Farm News
09-29-06
Disputed EPC ruling bans manure on soybeans
By KRISTIN GREINER- Farm News staff
DES MOINES — One of the bigger controversial issues to surface since local
control of livestock operations has caused quite a stir among various farm groups
and producers.
The state Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) recently voted
unanimously to begin the rule-making process of banning the spread of liquid
manure and effluent from open feedlots on soybean acres. The only exception to
the ban would be in the event of excessive rainfall that prevents farmers from
planting corn by June 1.
Jerry Peckum, chair of the state EPC and a farmer from southern Greene
County, said the move was made to help protect the state’s waterways from
excess nitrates. Jessica Mayo with Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement
(CCI) said Iowa has “some of the worse watersî in the nation” and that applying
manure to soybeans can lead to excess nitrogen levels and subsequent nitrate
runoff into streams and waters.
“It just doesn’t make sense agriculturally, economically or environmentally—it’s
all about cleaning up the waters,î” Mayo said.
Mayo said farmer-members of the Iowa CCI have said it’s “silly”î to put any sort
of fertilizer on soybeans, because the crops don’t need it.î
But agronomist John Sawyer at Iowa State University (ISU) said manure is
full of other nutrients and the soybean plants can indeed utilize the phosphorus
and potassium contained in manure.
“Only a small percentage of farmers use manure as a nitrogen source for
soybeans, but it’s not uncommon for us to apply manure to attain adequate soil
levels of potassium and phosphorus,î” he said.
Peckum cited a study from Minnesota that showed “significantî” nitrogen losses
into tile lines from manure applications year after year. As far as needing the
potassium and phosphorus from manure, he said that applying manure fertilizer
to a crop every other year would still leave a “fairly significant” build-up of those
nutrients from year to year.
Mick Lane, information director with the Iowa Soybean Association, said while
the argument that soybeans don’t need extra nitrogen is valid,î to say that the
soybean plants wouldn’t use the nitrogen is incorrect.
“Soybeans use a great deal of nitrogen,”î he said. “They’re great at taking what’s
in the soil, but will fix their own if there’s not enough readily available.”î
The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF) harbors some concerns about the
proposed EPC ban, noting that when properly applied, liquid manure benefits
crop yields, supplies organic matter and improves soil tilth, which leads to less
erosion. Other potential pitfalls include worsening conditions specific to a
particular watershed, for example.
One of the IFBF’s biggest concerns is that the EPC chose to ignore scientific
studies including studies by the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and Iowa State University,î a concern that Lane also
expressed.
“They chose to go forward with a proposed ban when ongoing ISU research is
not complete,Ӕ said Rick Robinson, IFBF environmental policy advisor.
Even the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requested the state EPC
postpone crafting the rule and instead study the issue further, said Kevin
Baskins, spokesperson for the Iowa DNR.
“If they vote and approve the final rule, we do have to act on it,î” Baskins said.
Pork producer Gene Ver Steeg, president of the Iowa Pork Producers
Association (IPPA), said the “unnecessary prohibition”î definitely could negatively
impact pork producers. He, too, said the EPC is “ignoring a recent Iowa State
University suggestionthat the number of pounds of nitrogen applied per bushel
be reduced—not banned—from the current rate of 3.8 pounds to a range of
between 3.1 pounds and 3.4 pounds.î”
“EPC claims this is a nitrogen issue. If this is truly a nitrogen issue, then it should
apply to dry manure as well as liquid manure. In fact, the EPC farm
representatives are exempting themselves from this proposed ban,Ӕ Ver Steeg
said. “In my estimation, this is not an environmental issue, it really comes down
to economics. Research shows that applying manure to soybean fields can
increase returns as much as $35 an acre. This is because soybean fields need
the micronutrients, phosphorous and potassium supplied by animal nutrients. I
would say a much wiser approach would be to take ISU’s scientific advice and
just reduce the rate of nitrogen that can be applied to ground being planted to
soybeans.Ӕ
Peckum said the president of the Iowa Commercial Haulers Association informed
the EPC that not very many people apply manure to soybeans, but the
commission had received “a lot of complaints” that people do.î
“If I recall correctly, 60 to 70 percent of the manure management plans on file
have in there that they apply manure to soybean grounds,”î Peckum said. “The
nitrogen portion of the manure is the least stable portion of the fertilizer and we’re
concerned about the amount of nitrates in Iowa’s water. Right now, the rule
allows for 3.8 pounds of nitrogen applied per bushel, and if you’re expecting 50
bushels, you could put on close to 200 pounds of nitrogen, which is a lot of
nitrogen.Ӕ
The IFBF continues to recommend that the DNR follow ISU recommendations
that were made in May 2006. Depending upon yield level, this modified rate
would be 100 to 125 pounds of nitrogen per acre range, which would “allow”
soybean growers to continue to use valuable manure, minimize the potential for
nitrate reaching surface water systems, and gain the desired benefits, including
increased yield, a supply of other nutrients, and less impact on soil erosion.î
Ver Steeg’s biggest point, the same one made by the IFBF, that banning manure
from soybean fields could lead to more producers going to a continuous corn
program rather than a corn-soybean rotation, a factor that could be further fueled
by the expansion in the ethanol industry and could negate all efforts of the
current proposed ban. John Lawrence, a livestock economist at ISU, also said he
anticipates that feedlots impacted by the proposed ban would go to continuous
corn in their application field.
Sawyer said while there is enough land available in the state for manure
applications, he pondered, too, whether or not producers will raise more corn
after corn and apply the manure, which could result in the exact same
consequences the proposed EPC ban is hoping to negate.
“I have a feeling that we’d see similar results if we apply the manure to back to
back corn instead of soybeans in a corn-bean rotation,Ӕ he said.
On Peckum’s own farm operation, he has moved from a 50-50 rotation to a twothirds/one-third rotation, he said, and he agrees the state may move to more corn
on corn as a whole. He said if excessive nitrogen applications are seen for corn
on corn rotations, the commission might have to examine that issue, too.
“Corn uses a lot of nitrogen, so if we’re putting on enough nitrogen that it
increases the nitrate levels from where we’re at now, then we ought to review
how much nitrogen we need to put on corn,”î he said. “Manure can be a
wonderful resource, if used properly.Ӕ