Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who would think that the EPA is really against small feed lots? Why would they tell a small one (12,000 head with only just over 3000 penned at the time) that hay is a pollutant? According to these cowmen that is just what an EPA office told a northwestern Kansas feed lot. In order to comply by regs they have to not break those great round bales without all of each of them being eaten forthwith.
I don't know where we are going but it won't be good until the EPA is dealt with by somebody other than Obama.
Who would think that the EPA is really against small feed lots? Why would they tell a small one (12,000 head with only just over 3000 penned at the time) that hay is a pollutant? According to these cowmen that is just what an EPA office told a northwestern Kansas feed lot. In order to comply by regs they have to not break those great round bales without all of each of them being eaten forthwith.
I don't know where we are going but it won't be good until the EPA is dealt with by somebody other than Obama.
From the article, note nothing about Hay being a pollutant in the EPA's report:
“A.J. Jones, d/b/a Callicrate Feeding Company, St. Francis, Kan. - An inspection in February 2011 identified significant NPDES permit violations, including failure to maintain adequate wastewater storage capacity, failure to meet Nutrient Management Plan requirements, failure to conduct operations within areas that are controlled in a manner capable of preventing pollution, and failure to maintain adequate records. The order requires the operation to comply with all terms of the Clean Water Act and its NPDES permit, and to coordinate with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment on its compliance. The order requires the operation to comply with the terms of its Nutrient Management Plan, including sampling and recordkeeping requirements. The feedlot has a permitted capacity of 12,000 cattle and was confining approximately 3,219 cattle at the time of the inspection.”
Later in the article:
The idea that the EPA has joined a conspiracy with packers against small cattle feeders seems a bit of a stretch, but the hay-storage issue certainly raises concerns. The information provided in the EPA news release uses a fairly broad accusation of “significant NPDES permit violations,” but does not mention anything about hay storage. Drovers/CattleNetwork has contacted EPA’s Region 7 for more information on specific charges in the case. We’ll let you know what we find out.
The only one saying that they are being accused of hay pollution is the apparent owner of the feed lot, Mike Callicrate.
You bring up a good point but, you also show why there is a problem using hay bales as barriers:
Description Straw or hay bales have historically been used on construction sites for erosion and sediment control as check dams, inlet protection, outlet protection, and perimeter control. Many applications of straw bales for erosion and sediment control are proving ineffective due to the nature of straw bales, inappropriate placement, inadequate installation, or a combination of all three factors (Fifeld, 1999). In addition, straw bales are maintenance-intensive and can be expensive to purchase. Because many applications of straw and hay bales have been ineffective, EPA recommends that other BMP options are carefully considered. This fact sheet provides more information and options for alternatives to straw and hay bales. Limitations Straw bales cannot be used to reduce erosion in a drainage channel because if a straw bale structure is installed across the channel, the cross-sectional area is reduced, resulting in increased velocity of stormwater flow (IECA, 2005). This would lead to increased erosion around the bales, widening the channel's cross-section.
Straw bales do not work well in areas with heavy rain or on sites with large drainage areas or steep slopes. Straw bales should never be used on streets or sidewalks as they cannot be properly staked into concrete or asphalt and will float away.
Straw bales are very impermeable and are not able to withstand high flows, and care must be taken during placement and installation to avoid failure from undercutting, overtopping, and end-running. USDA NRCS (no date) states that water depth should never exceed 1 foot at any one time and straw bale structures should never be installed across streams, ditches, or where flow is concentrated because they can exacerbate erosion and flooding.
Straw bale installations have a high failure rate. According to some erosion control experts, straw bale installations are seldom designed, installed, and maintained properly (Fifeld, 1999). In addition, straw bales are difficult to transport and to carry around on-site, especially when attempting to dispose of them when they are waterlogged. Oftentimes, the bindings break and the straw can wash into storm drains, causing clogging.
Straw bales will rot and fall apart over time, especially in areas of high rainfall, and therefore require intensive maintenance; they only last for approximately three months. Straw bales will float and therefore must be properly staked even in low flow conditions. As previously stated, in high flow conditions, the water will flow around a straw bale barrier or undercut spaces between the bales.
Another factor to consider is that straw bales may introduce undesirable non-native plants to the area if there are seeds in the bales.
It then goes on to list alternatives.
So, there is from your link a legitimate reason not to use hay bales as barriers. Still not a pollutant, but rather poor material to use as perimeter barriers.
Apart from any paranoid concerns that "they're out to get me", the main reason for regulation is to insure that proper procedures are taken. We regulate to insure people treat each other nicely, that the environment doesn't get destroyed, and that business is conducted ethically. Unfortunately, people are hellbent on circumventing regulations because a) they don't like being told what to do, b) they really don't want to be nice or play fair, and/or c) they resent the idea that what they're doing could possibly be wrong. It's not the EPA that's the problem. It's fools doing stupid, destructive, or unethical things in new and innumerable ways that necessitates regulations.
I don't know how I found this out but it's dangerous to operate a cellphone while pumping gas. I don't use a cellphone all that much, but this was new to me. I didn't know a cellphone could cause a spark that blows the place up. So when I saw someone arguing on a cellphone while pumping gas, I nicely asked them to stop because it was "something you're not supposed to do". The guy flipped me off and continued to act irresponsibly. Not everybody knows what they can and cannot do so the EPA and other regulators are there to put it in writing. It's not an infringement on rights or a power grab, it's either a nuisance, a lifesaver, or both. Take your pick.
Reading the short article on the heavily biased link, it looks like somebody didn't know what they were doing or didn't realize that there was a potential problem.
Regardless of your personal issues against the EPA or how they go about trying to clean up the air....the point is cattle are one of the largest polluters of streams, rivers and the ozone known to man. It is inhumane and hideous torture of these beasts to keep them in feedlots without shelter and jammed together to create even more hidous waste products. The whole industry needs better regulation from birth to death. You can find link after link exposing the horrendous conditions of the cattle we eat. Ignoring that, or not accepting that polluting industries have to do a better job of regulating their own industry is the correct and most intelligent choice. Yes, I do eat beef but like more and more Americans...we're getting smarter and cutting WAY back on eathing it. We know that all those hormones and anti-biodics you are injecting into these creatures cause a whole lot more issues than early puberty, obeseness and cancer. Everyone hates that their "personal" pollutants are targeted. Its just no fun at all.
You bring up a good point but, you also show why there is a problem using hay bales as barriers:
Description Straw or hay bales have historically been used on construction sites for erosion and sediment control as check dams, inlet protection, outlet protection, and perimeter control. Many applications of straw bales for erosion and sediment control are proving ineffective due to the nature of straw bales, inappropriate placement, inadequate installation, or a combination of all three factors (Fifeld, 1999). In addition, straw bales are maintenance-intensive and can be expensive to purchase. Because many applications of straw and hay bales have been ineffective, EPA recommends that other BMP options are carefully considered. This fact sheet provides more information and options for alternatives to straw and hay bales. Limitations Straw bales cannot be used to reduce erosion in a drainage channel because if a straw bale structure is installed across the channel, the cross-sectional area is reduced, resulting in increased velocity of stormwater flow (IECA, 2005). This would lead to increased erosion around the bales, widening the channel's cross-section.
Straw bales do not work well in areas with heavy rain or on sites with large drainage areas or steep slopes. Straw bales should never be used on streets or sidewalks as they cannot be properly staked into concrete or asphalt and will float away.
Straw bales are very impermeable and are not able to withstand high flows, and care must be taken during placement and installation to avoid failure from undercutting, overtopping, and end-running. USDA NRCS (no date) states that water depth should never exceed 1 foot at any one time and straw bale structures should never be installed across streams, ditches, or where flow is concentrated because they can exacerbate erosion and flooding.
Straw bale installations have a high failure rate. According to some erosion control experts, straw bale installations are seldom designed, installed, and maintained properly (Fifeld, 1999). In addition, straw bales are difficult to transport and to carry around on-site, especially when attempting to dispose of them when they are waterlogged. Oftentimes, the bindings break and the straw can wash into storm drains, causing clogging.
Straw bales will rot and fall apart over time, especially in areas of high rainfall, and therefore require intensive maintenance; they only last for approximately three months. Straw bales will float and therefore must be properly staked even in low flow conditions. As previously stated, in high flow conditions, the water will flow around a straw bale barrier or undercut spaces between the bales.
Another factor to consider is that straw bales may introduce undesirable non-native plants to the area if there are seeds in the bales.
It then goes on to list alternatives.
So, there is from your link a legitimate reason not to use hay bales as barriers. Still not a pollutant, but rather poor material to use as perimeter barriers.
I am having a good time reading the good stuff you two are bringing out but see very little pertaining to feed lots feeding hay. I have seen hay bales used for all kinds of things other than feeding cattle but don't think a feed lot would be using them for anything else than feed. Once they get too wet they have very little use in a feedlot.
This year nobody south of the middle of Kansas is having much problem with waste water washing out anything since so little rain has fallen in over 6 months in Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas. In fact, the most normal trucks seen on the highways are those from the ranch areas to packers as ranchers sell off cattle they can' feed, and loads of hay coming south. Lots of those things. Those ranchers of this area are so hard up for feed, and will be this winter, because they grew little to none this summer that they are laying up huge supplies of baled corn that had to be cut before it matured. Now those things are dangerous because of the fertilizer used on corn so they have to test every bit of them to determine if they can be fed safely. My son and his partner just bought several loads of that kind of bales to get to winter and will soon be buying more to get through the winter.
I think I can safely tell you that few people in EPA know a lot about these things and even fewer give a damn. Once they have screwed things up with foolish regulations, often there is no remedy for what they did.
We are seeing here just how much damage the EPA is doing to one segment of our economy through regulation. It appears to me that Obama really is getting even with the Congress for not giving him Cap and Trade and I won't be siding with EPA about anything.
First they threatened to tax farmers and ranchers for farts their cattle fired off and now things like this. Throw in what they did to the production of electricity this spring and I see them about as dangerous to our society as any group of terrorists. Well now I have talked my way into saying that it is a terrorist organization being used by Obama to terrorize the populace in so many ways. Rahm would be so proud if he were still connected with them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everything is a pollutant to those people.
