandwater.ohiodnr.gov/portals/soilwater/pdf/crep/sciotocrepbroch.pdf

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/newsRel...pe=detail&item=pf_20041001_consv_en_oh04.html


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

billybob7059 said:


> I wonder if allowing for larger filter strips of land along creeks and more CRP land wouldn't be a cheaper way of tackling this problem, also increasing the amount of wetland acres in the water shed to help filter the extra nutrient loading.
> I also bet you the number of homes in the Maumee water shed has increased dramatically! So I think the state needs to look at how much fertilizer is put on lawns.


The government is not gonna move people....populations around water have exploded....they are gonna take on the easiest target, whether they are fully responsible or not.
Now we are stuck between food production and clean water.....they will continue to build around our water supplies.

I agree that filter strips, wetlands, and retainer ponds, proper fertilizer application, should be implemented by farmers...but they should also stop all fertilization of lawns, GOLF Courses, etc, close to waterways, and septic systems should be coded and checked, along with businesses, and run-off, dumping, etc.
Totally blaming farming is the easy way out , and less $$, instead of tackling the entire systemic problem.
Golf Courses are worse than any farmers...and they almost all have waterways running through them...the amount of fertilizer, weed killer, and bug killer, that they use to have a beautiful course dwarfs a huge farm area....and a course runoff is directly into the creek or river.
Improvements have to be quickly made across the board.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Filter strips are a good solution. I believe they'll implement some sort of CREP programs to pay for filter strips in the troubled watersheds. And with today's current markets, the payments for the CREP will even pay better than farming or cash renting those acres.


----------



## bountyhunter (Apr 28, 2004)

OK I agree the farmer has some blame. BUT YOU guys ever see the poo the local sewage plant dumps into the river? gov says the farmer needs to be licensed to use chemicals??? I,ve had my license since the 80,s. so much for gov help.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

It's a license to apply fertilize. It's different than the chem applicators license.


----------



## BMustang (Jul 27, 2004)

Disregard Message


----------



## BFG (Mar 29, 2006)

> BUT YOU guys ever see the poo the local sewage plant dumps into the river?


You are correct in that regard. The municipalities must be forced to take action as well. Cleveland dug a HUGE storm over-flow a couple years back for situations like what is happening here in Toledo today. Big thunderstorm that lasted for more than an hour. 

If they want to see the impact of what a big push of water from heavy weather does to a combined storm and sewer in a major city...today is the day here in NW Ohio. 

The big cities could never separate their storm from the sanitary. In my eyes, the overflow pits are the most workable solution. Dig the pits adjacent to areas where neighborhood mains converge, and open the gates when heavy weather comes. Once things settle down, pump and treat the water that is in the pit and THEN send it out into the river. 

It's going to take a lot of cooperation from a lot of different folks. The city folk shouldn't just be pointing fingers at the farmer, and the farmer shouldn't be blaming the city folk...and the lawn service companies and golf courses need to be stuck at the top of the page as well.


----------



## fishngolf (Jul 18, 2009)

Intimidator said:


> Agreed!
> I'm from a small farming community with family owned and Corporation farms...most try to use the least amount of fertilization as possible and rotate crops every year!
> We are walking a fine line between messing with our water supply and messing with our food supply! Farming practices in at least my area, changed a long time ago, extra fertilization meant loss of income....heck most farmers don't spread manure in Winter anymore and TRY to leave buffers between fields and streams.
> 
> ...


""most try to use the least amount of fertilization as possible and rotate crops every year!""

Why is it all running in the rivers then if there not using too much???REALLY The freaking big lake is half toxic...BS


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

It's really sad that there has to be some drastic calamity, and then the government has to pass laws. It would be nice if people could work together to resolve the problem. Notice, you never hear of this at Indian Lake, one of Ohio's shallowest lakes.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

fishngolf said:


> ""most try to use the least amount of fertilization as possible and rotate crops every year!""
> 
> Why is it all running in the rivers then if there not using too much???REALLY The freaking big lake is half toxic...BS



Poor management and agronomic practices.

I still wonder what a corporate farm is....


----------



## fishngolf (Jul 18, 2009)

Sciotodarby said:


> Poor management and agronomic practices.
> 
> I still wonder what a corporate farm is....


 :Banane35:


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

crittergitter said:


> It's really sad that there has to be some drastic calamity, and then the government has to pass laws. It would be nice if people could work together to resolve the problem. Notice, you never hear of this at Indian Lake, one of Ohio's shallowest lakes.



Probably has something to do with the amount of fresh water entering the lake compared to others.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

Toledo got $150M to upgrade the water and waste water plants. Me thinks that the mayor got what he wanted......


----------



## KaGee (Sep 8, 2006)

Sciotodarby said:


> Toledo got $150M to upgrade the water and waste water plants. Me thinks that the mayor got what he wanted......


The water test results used to originally declare the "emergency" are now said to be "false positive"... Isn't that special.


----------



## Sciotodarby (Jul 27, 2013)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this whole episode was highly politically "motivated".....


----------



## Flathead76 (May 2, 2010)

There is talk about extending the intake line out to west sister by the 30 foot hole. That project would cost around 50 million. Thats if they can get the goverment money to fund it.


----------



## spikeg79 (Jun 11, 2012)

On Monday more than a dozen combined sewage overflows on the Maumee River opened and dumped sewage and storm water into the river.
Yep that'll help the Algae problem.


----------



## Intimidator (Nov 25, 2008)

spikeg79 said:


> On Monday more than a dozen combined sewage overflows on the Maumee River opened and dumped sewage and storm water into the river.
> Yep that'll help the Algae problem.


Exactly...but remember, the problem is only caused by the farm fertilizer, so all that poop and raw sewage, should be NO PROBLEM!


----------

