Lake Erie Boaters / NY times artice

It is a problem, especially in late summer. Last Sept. while docked at Put In Bay for the weekend, the algae actually clogged my scuppers to the point that they would not let water get to the strainers. Because of the algae I usually do not warm up the motors at the dock.Just start them up and warm then up on the way out.
 
We run into it when we go to the western basin, this article helps to explain why. Thanks for posting
 
Once again, some one is telling us the lake is screwed up ,They know the cause but will not do anything to change it. Why is there more money spent on research then solutions? Since the government is the reason for most of the mega farms , who seems to be the cause of the problem,With their no till methods of planting , I would think stopping no till methods so close to the lake would be a move in the right direction.
 
Wow that Article is a little to doom and gloom like. Almost tries to turn farmers into the villain here. fails to mention that a majority of farmers r on board with finding ways to reduce the amount of phosphorous runoff. its not like farmers like watching their money spent on fertilizer get washed down the river! Even if they don't care about algae I'm sure they care about saving money. hopefully from the research a good action plan can b executed here soon. The good news is there is a lot of great resources to throw at this between the fed money granted, the local sea grant, and the stone lab facilities at least all the pieces r in place for success.
 
I guess one good thing is that at least the lake isn't so polluted that nothing will grow in it like it was 40 years ago.
 
The 40 yrs ago was mercury and ddt poisoning effecting the whole lake.They are claiming that when a certain percentage of this algea covers a certain percentage of the lake it will basically suddenly die completely.I read about this last year but it wasnt explained as well.
 
dvx216 said:
Once again, some one is telling us the lake is screwed up ,They know the cause but will not do anything to change it. Why is there more money spent on research then solutions? Since the government is the reason for most of the mega farms , who seems to be the cause of the problem,With their no till methods of planting , I would think stopping no till methods so close to the lake would be a move in the right direction.
Click to expand...

The farmer is feeding you and everyone else and 98% of the fertilizer is staying put. If you fertilize your lawn you are adding to the issue to have a pretty landscape, while I cannot get clean dishes because pandering politicians took the phosphate out of dishwasher detergent. How did government become the reason for "mega farms"? No -till processes ARE conservation in practice, are you suggesting we go back to using four times as much fuel and methods that contribute to erosion of the very soil you are fed from?

The artice itself has some blatent editorial content from the "reporter" in what is supposed to be a straight news story, most notably the conclusion that "climate change" is causing "heavy spring rainstorms" without attribution. Ellen in the comments is typical of the uninformed in that a knee jerk response of "They need to be banned", wonder what she thinks much of the world would eat if we did? We could reduce some of it if we quit the whole ethanol boondoggle, it only encourages more production and fertilization for greater yields.

MM
 
Not to mention how many crops are left in the fields and claimed as a loss to the insurance companies that still pay the farmers for the crop that was fertilized .And the amount grown is a larger percentage than what is used,i dont recall the numbers but it used to be about 50% was thrown away when the next crop came in.
 
1956olds said:
Not to mention how many crops are left in the fields and claimed as a loss to the insurance companies that still pay the farmers for the crop that was fertilized.
Click to expand...

I do not understand this. If an insurance claim is completed and the value of what crop there is is worth more than the total cost of harvest it would be harvested.

1956olds said:
And the amount grown is a larger percentage than what is used,i dont recall the numbers but it used to be about 50% was thrown away when the next crop came in.
Click to expand...

Who was doing the "throwing away"? I suppose the government might do this, but no private entity would have ever "thrown away" a valuable asset just because a new harvest was under way.

MM
 
Well take corn for instance ,too late to harvest and the fall rains will make it rot on the stalk,bingo insurance claim.The thing is you can only store as much as storage allows so when new crops are in old ones get thrown out ,food only last so long in storage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,186
Messages
1,428,174
Members
61,097
Latest member
Mdeluca407
Back
Top