# Thank you, Mr. Obama and all of y'all at the EPA



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Notice anything about new tractor prices?

New tractors over 25hp have to meet Tier 4 emissions standards for 2015. I'm seeing price increases of $2000 and up on most bigger CUT's and utility tractors. I'm also hearing that many of the new tractors with diesel particulate filters, will have a $500-$1000 cost to replace those filters when they can no longer be cleaned by internal burn.

Who woulda thunk a 35hp Massey-Deere Kubota would have such an effect upon global climate change?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Just one problem it doesn't belong to Obama, these rules were started back in the late 90's.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

And based on the problems truck fleets are experiencing I would stay as far from these tractors as possible. Techs can't work on them effectively and the systems really don't work well.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

coolrunnin said:


> Just one problem it doesn't belong to Obama, these rules were started back in the late 90's.


No President, or for that matter Congress determines percentages of particulate, mileage, fuel mixtures, or any of the other "rules" we're forced to live with. If blame were properly placed it would be with the zealots/bureaucrats at the EPA furthering their agendas. 

It would be nice though if someone put a stop to their tyranny.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

That's part of why I bought last year. Talk at the time was that prices would go up as much as 10% for IV compliant models. So far, it doesn't seem like it's been that drastic, but time will tell what cost of ownership really looks like, long-term. 

In a lot of ways, regulation is more dangerous than law. Because we never get to elect the beaurucrats, they are not accountable to anyone. The fore-fathers thought that taxation without representation was worth rebellion, and now we have legislation without representation.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Title and such put this into GC category, not just talking about EPA and tractor prices


----------



## V-NH (Jan 1, 2014)

The EPA is definitely out of control on many fronts. I think it makes sense to have an agency that breathes down the throats of factories dumping their waste into public water sources and such, but the amount of regulations coming out of that agency exceeds what is reasonably needed.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Now if you all had voted for Dr. Ron Paul then the EPA would not exist. That was one of his campaign issues . . . .To do away with the EPA.

And how about that gallon of stuff you are to buy to dump in your tank for emissions .?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes a political promise that would never have come to light. Some like to think it would but it would not have flown at all.
Now if we could get the Fairtax passed and get rid of the IRS. the 16th Amendment and get rid of corporate taxes now THAT would be a good thing and it COULD happen unlike some off the wall statement like no EPa. For one thing we NEED SOME EPA regulations not just as many as we have. But get rd of it?~! And some wonder way RP is called a Radical, with off the wall ideas. THAT right here is ONE OF THE REASONS.


----------



## bigjon (Oct 2, 2013)

i'll keep working my fergusons.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

One of the trouble with "regulations" is that they are supposed to have a public comment period. If you ever actually hear about proposed changes, any comments you make disappear into the great silence of disreguard. Unless you are part of a lobbying group who will sue or seek restraining orders. So the only effective commenters are environmental lobby groups and the occasion industry lobby group. Neither of whom represent the public welfare.
Otherwise what you say doesn't even hit the radar.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

To balance the goverment out the fda is a complete sellout to big pharma and corporations


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

where I want to said:


> One of the trouble with "regulations" is that they are supposed to have a public comment period. If you ever actually hear about proposed changes, any comments you make disappear into the great silence of disreguard. Unless you are part of a lobbying group who will sue or seek restraining orders. So the only effective commenters are environmental lobby groups and the occasion industry lobby group. Neither of whom represent the public welfare.
> Otherwise what you say doesn't even hit the radar.


What we say is heard best at the ballot box. Several of the candidates seeking the presidency in 2012 ran against over regulation by the EPA. They all lost. While the public may complain when a regulation affects them negatively most want clean air and water. Many remember how much worse those two things were 40 years ago or so. 

Jim


----------



## joejeep92 (Oct 11, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> And based on the problems truck fleets are experiencing I would stay as far from these tractors as possible. Techs can't work on them effectively and the systems really don't work well.


I wouldn't say techs cannot work on them effectively. They work on them as effectively as manufacture constraints allow.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

joejeep92 said:


> I wouldn't say techs cannot work on them effectively. They work on them as effectively as manufacture constraints allow.


okay fair nuff


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

V-NH said:


> The EPA is definitely out of control on many fronts. I think it makes sense to have an agency that breathes down the throats of factories dumping their waste into public water sources and such, but the amount of regulations coming out of that agency exceeds what is reasonably needed.


Why is clean air and water, always _someone else's_ responsibility?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Why is clean air and water, always _someone else's_ responsibility?


OK, I'll let you in on the secret if you promise not to tell anyone. We conservatives have our own stores of clean air and water, and want everyone else to die from pollution (insert maniacal laugh).


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Why is clean air and water, always _someone else's_ responsibility?


Why is the assumption that because a person doesn't want people who do not represent the will of the people making 'laws' they want dirty air and dirty water somehow? That should be the last assumption anyone on a homesteading forum puts forth about their fellow members. For a lot of us sustainability and responsible stewardship are exactly why we are in this gig.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> Why is the assumption that because a person doesn't want people who do not represent the will of the people making 'laws' they want dirty air and dirty water somehow? That should be the last assumption anyone on a homesteading forum puts forth about their fellow members. For a lot of us sustainability and responsible stewardship are exactly why we are in this gig.


I was responding to a post, where it was ok to go after factories, who pollute, but pollution by the_ little guy_, should be overlooked. I don't have a total on how many diesel tractors and earth moving equipment, there is in the U.S. but probably quite a few.

The "will of the people" has been the problem from the get-go. Almost always, it's about money.

If someone has a choice, to burn their old tires verses paying to have them disposed of, they will burn the tires almost every time, IMO.


----------



## billinwv (Sep 27, 2013)

Check out the air quality in some Chinese cities. Children can only play in air filtered bubbles(some the size of football fields), homes are equipped with elaborate air filtering systems, everyone outdoors wears a mask, and much more. We need an EDUCATED EPA not influenced by lobbyists. If your neighbor fouls the water that flows onto your farm and everyone else downstream, should he be allowed to do this based on "making a living" or should he make changes that may cost him but stop polluting water that effects others?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Ozarks Tom said:


> OK, I'll let you in on the secret if you promise not to tell anyone. We conservatives have our own stores of clean air and water, and want everyone else to die from pollution (insert maniacal laugh).


No offense, but Sometimes i think they believe that today, we have _relatively_ clean air and water, through magic or wishful thinking, verses, the firm and relentless hand, of the EPA.

Sometimes it's perspective.

People can't see how their own little lawnmower, pollutes that much, not taking in consideration, lawnmowers burn 600 million gallons, of gas per year in the U.S.

http://pss.uvm.edu/ppp/articles/fuels.html


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> I was responding to a post, where it was ok to go after factories, who pollute, but pollution by the_ little guy_, should be overlooked. I don't have a total on how many diesel tractors and earth moving equipment, there is in the U.S. but probably quite a few.
> 
> The "will of the people" has been the problem from the get-go. Almost always, it's about money.
> 
> If someone has a choice, to burn their old tires verses paying to have them disposed of, they will burn the tires almost every time, IMO.


Of course they will.

I'd rather subsidize easy disposal of things like tires than foodstamps. Just redirect my money so that no one has to pay stupid fees that make them rather just dig a hole in the back yard to dump dangerous items.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> Of course they will.
> 
> I'd rather subsidize easy disposal of things like tires than foodstamps. Just redirect my money so that no one has to pay stupid fees that make them rather just dig a hole in the back yard to dump dangerous items.


So, let poor people starve and let the Government (taxpayers) pay, to disposes of hundreds of billions of dollars, worth of hazardous and non hazardous waste every year - verses making those that generate the waste, or pollution pay? Ther are 250 million junk tires generated every year, alone.

What's the logic?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

There's plenty. Leave charity where it belongs, in private hands. 

If the fees deter people from disposing of things the way you think they ought then get rid of the disposal fees for individuals.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> There's plenty. Leave charity where it belongs, in private hands.
> 
> If the fees deter people from disposing of things the way you think they ought then get rid of the disposal fees for individuals.


The tires were only a small example, of what is massive undertaking.

Even a Mom and Pop auto body shop, has to pay to have wastes removed. Certainly they would like a cheaper way to dispose, such as burning or dumping. 

At least now - by laws, some get to pass the hazmat costs directly on to customers.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

~shrug~ Whatever, you went from talking about people burning tires to businesses which (as with all costs of doing business) pass the costs on to their customers.

Still not seeing how not charging individuals for their disposal items doesn't help people to not just dump the antifreeze they just changed out themselves out in the yard.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

plowjockey said:


> So, let poor people starve and let the Government (taxpayers) pay, to disposes of hundreds of billions of dollars, worth of hazardous and non hazardous waste every year - verses making those that generate the waste, or pollution pay? Ther are 250 million junk tires generated every year, alone.
> 
> What's the logic?


I'll stay out of this for everyone's sake. But I will say even a bicycle tire contains alot of BTU's and a hockey puck as much as a small car tire. And no prettier burn found, without of course adding dangerous chemicals.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> ~shrug~ Whatever, you went from talking about people burning tires to businesses which (as with all costs of doing business) pass the costs on to their customers.
> 
> Still not seeing how not charging individuals for their disposal items doesn't help people to not just dump the antifreeze they just changed out themselves out in the yard.


That was exactly my point - from the beginning. 

Controlling pollution (meaning paying) is* EVERYBODY'S RESPONSIBILITY*.

The reason people burn tires and dump antifreeze, is because they know - for the most part, they are going to get away with it.

Even with free disposal some people will still be too lazy to drive it in to town.

I honestly don't understand your point on how taxpayers, paying for disposal is better than charging the individual. Some people have never owned a tire in their life. They are supposed to help pay (vie their taxes) to disposes of someone else's tires?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Some of us have never needed food from the government in our entire lives. Why should those people pay for food stamps?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> Some of us have never needed food from the government in our entire lives. Why should those people pay for food stamps?


My guess is because life's not fair.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Sure it's not. 

So why punish people who want to 'do the right thing' when disposing of hazardous items with fees when they could be subsidized. It won't affect the lazy ones but nothing will.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> Sure it's not.
> 
> So why punish people who want to 'do the right thing' when disposing of hazardous items with fees when they could be subsidized. It won't affect the lazy ones but nothing will.


You win. I cannot argue with that logic.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

How about incentivizing responsible behavior? A deposit, much like many states have on recyclable bottles and cans, refundable at the time of exchange could work equally well for things like tires. A little more difficult to work with for things like anti freeze or engine oil but it could still be workable.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> How about incentivizing responsible behavior? A deposit, much like many states have on recyclable bottles and cans, refundable at the time of exchange could work equally well for things like tires. A little more difficult to work with for things like anti freeze or engine oil but it could still be workable.


Around here they do just the opposite.
You PAY to have your tires taken by the tire place.
That is why many just KEEP the tires. I know I use old tires to surround my well head in the winter time. A Bunch of farmers use old tires to keep the plastic down on the hay-ledge piles.
You do get a exchange for bring in the old battery at the time of getting a new one.
You PAY BIG Time for reclaiming freon what a load of whoowee that is.
They have many collection places around here for engine oil. Even back in the day when I worked at a service station we had a oil storage tank for old oil, it was used for going back for refining, We even sold re-refinnned oil at the station back in the early 70's.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

There are many uses for recycled tires, from being ground up a used on playgrounds( I'll let others argue about that) to covering silage. My point was more that there are more models than everyone pays regardless of use or possibly disincentivizing recycling by charging fees at that point.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

They do a good job of burning brushpiles, too.

Just don't light them during the day, as they put out a lot of black smoke....


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Jolly said:


> Who woulda thunk a 35hp Massey-Deere Kubota would have such an effect upon global climate change?


UM Apparently those at the EPA who job it is to think about such things?
You seem put out that something is being done to keep air clean, 
Why is that?


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Add the cost on to the cost of the tire as a disposal fee, and make disposal free (paid for by the added cost) Works with all things that must be treated differently then common garbage.

Jim


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> UM Apparently those at the EPA who job it is to think about such things?
> You seem put out that something is being done to keep air clean,
> Why is that?


You seem to assume that actions of the EPA are based on reproducible science and not personal and political agendas.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The EPA has had way too much POLITICAL POWER for too many years. It is about time to clip a few feathers off their songs and at the same time reverse ALL EPA rules and regulations back to at LEAST 2000.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> UM Apparently those at the EPA who job it is to think about such things?
> You seem put out that something is being done to keep air clean,
> Why is that?


At any one time, how many utility tractors are running in any given square mile of the United States?

The majority of utility tractors and CUTs probably get used less than 150 hours per year. Therefore, at any given time, even in a farming community probably 0-2 in any given daylight hour. That figure drops to almost 0 after the sun goes down.

Now, to make the new tractors Tier IV compliant, manufacturers have spent quite a few nickels in research and that cost is being passed on to the consumer...The consumer being people similar to the people that populate this board.

Now, I don't know about you, but the reduction in diesel particulate matter is not worth the extra $2000 this is adding to the upfront costs of the tractors, not to mention what it will cost to replace the DPF on most tractors (I'm being told around $1K). I also suspect the new tractors will have a shorter life than the old ones, because of the increased technology needed for the DPF and the resulting higher temps the tractor must occasionally run at.

But what do you expect from a bunch of knuckleheads that promote ethanol for motor fuel, when fossil fuel is cheaper and cropland for foodstuffs must be taken out of production to feed the gas pump? That love hybrid cars that take more energy to make and maintain, than the cars they replaced?

Guys that want to ban lead .22LR bullets because they damage the environment? Shoot a squirrel and kill the planet?

Pardon me if I don't believe the EPA has my best interests at heart.

IMNSHO, the EPA would be better off monitoring cow farts and their adverse effect upon the atmosphere...Maybe they could come up with a secondary burner for the methane emissions.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

CraterCove said:


> Some of us have never needed food from the government in our entire lives. Why should those people pay for food stamps?


 Sure you have. Ever eat a hamburger? A steak? Good chance that beef was produced on a farm that received government handouts. And if you ate it, then YOU have indeed eaten 'government food'. What else would you call something that the government (taxpayers) helped pay for? 
Had a neighbor many years ago, staunch Republican rightwinger, opposed to all forms of 'welfare', except of course when it was handouts going into HIS pocket. He was renting my pasture, and getting the government to split the cost of his infrastructure. Nice hypocrisy right there. 
As far as the EPA, they have a role to play. Its not like polluters are just going to police themselves and be kind stewards of the land, air and water out of the kindness of their hearts. And while I am not a big fan of the government telling me what to do, I am also not a fan of toxic soil, air, and water.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Sure you have. Ever eat a hamburger? A steak? Good chance that beef was produced on a farm that received government handouts. And if you ate it, then YOU have indeed eaten 'government food'. What else would you call something that the government (taxpayers) helped pay for?


What a serious stretch. I am glad you have studied me well enough to know that I approve of such things and accept them as necessary. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion, which came to a favorable conclusion, that was at hand.

And actually big business does a lot of 'good' because it is sound business. They don't do it out of the kindness of their hearts, since corporations (despite the misleading name) have none. They do things like pair fair wages (above what is dictated by government) and benefits (again, above what is forced upon them through regulation) to their employees every day. Why? Because often doing the morally right thing and the sound business move is the same thing. No, it's not always the case but social pressure from consumers alters business practices, the government doesn't need to be so involved as it is. Especially not with bureaucrats who are never accountable to voters and unable to be ousted from their positions by those of us who are supposed to wield the final powers here.

ETA: Also all the beef in my freezer came from a pretty little bottle raised jersey steer who lived out his live in a private pasture until the end of his days.He is very tasty and untainted by your beef industry subsidies.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> As far as the EPA, they have a role to play. Its not like polluters are just going to police themselves and be kind stewards of the land, air and water out of the kindness of their hearts. And while I am not a big fan of the government telling me what to do, I am also not a fan of toxic soil, air, and water.


As somebody who has trod ground, where the nearest road was 500 miles away and who has an absolute aversion to cities, good farmers and ranchers are good land stewards. Their livelihood depends on it.

Yes, I agree there will always be some folks out there who will not do the right thing. Who will pollute irreversibly given the chance. But I'd like to think they are in the minority.

No, I'm thinking most of the major pollution can be traced to manufacturing or mining. And it's fine if we wish to enact laws to govern the process of what they put back in the environment.

So, since resources and money are finite, let's have the EPA use its resources where the public is best served.

I submit to you that the increasingly expensive modifications to farming and utility tractors is on the wrong side of the cost/benefit equation. Lots of cost, little benefit.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Ok how about this, You keep your garbage to yourself and we wont need a EPA ?
Of course you have to figger some way to take it to the Grave with you so I dont get stuck with it down the road.
No burning if it might drift across the fence. Nothing nonnatural on your place cause I shouldn't have to look at your ugly.
Dont put anything in the ground either if it will leak across the boundaries or be there after you are dead

ANYTHING less than that and its only fair that the people you are effecting gets some say in how you use their land.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Ok how about this, You keep your garbage to yourself and we wont need a EPA ?
> Of course you have to figger some way to take it to the Grave with you so I dont get stuck with it down the road.
> No burning if it might drift across the fence. Nothing nonnatural on your place cause I shouldn't have to look at your ugly.
> Dont put anything in the ground either if it will leak across the boundaries or be there after you are dead
> ...


Anyone else find the user name ironic?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

CraterCove said:


> Anyone else find the user name ironic?


You find something Ironic In Americans not foisting their trash off on others and standing on their own two feet?
I find THAT scary.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> You find something Ironic In Americans not foisting their trash off on others and standing on their own two feet?
> I find THAT scary.


That's not what you are advocating. No one else seems confused. Everyone I know, one way or another pays for their 'trash' service. It's private business, big business and the EPA should have nothing to do with what I do in my own backyard or on a small individual scale. You advocate for tyranny at practically every turn, that our lives should be ruled over by these cubicle rats who know nothing about the things they decide to regulate.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Im pretty sure most Americans don't want to have to suck fumes from your tail pipe. Once you understand that it becomes a matter of detail.

Everybody wants clean air at no inconvenience to them selves.

You don't think tractors are worth regulating but do you have any idea how many of them are in the world? I don't either but line them all p and stand downwind and you wouldn't want to breath their fumes.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Im pretty sure most Americans don't want to have to suck fumes from your tail pipe. Once you understand that it becomes a matter of detail.
> 
> Everybody wants clean air at no inconvenience to them selves.
> 
> You don't think tractors are worth regulating but do you have any idea how many of them are *in the world*? I don't either but line them all p and stand downwind and you wouldn't want to breath their fumes.


And regulating small farmstead out of business controls how many are in _the world_ how?

You talk like nothing ever happens to these 'fumes'. You realize supposed global warming is actually good for the plants, right? More carbon dioxide is good for them: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ow-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/

But shh don't tell the climate extremists, they are scrambling to denounce and discredit this when the facts of the planet tell a different story over the eons. 

You don't listen, at all really.

Let the EPA regulate businesses and quit punishing individuals and small holders. Pollution on levels to be concerned with come from industry and doing something about things here does little to alter things globally. Until you bring the rest of the planet out of the middle ages and we are all uplifted to a better state of being, you will get no cooperation from China, the African nations or many middle eastern countries. 

The EPA is out of control and does more harm than good. But you know keep believing what you will... seems to me some people are already feeling the effects of too much carbon monoxide to the brain.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oh ya lets now blame tractors. Tractors that feed the world.
And while you are at lets ban tractor pulls and 4 X 4 pulls and all motor sports as long as you are on that tangent.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> And regulating small farmstead out of business controls how many are in _the world_ how?
> 
> You talk like nothing ever happens to these 'fumes'. You realize supposed global warming is actually good for the plants, right? More carbon dioxide is good for them: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ow-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/
> 
> ...


Last I checked, Kubota, John Deere and NH are Corporations.

The EPA is mandating the emissions on the tractors _they_ manufacture and sell.

Do you seriiously think, if it were not for tighter EPA emission standards, the prices of new tractors, would not go up every year? 

JD even brags about their cleaner running tractors.



> The jobs that John Deere PowerTech engines tackle every day are as varied as the equipment they power. That's why the John Deere Integrated Emissions Control system optimizes the use of various technologies designed to meet the unique needs of off-highway equipment. PowerTech 4.5L, 6.8L, 9.0L, and 13.5L engines use our proven PowerTech Plus technology, which includes 4-valve cylinder heads, cooled EGR, VGT, air-to-air aftercooling, high-pressure fuel systems, and wet-type cylinder liners.



https://www.deere.com/en_US/service...ns_information/tier_4_technologies/tier4.page


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Last I checked, Kubota, John Deere and NH are Corporations.
> 
> The EPA is mandating the emissions on the tractors _they_ manufacture and sell.
> 
> ...


Are you trying to convince me the EPA does not set onerous standards for small farms? Why are we talking about emission standards set on corporations? I thought I made clear I don't really object to standards being set for industry where most pollution is created to begin with?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Last I checked, Kubota, John Deere and NH are Corporations.
> 
> The EPA is mandating the emissions on the tractors _they_ manufacture and sell.
> 
> ...


They have no choice but to taught it as a benefit to justify the price increase! No, the prices don't necessarily have to go up every year...Unions have a lot to do with increases also..along with material and government regulation costs. A smart CEO would prepare for these situations through the use of contracts. The government is a wild card.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> Are you trying to convince me the EPA does not set onerous standards for small farms? Why are we talking about emission standards set on corporations? I thought I made clear I don't really object to standards being set for industry where most pollution is created to begin with?


Of course they do and what is "onerous", is in the eye of the beholder.

Sediment and nutrient runoff, does not come from farms, _both_ large and small? 

Farmers have no responsibility - at all, for this?

*The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone*





> The dead zone is caused by nutrient enrichment from the Mississippi River, particularly nitrogen and phosphorous. Watersheds within the Mississippi River Basin drain much of the United States, from Montana to Pennsylvania and extending southward along the Mississippi River. Most of the nitrogen input comes from major farming states in the Mississippi River Valley, including Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Nitrogen and phosphorous enter the river through upstream runoff of fertilizers, soil erosion, animal wastes, and sewage. In a natural system, these nutrients aren't significant factors in algae growth because they are depleted in the soil by plants. However, with anthropogenically increased nitrogen and phosphorus input, algae growth is no longer limited. Consequently, algal blooms develop, the food chain is altered, and dissolved oxygen in the area is depleted. The size of the dead zone fluctuates seasonally, as it is exacerbated by farming practices. It is also affected by weather events such as flooding and hurricanes.


http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/index.html#cause

If someone owns a lawn care business, they might have to comply with clean air regs, when they buy new equipment.

Farmers, of course should be left alone. they never pollute.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Last I checked, Kubota, John Deere and NH are Corporations.
> 
> The EPA is mandating the emissions on the tractors _they_ manufacture and sell.
> 
> ...


If I had to jack the price on a utility tractor $2000 to cover the transition to Tier IV, I'd sales spin the price increase, too.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Of course they do and what is "onerous", is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Sediment and nutrient runoff, does not come from farms, _both_ large and small?
> 
> ...


How would you like to double what you are spending on food?

If a farmer wants to harvest enough bushels of beans/acre or bushels of corn/acre to make any money at all, he better have used some fertilizer.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Jolly said:


> How would you like to double what you are spending on food?
> 
> If a farmer wants to harvest enough bushels of beans/acre or bushels of corn/acre to make any money at all, he better have used some fertilizer.


You are threatening something based on what? Food costs doubling based on pollution control?

I did not say a word about not using fertilizer. Let's get real! There are betters ay to use it.

I see large farmers this week, spreading animal manure, on top of frozen ground, covered with snow. It would just be silly, IMO to assume that at least some of the manure, will not runoff into the watershed.

Granted I'm well aware that the barns need cleaned and that spreading it out in the frozen field, is the easiest and cheapest way, but it can and will cause at least some water pollution. There are better methods, not necessarily cheaper ones.

Funny, we blame the _mean ole' EPA_, but many other countries care about their water and air too, imposing regulations, that are as strict, or more, than out own.



> 4.1 Livestock slurries and farmyard manure ("FYM") are valuable sources of organic matter and major nutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and sulphur. They also contain magnesium and trace elements. Taking account of these nutrients can often result in considerable savings in inorganic fertiliser use. However, nutrients can be lost from manures and slurries during storage and spreading, posing a water pollution risk. Very rapid and severe oxygen depletion of the water can result, leading to fish and invertebrate mortalities for many miles downstream. Manure and slurry can also be associated with the microbiological contamination of inland and coastal waters and groundwater, potentially affecting compliance with environmental quality standards specified in EC Directives.


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/03/20613/51370


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

If you know a better way to farm, by all means use every tool at your disposal. If you can farm with less pesticides or less fertilizer, it's money in your 
pocket - assuming you have decent yields.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Jolly said:


> If you know a better way to farm, by all means use every tool at your disposal. If you can farm with less pesticides or less fertilizer, it's money in your
> pocket - assuming you have decent yields.


Sorry, but _woe is me_ does not cut it in the world of the Internet.

In 2 minutes, I found a nice article on proper manure management - and it didn't' cost me a dime. Doesn't looke like implementation of the practices, does not cost much either.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/agricu...ent/soil-management-series/manure-management/

Of course making excuses, is the easiest way, which is quite popular.

Pollution control is _someone elses_ problem.

Even good ole Joe has a better plan, than letting his manure run down to the Mississippi delta.



> In the early spring, when the cows return to pasture, the pigs move into the shed, digging for fermented corn and, in the process, aerating the bedding. In lieu of the giant machines used in windrow composting, Salatin relies on low-cost pig power to create natural fertilizer to feed the land. There is no manure-related pollution. No smell. No disease. No costly fertilizer.


http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...farm-mecca-of-sustainable-agriculture/242493/


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

To raise the number of chickens consumed in the U.S. using the methods you cited, would take approximately 45,000,000 acres of land. That's more farmland than exists in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas, combined.

To even go back to 1950's methods of raising beef, we would need an additional grazing area the size of Texas. To use Joe's plan, we'd need even more.

The United States spends somewhere around 6% of its disposable income on food, which is one of the lowest, if not the lowest amount in the world. I'm not sure farmers using Joe's plan can continue to deliver food that cheap. Cheap food is like cheap energy, it helps fuel modern economies.

And while Joe gives a good speech - necessary, since he has a speaking business - his chicken farm approach is unsustainable without the import of grain to feed his chickens. Grain most likely produced in the Midwest by a farmer, using 12-row equipment, fertilizer and pesticides.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

http://www.wsn.org/water/fishkill.html

$4,000 dollars for killing most of the trout in one stream? How many times did this farm dump that they weren't caught. Every spring a number of stories like this happen across our state. Without regulation and fines and the vigilance of those enforcing them how many more would?

Most farmers are good stewards of the land. They have a vested interest in taking proper care and not letting valuable nutrients go to waste. But some aren't. The regulations aren't put in place to punish or make life more difficult for those who would do the right thing regardless. They are there for those who just don't care or are willing to take dangerous shortcuts.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

CraterCove said:


> Let the EPA regulate businesses and quit punishing individuals and small holders. Pollution on levels to be concerned with come from industry and doing something about things here does little to alter things globally. Until you bring the rest of the planet out of the middle ages and we are all uplifted to a better state of being, you will get no cooperation from China, the African nations or many middle eastern countries.


Why Would you say that?

Don't you think its silly to say the companies that make 10,000 tractors a year are responsible for more pollution than their 2,000,000 customers ?

The numbers are illustrative , but do you get the point? A company makes a few new tractors each year but a tractor can last a 100 years. Each year there are MANY more people using tractors than new ones built.

Its the same with ANY product. in the end its the average person that needs to reduce pollution.

You are right there are a lot of other people in different countries . They need to clean up too but we don't have the ability to force hem to and lack even the moral ground to ask them to until we do.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Why Would you say that?
> 
> Don't you think its silly to say the companies that make 10,000 tractors a year are responsible for more pollution than their 2,000,000 customers ?
> 
> ...


~shrug~

Your point is wrong. But I don't really care. It's all more people thinking they actually have control over everything and that the universe revolves around them. I sure don't see anything all that important here. The system will survive with or without us. So what?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CraterCove said:


> ~shrug~
> 
> Your point is wrong. But I don't really care. It's all more people thinking they actually have control over everything and that the universe revolves around them. I sure don't see anything all that important here. The system will survive with or without us. So what?


Because some of us would like it to go on with us as long as possible.

The logic of us not doing anything fails on most levels. If all your neighbors are dumping raw sewage into your lake what difference does it make if you do also? Or should you stop because it might make a small difference and prove that it can be done without dire consequences and lead by example and possibly , eventually get enough to follow to make a real difference. To put it as my dear mother might have- if everyone else jumped off the bridge, would you?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Because some of us would like it to go on with us as long as possible.
> 
> The logic of us not doing anything fails on most levels. If all your neighbors are dumping raw sewage into your lake what difference does it make if you do also? Or should you stop because it might make a small difference and prove that it can be done without dire consequences and lead by example and possibly , eventually get enough to follow to make a real difference. To put it as my dear mother might have- if everyone else jumped off the bridge, would you?


Those of you willing to sacrifice everything at the alter of the EPA are jumping off the bridge with everyone else.

Facts are that practices are cleaner then they have ever been and they continue to improve with technological advances. It becomes the right business move to do the more efficient thing. It's never been necessary to have an unconstitutional federal level group dictating these things. If it was at the local and state level I could see the point but as it stands now it is always wrong.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CraterCove said:


> Those of you willing to sacrifice everything at the alter of the EPA are jumping off the bridge with everyone else.
> 
> Facts are that practices are cleaner then they have ever been and they continue to improve with technological advances. It becomes the right business move to do the more efficient thing. It's never been necessary to have an unconstitutional federal level group dictating these things. If it was at the local and state level I could see the point but as it stands now it is always wrong.


And many of those advances and technological breakthroughs were driven by the need to comply with new regulations. Remember acid rain? Industry didn't develop the technologies to deal with it out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it to comply with new regulations that many told us at the time would bring our country to its knees. Business strives for efficiency and profitability. Reducing pollution rarely increase either. People can be altruistic and do things simply because they are the right thing to do. Businesses rarely act without some financial incentive, be it the positive one of a tax break or good publicity or the negative incentive of fines and penalties. If we wait for others to change before us change will never come.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Nope, still not seeing how market pressure and efficiency aren't enough. And we have no right to say anything to any other country, other than to limit what we might buy from them if we don't like their standards. Unless of course you want to become an evil empire and start colonizing and forcing compliance.

The problem is that while there are good arguments to be made for keeping toxins and pollutants to a minimum I'm not seeing them here and the EPA doesn't really care about that either. Unfortunately science has been corrupted to a point that its difficult to obtain real factual data. So they make things up based on feelings and notions.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CraterCove said:


> Nope, still not seeing how market pressure and efficiency aren't enough. And we have no right to say anything to any other country, other than to limit what we might buy from them if we don't like their standards. Unless of course you want to become an evil empire and start colonizing and forcing compliance.
> 
> The problem is that while there are good arguments to be made for keeping toxins and pollutants to a minimum I'm not seeing them here and the EPA doesn't really care about that either. Unfortunately science has been corrupted to a point that its difficult to obtain real factual data. So they make things up based on feelings and notions.


What would you consider a "good" argument for keeping toxins and pollution to a minimum. That it makes life better and is just the right thing to do? What else is neccessary? 

It can and has been done. http://www.forbes.com/sites/justing...ns-why-it-can-do-the-same-for-climate-change/

Economic benefits and health benefits. Not because industry thought it was the right thing to do but because they were dragged kicking and screaming into it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

CraterCove said:


> Nope, still not seeing how market pressure and efficiency aren't enough. And we have no right to say anything to any other country, other than to limit what we might buy from them if we don't like their standards. Unless of course you want to become an evil empire and start colonizing and forcing compliance.
> 
> The problem is that while there are good arguments to be made for keeping toxins and pollutants to a minimum I'm not seeing them here and the EPA doesn't really care about that either. Unfortunately science has been corrupted to a point that its difficult to obtain real factual data. So they make things up based on feelings and notions.


 Not only that but they have put so much controls on some companies that to comply to them is IMPOSSIBLE because the technology has not even been invented yet To Comply. Just tax the heck out of them anyways because either they comply or shut the doors and layoff good hard workings.
Ya thats it just tax the heck out of companies. And who *pays* in the end for those that can comply AMERICANS. That is who. We do not need to go overboard on epa regulations air, water and everything has been doing just great, but nope lets get even higher standards and really make it hard on companies and the American people.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

arabian knight said:


> Not only that but they have put so much controls on some companies that to comply to them is IMPOSSIBLE because the technology has not even been invented yet To Comply. Just tax the heck out of them anyways because either they comply or shut the doors and layoff good hard workings.
> Ya thats it just tax the heck out of companies. And who *pays* in the end for those that can comply AMERICANS. That is who. We do not need to go overboard on epa regulations air, water and everything has been doing just great, but nope lets get even higher standards and really make it hard on companies and the American people.


We can pay the cost for reducing pollution now or pay for the clean up later.

http://m.jsonline.com/news/wisconsi...fox-river-cleanup-plan-937oik8-180535401.html

The same arguments about lack of technology to scrub acid causing emissions were cited back in the 80's. Properly incentivized industry found solutions at lower costs than predicted. The same models for reducing carbon emissions could be used today.


----------



## jross (Sep 3, 2006)

Ozarks Tom said:


> No President, or for that matter Congress determines percentages of particulate, mileage, fuel mixtures, or any of the other "rules" we're forced to live with. If blame were properly placed it would be with the zealots/bureaucrats at the EPA furthering their agendas.
> 
> It would be nice though if someone put a stop to their tyranny.


Influenced like the global warming now climate change folks working off other peoples money in the form of grants. Obama just supports such things as most liberals do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

CraterCove said:


> ~shrug~
> 
> Your point is wrong. But I don't really care. It's all more people thinking they actually have control over everything and that the universe revolves around them. I sure don't see anything all that important here. The system will survive with or without us. So what?


Wow! Just wow. Isnt a statement like that admitting you just don't care about anything ?
Its also a declaration of trolling since if you don't care you are just stirring the pot?

Often I take stands that are unpopular but I care passionately and am certain that by educating others I CAN influence life here for the better.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Jolly said:


> To raise the number of chickens consumed in the U.S. using the methods you cited, would take approximately 45,000,000 acres of land. That's more farmland than exists in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas, combined.
> 
> To even go back to 1950's methods of raising beef, we would need an additional grazing area the size of Texas. To use Joe's plan, we'd need even more.
> 
> ...


That was not my point, which was farmers - at all levels, can control pollution, at some reasonable cost - verses doing nothing, if they really wanted to.

Some don't.

The easiest thing to do, is nothing, but complain how farmers are being victimized of by holding then responsible, for the pollution they create.

Mega farms have even less excuses for polluting.

Fair Oaks Farms milks a_ lot_ cows, so they have a _lot_ of cow manure. Although not inexpensive, they have apparently found a useful way, to properly deal with their animal waste, verses letting it run to the Gulf of Mexico



> Fair Oaks installed a $12 million digester on its property that converts manure from its cows and pigs into natural gas. The gas intended for the trucks is piped to fueling stations, where it is compressed and distributed to trucks. Whatever is left over after the manure has been digested is used as a fertilizer.




Read more: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/en...manure-to-fuel-its-dairy-trucks#ixzz3PgCs2dCi
​


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I always get a kick how Americans truly believe, we are the only country_ on earth_, tasked with keeping it clean.

Everybody else, just does as they please. 

Here is one example - the Chinese, "leveling the playing field".



> Green Camel Bell is one of approximately 3,000 grassroots environmental groups active in China today. These groups occupy a relatively unique, and fragile, place in the countryâs political landscape. Even as Chinaâs authoritarian government jails activists advocating such causes as human rights and Tibetan independence, the authorities have tolerated, albeit with troubling restrictions, the development of grassroots environmental organizations across China.





> In 2006, Ma launched Chinaâs first online public database of water-quality information, followed by a similar online database for air pollution. These sets of data revealed, not surprisingly, that polluting factories are often in blatant violation of Chinese law. Ma says he hopes to generate new forms of citizen pressure to ensure greater compliance with Chinaâs environmental regulations.


http://e360.yale.edu/feature/chinas_emerging_environmental_movement/2018/

*In search of rare, high elevation monkeys in China
Saving China's golden monkey from extinction*




> For its part, the Chinese government has taken steps to reduce pressure on the monkey, enacting a hunting ban in Yunnan province and confiscating almost all hunting guns. Still, traps and snares are common and monkeys are sometimes accidentally caught by hunters pursuing other animals. Because monkey hunting is illegal, locals try their best to conceal evidence, so researchers have little knowledge of how many monkey are lost to traps each year. Yongcheng says that outside support and expertise are desperately needed to help local communities establish suitable agriculture and reduce the direct monkey mortality rate resulting from hunting pressure.
> 
> "Local people are very supportive of the monkey conservation," Yongcheng said, "but such efforts are not their priority because their everyday survival needs, like putting food on their table, are much more urgent to them."
> Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1018-yunnan.html#4O95e305eOWbgg71.99


http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1018-yunnan.html


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Yep, if I was going to pick a country to serve as a shining beacon for ecological husbandry, it would be China. :rotfl:


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Jolly said:


> Yep, if I was going to pick a country to serve as a shining beacon for ecological husbandry, it would be China. :rotfl:


Are you familiar with American history, at all?

Just curious.


----------

