Agriculture Runoff Is Not Pollution

[flacaltenn]

And a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of Connecticut.

Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" puts seafood industry at risk - CBS News

The Ogallala aquifer drained and poisoned by agriculture...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opinion/polluting-the-ogallala-aquifer.html?_r=0

Why isn't agriculture subject to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule?

SPCC Rule | Emergency Management | US EPA

And there are certain crops that create a toxic air pollution. Portland State University is studying the atmospheric affects of some of the crops used in biofuels right now.

Considering the Air Quality Impacts of Bioenergy Crop Production: A Case Study Involving Arundo donax - Environmental Science & Technology (ACS Publications)

The expanding production of bioenergy crops may impact regional air quality through the production of volatile organic compounds such as isoprene. To investigate the effects of isoprene-emitting crops on air quality, specifically ozone (O3) and secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation, we performed a series of model runs using the Weather Research and Forecasting model with Chemistry (WRF/Chem) coupled with the Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature (MEGAN) simulating a proposed cropland conversion to the giant cane Arundo donax for biomass production. Cultivation of A. donax in the relatively clean air of northeastern Oregon resulted in an average increase in 8 h O3 levels of 0.52 ppb, while SOA was largely unaffected (<+0.01 &#956;g m–3). Conversions in U.S. regions with reduced air quality (eastern Texas and northern Illinois) resulted in average 8 h O3 increases of 2.46 and 3.97 ppb, respectively, with daily increases up to 15 ppb in the Illinois case, and daytime SOA increases up to 0.57 &#956;g m–3. While cultivation of isoprene-emitting bioenergy crops may be appropriate at some scales and in some regions, other areas may experience increased O3 and SOA, highlighting the need to consider isoprene emissions when evaluating potential regional impacts of bioenergy crop production.

Citing PLANTS for air pollution.. Now THERE'S a useful function for govt..
Unless it's Cannabis that's doing the pollution...

 

[martybegan]

And a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of Connecticut.

Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" puts seafood industry at risk - CBS News

The Ogallala aquifer drained and poisoned by agriculture...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opinion/polluting-the-ogallala-aquifer.html?_r=0

Why isn't agriculture subject to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule?

SPCC Rule | Emergency Management | US EPA

And there are certain crops that create a toxic air pollution. Portland State University is studying the atmospheric affects of some of the crops used in biofuels right now.

Considering the Air Quality Impacts of Bioenergy Crop Production: A Case Study Involving Arundo donax - Environmental Science & Technology (ACS Publications)

The expanding production of bioenergy crops may impact regional air quality through the production of volatile organic compounds such as isoprene. To investigate the effects of isoprene-emitting crops on air quality, specifically ozone (O3) and secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation, we performed a series of model runs using the Weather Research and Forecasting model with Chemistry (WRF/Chem) coupled with the Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature (MEGAN) simulating a proposed cropland conversion to the giant cane Arundo donax for biomass production. Cultivation of A. donax in the relatively clean air of northeastern Oregon resulted in an average increase in 8 h O3 levels of 0.52 ppb, while SOA was largely unaffected (<+0.01 &#956;g m–3). Conversions in U.S. regions with reduced air quality (eastern Texas and northern Illinois) resulted in average 8 h O3 increases of 2.46 and 3.97 ppb, respectively, with daily increases up to 15 ppb in the Illinois case, and daytime SOA increases up to 0.57 &#956;g m–3. While cultivation of isoprene-emitting bioenergy crops may be appropriate at some scales and in some regions, other areas may experience increased O3 and SOA, highlighting the need to consider isoprene emissions when evaluating potential regional impacts of bioenergy crop production.

So now growing plants is killing the environment?

lol.

 

[flacaltenn]

VOC production in the plant kingdom? The KING of VOC production?

Pristine Evergreen forests.. Yup.. And that real XMAS tree in your living room? Deadly man.. Just stop it.
I think I've cracked a rib...

 

[Old Rocks]

Once again we see the usual knownothings contributing posts that indicate the degree of retardation they suffer.

A natural community of plants has a many differant kinds, if one emits more than the usual amount of toxic chemicals, it matters little, because it makes up only a small portion of the whole. But when you have intensive farming of that plant, virtually making it the whole of the community, those emissions are a problem, and affect the health of those living near the source of the pollution. When the farming of the particular plant also involves massive use of fertilizer, then you have both air and water pollution from that farm.

Mr. H is right. Much of our farming today is a major source of air and water pollution. I am not going to pass that over while dinging the use of fossil fuels. We need to address all sources of pollution in the environment that affect the health of humans and the environment itself. Major dead zones in our oceans do us no good, nor the health of the ocean eco-system.

 

[martybegan]

Once again we see the usual knownothings contributing posts that indicate the degree of retardation they suffer.

A natural community of plants has a many differant kinds, if one emits more than the usual amount of toxic chemicals, it matters little, because it makes up only a small portion of the whole. But when you have intensive farming of that plant, virtually making it the whole of the community, those emissions are a problem, and affect the health of those living near the source of the pollution. When the farming of the particular plant also involves massive use of fertilizer, then you have both air and water pollution from that farm.

Mr. H is right. Much of our farming today is a major source of air and water pollution. I am not going to pass that over while dinging the use of fossil fuels. We need to address all sources of pollution in the environment that affect the health of humans and the environment itself. Major dead zones in our oceans do us no good, nor the health of the ocean eco-system.

The amounts of compounds released by these plants is so small as to create only a local effect, and the impact of this effect is barely quanitfiable if at all.

Fertilizer is another topic entirely, and not related to bad gas coming off a field of plants and then diffused by multiple orders of magnitiude into the overall atmosphere.

If you are suggesting going back to older methods of farming, be prepared for starvation as they cannot support our current population levels. They are also more polluting than you think.

 

[KissMy]

Any that's ever seen an Algae bloom agrees with ya H..

Algae Bloom is an abundance of life, not dead zones as the Big Oil Companies paint it as. They should harvest the algae & turn it into fuel. That is what created the oil they drill for in the first place. But instead they point fingers & lie.

 

[martybegan]

Any that's ever seen an Algae bloom agrees with ya H..

Algae Bloom is an abundance of life, not dead zones as the Big Oil Companies paint it as. They should harvest the algae & turn it into fuel. That is what created the oil they drill for in the first place. But instead they point fingers & lie.

An algae bloom is indeed a life killer for higher organisms due to the hypoxic conditions they create. (the net increase in O2 from the algae is not enough to cover the net decrease in O2 due to decaying dead biomass or the algae's own respirations).

It is ironic, however, that the blooms were created from the initial cleaning of the waters due to a reduction in carbon load and turbidity. Before the water was too loaded with carbon and turbid to support algae in abundance. The 1st gen plants of the 70's and 80's reduced the carbon load and turbidity to the point algae could blossom, and the excessive nitrogen from the treatment plants (which were not initially designed for nitrogen removal) allowed them to flourish.

Now the plants are being upgraded to nitrogen removal, although it is annoying that they have to pay more in infrastructure upgrades and operating costs due to thier own sucesses.

 

[KissMy]

Life abundant fuel source. Skim it right off the water & squeeze the oil out.

 

[martybegan]

Life abundant fuel source. Skim it right off the water & squeeze the oil out.

Easier in a controlled environment than in a natural setting, and those tanks don't have to support other higher level aquatic life.

Nitrogen is treatable in wastewater, its just harder to retrofit existing plants than to build a new one with the nitrogen treatment already part of it.

 

[KissMy]

Life abundant fuel source. Skim it right off the water & squeeze the oil out.

Easier in a controlled environment than in a natural setting, and those tanks don't have to support other higher level aquatic life.

Nitrogen is treatable in wastewater, its just harder to retrofit existing plants than to build a new one with the nitrogen treatment already part of it.

Yup - The loan for a new sewer treatment plant is why bond payments on my sewer bill are set to increase it by 400% over the next 10 years.

 

[flacaltenn]

Once again we see the usual knownothings contributing posts that indicate the degree of retardation they suffer.

A natural community of plants has a many differant kinds, if one emits more than the usual amount of toxic chemicals, it matters little, because it makes up only a small portion of the whole. But when you have intensive farming of that plant, virtually making it the whole of the community, those emissions are a problem, and affect the health of those living near the source of the pollution. When the farming of the particular plant also involves massive use of fertilizer, then you have both air and water pollution from that farm.

How cute.. Little "natural communities" of plants.. FACT IS --- A pristine EVERGREEN FOREST IS DOMINATED by pinetrees spewing VOCs.. And it's NATURAL as a baby's ass.

Also it flunks the EPA standards for BOTH VOCs and particulate matter at many times of the year..

 

[waltky]

Nitrates chokin' the Big Muddy...

Study: Mississippi River Overwhelmed by Agricultural Chemicals
May 22, 2014 — Every spring a so-called "dead zone" develops in the Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of the Mississippi River.

Spreading up to 13,600 square kilometers and extending all the way to the eastern Texas shoreline, the zone results from nitrogen-heavy river water pouring into the gulf, where it promotes the growth of algae. As the algae dies, it sinks to the bottom where it decomposes and depletes oxygen from the water, a condition called hypoxia that is deadly to fish and shrimp. While scientists know what causes a hypoxic zone, a recently published study by two Austin-based hydrogeologists shows the solution may prove a hard sell for those landlocked to the north. According to Dr. Bayani Cardenas, Associate Professor at the University of Texas's Jackson School of Geosciences, river bank sediments naturally filter water-borne contaminants, typically removing nitrates that otherwise create dead zones downstream. "You can think of it as a spiraling flow back around the bank of the river," said Cardenas, the study's lead author. "A water molecule goes into the bank and then comes back out into the river at some downstream point, and it does that repeatedly as it travels downstream."

And yet nitrate-heavy waters of the Mississippi River have been pouring into the gulf each spring. Determined to find out why, Cardenas, his recent study shows, found that although more than 99 percent of the river’s water does pass through sediment on its way south, the system is overwhelmed by sheer the amount of nitrogen it carries. The Mississippi river system carries water to the gulf from 33 states and two Canadian provinces where chemicals like nitrogen are used extensively in agriculture. Farmers say the use of such chemicals is essential to produce food for a growing world population. But Cardenas says his research shows that something needs to be done. “If you want to curtail this process it has to be at the source, just less inputs from the start," he said, explaining that the majority of contaminants wreaking havoc on Louisiana's gulf fishermen are introduced to the water system in states farther to the north.

Dead pogies float in a fish kill in a pass near Bay Joe Wise on the Louisiana coast

Aaron Packman, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Northwestern University, agrees. He says farmers may be able to better control the amount of nitrate fertilizer they put on fields. “How much fertilizer do you need to give you good yields and then how much is maybe a marginal gain from adding lots more fertilizer?" he said. "There is really a question here: can you maybe [reduce the amount] and get close to the same level of yield without having such a negative impact?” Packman also says solutions need to be implemented upstream from Louisiana, which has a relatively small section of the river. “The Mississippi river system is 40 percent of the surface area of the continental United States," he said. "I think it takes some further work in the distributive areas upstream that are the source of a lot of the nutrient.”

Filtration by the river system has been weakened by human-made “improvements” such as levees and canals that aid transportation and help control floods. But Cardenas says filtration works better when the river meanders through twists and turns, forcing the water to spend more time in the sediment that cleans it. “A straight channel won’t offer this buffering," he said. "A very sinuous channel provides a lot of the contact of the river water with the sediment.” While Louisiana has embarked on a project to divert more river water through wetlands to filter it and increase coastal silt deposits, this will have only a limited effect if states farther upstream do not take action as well. In coming months, storms will stir the gulf waters and diminish the oxygen-depleted zone, but it will return next year and grow larger in years ahead if something isn’t done to reduce the flow of nitrogen in the Mississippi. Cardenas's study appears in a recent issue of Nature Geosciences.

Study: Mississippi River Overwhelmed by Agricultural Chemicals

 

[SSDD]

U.S. District Judge John Preston Bailey said litter and manure washed by rain into Chesapeake Bay tributaries at Lois Alt's Hardy County farm is agricultural runoff, not a fixed pollution source such as a factory. That means it's exempt from the requirement that it be permitted and regulated under the federal Clean Water Act, he said.

How much longer are we going to cow-tow to Agriculture while they destroy our air, ground, and water?

W.Va. chicken farmer wins EPA lawsuit over runoff - Yahoo Finance

This sort of thing is going to be the norm till the AGW climate change hoax is put to bed. It sucks all of the air out of the room and as a result, none of the real issues can be addressed.

 

[mamooth]

FACT IS --- A pristine EVERGREEN FOREST IS DOMINATED by pinetrees spewing VOCs.. And it's NATURAL as a baby's ass.

Also it flunks the EPA standards for BOTH VOCs and particulate matter at many times of the year..

That was just as stupid when Reagan said it. You know, that trees cause pollution. Because they don't.

Why? Because VOCs alone aren't pollution. VOCs reacting with Nitrogen oxide are pollution, in the form of ground level ozone. The forests? No Nitrogen oxide, hence no ozone pollution.