Great, your link said some municipalities are starting to remove some phosphorus. Toledo is now one of them. To bad they dumped phosphorus laden sewage into Lake Erie for 200 years before CAFO's were ever a thing. Legacy phosphorus in Lake Erie will feed Algal Blooms for generations to come.
Another year, another algal bloom in Lake Erie's Western Basin.
- Thread starter irish_buffalo
- Start date
Guillotine
Well-known member
At least you ended on the money shot. I told you IB wasn't ready to deal with that dynamic yet.
I appreciate your expertise last night. You sound like a different person from the one who defended CAFO's in Mercer and Auglaize counties when Grand Lake first blew up...errr...bloomed.
In fact, after digesting your points, I'm quite confident CAFO's in the Maumee shed have little to nothing to do with phosphorus levels in Erie. I'm a tad embarrassed I entertained that they did.
eastisbest
Well-known member
Actually, I think we're ahead of the game. This is coming to other communities.
You also stated it is held in "earthen lagoons." No clay lining is impermeable and though there might be some absorbtion before it can hit a clean path to water table, I can see why many would be uncomfortable with the system. Regulations for storage of hazardous materials are not new but have been and will continue to be violated by those looking to make or save a buck. We ALL know the influence of the Ag industrial complex.
I think people are right to question CAFOs. That's A LOT of waste product, very close to the water system. That pattern, particular south of Defiance screams problematic. With waters at their highest levels, backing up into the land, CAFO waste in lagoons?
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
I as well as others have provided proof of a possible correlation to CAFOs in the Maumee River watershed and algal blooms in Lake Erie.
You have provided nothing more than BS. Legacy phosphorous? We are talking an element here and a lake that drains in 2 years (far quicker than the other 4).
The equivalent of 20,000,000 people's waste is produced by CAFO's in the Maumee River watershed and you believe it has nothing to do with algal blooms. Even though these significant events started happening in 2003 and have gotten worse?
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
You'd agree with anyone as long they disagreed with me. You are a pawn - used and abused.
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
You said that municipalities do not remove phosphorus and I walked you through how they do and you struggled with it. You then continue to talk about how Toledo is doing all of the damage (they are not) and then disregard any impact from far more raw CAFO sewage being applied topically and therefore winding up in the watershed.
What was Toledo thinking all of those years? They should have simply taken everyone's waste (treated) and applied it to the fields.
The bottom line is Big Ag controls our one party controlled legislature and no one wants to pay for this to get treated or applied properly.
Guillotine
Well-known member
You don't yet understand how phosphorus moves. It's either point source ( lagoon dumps into Erie), or non-point source (phosphorus attached to silt).
It doesn't leach into the ground and travel to the lake.
Guillotine
Well-known member
I agree because I know he's right, and you're in way over your head.
Guillotine
Well-known member
It's shutting the barn door after the horse got out. The damage is done. That's why Indian called it "legacy phosphorus."
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
There is direct correlation between CAFOs and algal blooms. Not "legacy phosphorous."
Lets just assume "legacy phosphorous" is real and the root cause.
FACT: The CAFO's in the region create FAR more waste than Toledo.
FACT: That waste does not have to get treated or processed like municipalities treat human waste.
FACT: The amount of waste produced has to go somewhere and there is not enough land and "pits" to take it on. Just think of the daily amounts alone? They would have to apply to fields topically on a daily basis.
FACT: It IS applied topically and heavy rains move it to the Lake.
Lets just assume "legacy phosphorous" is real and the root cause.
FACT: The CAFO's in the region create FAR more waste than Toledo.
FACT: That waste does not have to get treated or processed like municipalities treat human waste.
FACT: The amount of waste produced has to go somewhere and there is not enough land and "pits" to take it on. Just think of the daily amounts alone? They would have to apply to fields topically on a daily basis.
FACT: It IS applied topically and heavy rains move it to the Lake.
eastisbest
Well-known member
That's like saying if you have a glass of phosporous laden water and you pour it into the water table, only the water enters. It's not an animal, it's in suspension and sometimes a compound. It goes where that suspension or compoound goes and that does mean susceptable to leaching, just like any chemical.
Crawling through limestone does not strain out the phosporous.
Fact: phosphorus PREFERs limestone to organic material. If that lagoon leaks, which they do, it has the potential to compound with the lime which does make its way to water table and lake via hundreds of miles of tributaries. That's not an issue or a debate. The issue is the extent. The extent depends upon oversight. Oversight is not particularly trusted, which brings me to my next point.
Last edited:
eastisbest
Well-known member
I also appreciate that you're willing to bring another educated side to the debate. Might feel like you're being pounded with questions and opposition but for me, it's a learning experience.
All debate on practices and regulations aside, let's discuss perception. Like the warming debate, perception is really the battle, isn't it?
The general public is going to distrust large corporations. They are going to distrust goverments' honest ability and even their honesty in regulating large Ag, just like they distrust those interactions with any large industry.
The general public has seen population around Lake Erie diminish greatly, family farms diminish greatly, even planted acreage diminish (though more efficient); all of which you have attribute in this post as cause of the blooms. Yet for those hundreds of years, there were no blooms. Blooms are a recent phenomena. Large Industrial CAFOS in this area are a recent phenomena. People can SEE the crap waste. They can SMELL the crap waste. These are concrete things. They can SEE the blooms. The cannot see, hear, or feel organic absorption, security of lagoons or measure themselves the levels of phosporous already present and entering the eco-system and where.
That's the perception you are battling. How concrete an evidence can the CAFO industry bring that they're this idylic neighbor?
Guillotine
Well-known member
You guys act like chicken turds have some homing instinct to return to lake Erie.
200 years of dumping human chit directly in the lake does not matter? Did all that phosphorus miraculously evaporate or become inert?
15 years of animal chit methodically applied 100 miles away does matter. Because the phosphorus miraculously defied all natural parameters on a voyage to the sea?
The reason we're seeing the damage now is because we've reached the tipping point. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.
200 years of dumping human chit directly in the lake does not matter? Did all that phosphorus miraculously evaporate or become inert?
15 years of animal chit methodically applied 100 miles away does matter. Because the phosphorus miraculously defied all natural parameters on a voyage to the sea?
The reason we're seeing the damage now is because we've reached the tipping point. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.
nwwarrior09
Well-known member
I have an incredibly difficult time believing this is entirely the byproduct of human waste (i.e. flushing toilets) when regional population (Toledo, Detroit, Windsor and everything in-between and on the periphery) has flat lined and been on the decline for 50 years while waste water treatment has improved.
Perhaps a "tipping point" could have been crossed, but it would seem far more likely to me that if it was a human waste "tipping point" it would have been crossed in the past when treatment practices were lesser and the population was equal to or much greater than it is today. As IB stated, the "residence time" of water in the lake is very short (approx. 2.6 years), and in the trouble area of the western basin is probably much shorter than that due to the shallow depth. The average depth of the western basin is only about 24 ft vs. 60+ feet eastward in the lake. Something has changed over the last 15-20 years to cause a big algal bloom spike, and it's definitely not the dumping of human chit and wastewater.
Perhaps a "tipping point" could have been crossed, but it would seem far more likely to me that if it was a human waste "tipping point" it would have been crossed in the past when treatment practices were lesser and the population was equal to or much greater than it is today. As IB stated, the "residence time" of water in the lake is very short (approx. 2.6 years), and in the trouble area of the western basin is probably much shorter than that due to the shallow depth. The average depth of the western basin is only about 24 ft vs. 60+ feet eastward in the lake. Something has changed over the last 15-20 years to cause a big algal bloom spike, and it's definitely not the dumping of human chit and wastewater.
Last edited:
Guillotine
Well-known member
The phosphorus is there forever. The shallow water exasperates the situation.
The accumulation has taken place over 200 years, and we're now full. Welcome to the consequences.
The accumulation has taken place over 200 years, and we're now full. Welcome to the consequences.
Earthen lagoons are packed, lined and tested to ensure there is zero leachate. It is very extensive in construction and monitored. That is part of the permitting process. Earthen lagoons are surrounded by a tile system designed to catch any leachate if it should happen to leak. The clay liner of the lagoons are rated at less than 1/16 of an inch of permeation per year mea ing it will take at least 16 years for the sludge to leach into the first inch of soil. The waste isn't getting to the ground water.Actually, I think we're ahead of the game. This is coming to other communities.
You also stated it is held in "earthen lagoons." No clay lining is impermeable and though there might be some absorbtion before it can hit a clean path to water table, I can see why many would be uncomfortable with the system. Regulations for storage of hazardous materials are not new but have been and will continue to be violated by those looking to make or save a buck. We ALL know the influence of the Ag industrial complex.
I think people are right to question CAFOs. That's A LOT of waste product, very close to the water system. That pattern, particular south of Defiance screams problematic. With waters at their highest levels, backing up into the land, CAFO waste in lagoons?
Most CAFO's are going to concrete pits as part of the building, at least for hogs. There several advantages economically as well as environmentally.
Your map is a bit misleading. A CAFO is different than an animal feeding operation.
The map isn't showing CAFO's.
This comment proves you have no idea how phosphorus works.
The only proof you have provided is that CAFO's showed up the same time as the blooms.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Just because you bang pots and pans together every night to keep elephants out of your garden doesn't mean it works if there are no elephants.
Again with the 20,000,000 number.... just because some uneducated reporter with an agenda wrote it doesn't mean it is true.
YYou said that municipalities do not remove phosphorus and I walked you through how they do and you struggled with it. You then continue to talk about how Toledo is doing all of the damage (they are not) and then disregard any impact from far more raw CAFO sewage being applied topically and therefore winding up in the watershed.
What was Toledo thinking all of those years? They should have simply taken everyone's waste (treated) and applied it to the fields.
The bottom line is Big Ag controls our one party controlled legislature and no one wants to pay for this to get treated or applied properly.
The articles you linked admit that Toledo is dumping its phosphorus into the lake.
Seriously dude.
nwwarrior09
Well-known member
It would seem that something has supercharged the "buildup" in recent years. I think it's undoubtedly true that the shallowness is a major environmental factor. Most of the lake in that area is basically a double-depth Olympic diving well.
Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, but it roughly times up and there seems to be significant scientific and environmental consensus that the primary causative of blooms in recent years is agricultural runoff going from field to ditch and so on until it hits the Maumee and eventually the lake. It would seem to me that if it was just a human chit problem then between population peaks and treatment/management techniques the recent "peaks" would have happened some time between the 40s and the 70s.
Arguing against that and saying it's just the buildup of generations of human chit would seem to be on par with arguing against any and all "human impact" on sharp swings in climate change. Perhaps it doesn't explain the whole story, but I have an incredibly difficult time believing that it doesn't play some part in what's been occurring recently.
At the end of the day the cause doesn't matter so much as corrective solutions that actually make a difference. There are numerous reasons for why there shouldn't be any controversy in wanting to correct this issue.
Correct.
Your "facts" are wrong.
Phosphorus is not water soluble.
It binds to clay soil.
The soil must move for the phosphorus to move.
This is why there is legacy phosphorus in Lake Erie and the only way to remove it is to dredge the phosphorus laden silt out of the lake.
Do you know where they put the phosphorus laden silt that is dredged out? On farm fields as fertilizer. Why? Because it is a safe method of disposal that prevents it from entering back into the watershed.
Just like manure from CAFO's.
Municipalities have dumped their phosphorus laden sewage (raw, treated or otherwise) into the watershed for 200+ years.
You're right about perception. But perception does not equal facts.
CAFO's permits to install and Permits to operate are public record as is all their audits performed by the state.
Violations (if any) are public record as well.
CAFO's are highly regulated and highly transparent.
eastisbest
Well-known member
lol, it does when you're talking blame and politics.
And to respond to the other, phosphorous is soluble with components carried by water and can flow with it. I never used the word "leech" (did I?) There is no "pure" h2o in this discussion.
anaerobic lagoons
As I stated, it is chemically more active with limestone than it is with organics. No "lagoon" is impervious. Again, the debate isn't "can it." The debate and the points the CAFO bought will be asked to address is to what extent has it happened, is tolerable and will happen. But perception being what it is, if opponents get enough sway, they don't need "facts" to get these moved further from the tributaries. All they need is perception. And if one lagoon leaks (forget leeching), then all pay the price.
This is reactor waste level fear with the added fact, people can SEE the results of phosphoros, regardless phosphorous from CAFOs is the actual cause. They can simply decide it's not worth the risk.
No doubt that Ag and CAFO's are losing the publicity fight. People want emotional articles that quickly point the blame away from themselves and onto the "evil few". IB's links are great examples of this. They are filled with innuendo, emotional appealing are very few facts.
I brought up leaching because it is important when talking about water pollution. Phosphorus does not leach. It binds to soil. That soil must then erode into the watershed. This is much more difficult than leaching and it allows for several opportunities to control or stop the movement of phosphorus. Things like cover crops, and grass filters strips make the movement of phosphorus much more difficult.
The scientific fact that phosphorus binds to soil rather than leaches is also a critical point in understanding legacy phosphorus and algal blooms. Because it binds rather leaches is why the water exchange rate of Lake Erie does not matter. The phosphorus is not in the water, it is in the silt on the lake bottom. The only way to remove the phosphorus is to remove the silt via dredging. Comments by posters about the lake depth on the Western side compared to the eastern side is indicative of decades and centuries of phosphorus laden silt buildup. What or who has been dumping into the western basin for extreme lengths of time? It isn't CAFO'S.
Lagoons:
I can tell you that I have closed and reclaimed old animal waste lagoons. After removing the waste, core sample are taken to determine the if Phosphorus had saturated the soil beneath the lagoon. Phosphorus had not moved beyond a half inch in 35 years of use. Lagoons properly built are effective.
I understand your concerns (and the general publics) about waste storage lagoons. However they are designed, built and monitored in such ways that make "leaking" or "leaching" highly improbable. They are also designed with extensive monitoring system to detect leaks in the remote chance they do leak.
CAFO's are highly regulated and monitored. Extreme fines can be levied up to including shutting down the operation for violations. They are inspected annually by the State.
CAFO's aren't the problem.
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
Activists say: More scrutiny of CAFOs needed
With the prospect of another large harmful algal bloom in Lake Erie looming, environmental activists in Northwest Ohio are focusing their attention on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and the large amounts of manure they generate as a source of phosphorus making its way to the lake.
Here is another good article.
This one points out the difference with how most farmers apply fertilizer and how CAFO's dispose of it (topical application by hose).
Manure produced by CAFO's in the Maumee watershed jumped from 3.9 million tons in 2005 to 5.5 million tons in 2018.
Indiandad, you have told us many things on here but have not refuted anything through fact. It is easy to question all of the information I have provided, call it bad science or innuendo and then provide nothing on your end except opinion.
* I've read a bunch of articles on the subject and have never once heard of the term "legacy phosphorous." You would think that one of these scientists from these organizations or even a farmer would bring it up. They have not.
* Dredged material from the Maumee is dumped on man-made islands in Maumee Bay call "facilities." There may be places where dredged material is applied to farm fields but it is not from the Maumee.
* WWTP do not remove phosphorous. They do.
* Phosphorous cannot be moved by water alone. Completely wrong. In your argument, phosphorous can be dumped into the lake by even treated waste in Toledo, but anything applied from all of the waste produced by CAFO's in the watershed is stored and applied perfectly back into the ecosystem (wrong).
* This is a major problem and it would appear to me that all people involved, including local farmers want to find a solution. Antiquated WWTP's are being updated. Local farmers are creating buffer zones on their properties. In fact, local farmers are applying phosphorous based off of how much is already in their soil which is usually a one time shot of nutrients and round-up (which cannot get rid of Mare's Tale). I know the farmer in the article. When talking to him, he does not sound like you. Now you sound like a climate change denier and have simply attacked every article and all the science behind them. If this problem pointed to WWTP's I'd be up in arms and focused on them. It does not.
I want this thing solved because I watch this beautiful lake go from clear to pea soup around Aug 1 every year and everything I read points to CAFO's.
Last edited:
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
Questions remain over CAFO permits
It’s been nearly eight years since three Wood County residents filed a petition with the U.S.
In 2006 the permitting and oversight process was changed from the Ohio EPA to the Ohio Department of Agriculture. In other words, the fox is in charge of the hen house.
In doing so, CAFO's lack oversight and no longer have to comply with the Clean Water Act.
Guillotine
Well-known member
Great post. It's obvious the real culprits need a scapegoat to clean up their mess.
The sad part is you don't need to be a chemist, biologist, or hydrologist to understand this.
A simple passing grade in high school physical science is adequate.
Yes it was moved to the ODA. That does not mean what you think it means no matter how often you repeat it.Questions remain over CAFO permits
It’s been nearly eight years since three Wood County residents filed a petition with the U.S.www.presspublications.com
In 2006 the permitting and oversight process was changed from the Ohio EPA to the Ohio Department of Agriculture. In other words, the fox is in charge of the hen house.
In doing so, CAFO's lack oversight and no longer have to comply with the Clean Water Act.