Farm News, IA
11-24-06
EPC delays ban on manure applications
By Kristin Danley-Greiner, Farm News staff
At its lengthy Nov. 14 meeting, the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission
(EPC) proposed delaying its ban on applying liquid manure as fertilizer to
soybean acres for five years and has decided to incorporate scientific data from
Iowa State University (ISU) in its recommendation for manure applications. But,
some agriculture groups are still unhappy with the ban being left in place.
Originally, the Iowa EPC planned to ban the practice after three years, but the
new proposal, as approved Nov. 14, would instead ban the practice after five
years. It also calls for cutting the allowed application rate in half to 100 pounds of
nitrogen per acre in the meantime. The rule will impact those farms that have to
submit a manure management plan or nutrient management plan to the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Wayne Gieselman, administrator of the environmental services division of the
Iowa DNR, told Farm News that the commission made the decision to allow 100
pounds of nitrogen to be applied per acre for the next five years based upon
written testimony provided by ISU. Written testimony provided by other resources
somewhat supportedî the decision to enact the ban in five years, he said.
Tracy Blackmer, director of research at the Iowa Soybean Association, said the
association and its members are pleased that a complete ban wasn’t enacted
immediately and that scientific evidence was taken into account.
“We’re happy they followed the university’s recommendation, but I’m surprised
that the EPC has injected itself into the situation—after the university identified
the problem and proposed a solution, by creating a ban and putting a timeframe
on it rather than letting the system work,î” Blackmer said.
Eldon McAfee, attorney for the Iowa Pork Producers Association (IPPA), said the
organization is opposed to any ban pertaining to the application of manure on
soybeans, but is satisfied with the 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre rate
recommendation.
“At least the rate stems from a recommendation from ISU. While ISU’s
recommendation is 100 to 125 pounds of nitrogen and the commission is
proposing 100 pounds, it’s much better than a ban,î” McAfee said. “But we
question why any ban would be proposed until more information exists to support
it. Research from ISU and from Minnesota suggests that there aren’t water
quality concerns when manure is applied at proper rates to a soybean crop. So,
we’re still looking at the proposal and we’re encouraged that the commission is
looking at reduced rates, but we’re concerned about any type of ban.î”
Christina L. Gruenhagen, government relations counsel for the Iowa Farm
Bureau Federation (IFBF), said the organization supports leaving the decision of
whether or not to apply manure to soybeans as fertilizer to the farmer, which
should be based upon what’s best for an individual operation.
“While few farmers utilize the practice, those farmers that have used the practice
have done so for good reasons that are supported by science: improved crop
yields, improved organic matter and soil tilth, providing necessary phosphorus,
potassium and micronutrients, widening the spring manure application window,
meeting soil conservation requirements and allowing access to more crop land
for manure application,î” Gruenhagen said. “Farmers should be allowed to
exercise their professional judgment when determining whether it is a preferred
crop management practice for their farm.Ӕ
Specifically, the IFBF said the 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre recommendation
coming from ISU that was adopted by the EPC could eliminate a viable crop
management option and will result in increased risk of the nitrogen leaching by
forcing crop rotation and conservation practice changes to accommodate the
regulation.î
“Farmers make professional crop management decisions that benefit their farm,
their families and their communities and are directly impacted by their decisions.
The EPC should not ban this crop management practice without further science
based research,î” Gruenhagen said.
Gruenhagen also said the IFBF does not believe a ban should be enacted when
a scientific consensus has not demonstrated it is a water quality issue.î
“The commission has adopted the precautionary principal of requiring proof that
the practice doesn’t increase nitrogen leaching rather than demonstrating that it
is a problem before acting to ban it,î” she said. “The best option is to pursue
additional research in order to complete the understanding of the potential for
nitrogen leaching from liquid manure application for soybeans.Ӕ
McAfee said a better approachî to a ban would be to revisit the manure
application level to determine if a ban is even needed.
“Why impose a ban for five years down the road? That would seem to suggest a
problem with the application level, and there’s no information to suggest such a
problem,”î he said. “The paper out of Minnesota actually notes that applying
manure to legumes can in fact be helpful for water quality. When you apply less
than you actually need, the plant makes up the difference. Besides, manure isn’t
just nitrogen fertilizer, but it also contains valuable organic matter, plus P&K. It
has other benefits to the crop.î”
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (CCI) have supported the ban from
the beginning and actually are calling for a ban now instead of five years down
the road, as the EPC has decided.
“Iowa CCI members feel that while limiting manure applications is a step in the
right direction, we still need a complete ban now. The EPC intends to implement
the ban in five years. This demonstrates recognition that the ban is needed, so it
should go into effect immediately to protect our waters, which are some of the
dirtiest in the nation. It doesn’t make sense to take the chance that this practice
will continue to pollute our waters for another five years,î” said Jessica Mayo with
the Iowa CCI.
Iowa CCI member Keith Kuper testified at the EPC’s past meeting that applying
manure to soybeans does not make sense agronomically, economically or
environmentally,î because soybeans are nitrogen-fixing plants that show little or
no yield response to applied nitrogen.î
Kuper testified that “top DNR staff has said that manure should not be applied to
a crop that has the ability to fix its own nitrogen (legumes). Clearly, applying
manure to ground going into soybeans does not make sense agronomically,Ӕ he
said.
Economically, applying manure to fields that are being planted into soybeans is a
waste,î Kuper testified.
“Manure contains valuable plant nutrients; however, when applied to legumes
such as soybeans, the nitrogen component is being wasted,î” he said. “It makes
far more economic sense to apply manure to a crop such as corn that responds
economically to applied nitrogen. Manure is being treated as a waste rather than
a valuable nutrient when applied to soybeans.Ӕ
The Iowa CCI also said while other beneficial nutrients exist in manure, there is
only anecdotal evidence of increased soybean yields as a result of manure
application.î
“In fact, some research suggests that it could even decrease yield. Regardless,
what is best for one is not always what is best for the environment. Family
farmers, many of whom are members of Iowa CCI, believe the practice of
applying manure to soybeans unnecessary and even foolish. Smart farming
techniques, proven through generations on the land, preserve our natural
resources and do not pollute the source of their success: the environment,Ӕ the
organization said in a statement.
It is anticipated the EPC will vote on whether to take the new proposal out for
public comment at its Dec. 5 meeting.