Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Maybe manure will help weeds and plankton grow? Some of plankton is phytoplankton which is plant life. Plant life should be stimulated by manure going into the lake. Obviously there are negative effects of manure in the lake, but there may be a positive effect for fish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the sixties the weed beds were very thick and pervasive and the reason was that phosphates were present in large amounts coming into the lake and phosphate in that situation was thought to be coming from things like laundry detergents etc. emptying into the watershed. The phosphate was considered a biolimiting factor and basically served as a catalyst for rapidly accelerating photosynthesis and plant growth. Regulations were put in place to limit the use and dispersion of phosphates and the weed overgrowth reduced drastically over the span of many years and this effect was very noticeable at the north end of Seneca for example. From what I gather an important element of the current problem relates to a different substance (s) namely nitrogen and nitrates which also accelerate processes in the water such as algae growth. Thes chemicals are present in fertilizers of various types such as those used in farming and on residential and commercial lawns and maybe the vineyards as well. There are also pesticides being used all along the lakes both in farming and by wineries and lawns and especially because the terrain is very hilly and steep when it rains significantly this stuff runs off the ground surface into the lakes.It would seem to me that there should be regulations put in place to limit this problem by requiring any such activities to build barriers or burms along the edges of the properties to contain these run-offs at the very least. I know people don't like to hear the word regulations but in some cases such as this they become necessary as we can't rely on people's "good will" alone to protect us from the effects of this.....keep in mind that water treatment  facilities can not filter out all of these contaminants either so it is seeping into the drinking supplies of many communities as well. Before anyone responds by calling me a "tree hugger" or "communist conspirator" :lol:  these things are a matter of public record in  a variety of places.

Edited by Sk8man
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's too bad about the manure. That is a ammonia spike in the water "toxic to fish". Bacteria consume it to nitrite, still toxic to fish. Another bacteria eats that, becomes nitrate, what most grain farmers use. Toxic in high levels to fish. Nitrogen gets used by bacteria and plants. The 2 ,4 ,D, that almost all farmers spike spray with does more damage, also in the weed control fertilizer people spread on the lawn. It's got a month cycle, on land or water. Bacteria eats nitro, just needs time to get established. Nothing eats 2 4 D but time. I would rather have cow excrement "ammonia" than field spray. Round up is a salt, 3 or 4 specks on the growing point is enough to kill a plant. Don't paint your weeds, no need. Sorry, sounds like I'm taking care of a fish tank, but that lake is one of my favorite tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to say phosphorous is still a problem, less so perhaps, but it's the main reason the south end of Cayuga has been on federal lists as "impaired" since 1998. New York didn't outright ban phosphorous in detergents until 2010 I think. Both N and P are present in large amounts in fertilizer so any wineries or residential fertilizing results in both running off into the lake.

In the case of Cayuga, I believe this problem is mostly from sediment staying on the southern shelf, and the phosphorous with it. A large area is shallow enough that sunlight reaches the lakebed and the P is then biologically active. I'm not sure if it's been broken down where the P is mostly coming from, but given how murky it gets after it rains I'll say a lot of it is fertilizer runoff.

This is also the problem with the Lake Source Cooling project, which takes water from out deeper, where the P isn't biologically active, and returns it to the shallow area in the lake. So it doesn't add any P, but does move it from a good place for it to a poor one.

Anyway, just a few thoughts about Cayuga's nutrient problem. Similar but maybe not the same as Seneca.

Edited for line breaks, they didn't show up the first time but were there when I submitted it again.

Edited by hermit
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, phosphorus, when it's in it's best state, good. That is naturally in the ground, but farms usually put 7 to 10 gallons per acre on in the nitrogen recipe before or while planting. It will bond with opposing ions in the dirt & not leech. Too much will, it is a neutral, essential to good plant health. I'll let it out. I'm a cash crop corn/soybean farmer. The only animal on the farm is me. Phosphates are toxic to almost everything under the water also. Good point HERMIT. CARBON, sorry, caplock works here, will absorb phosphates. Agree, phosphorous is more concentrated than any lakes carbon level can absorb it if the phosphates run off. All my stuff is injected into the dirt. It bonds with + & - charges to stay attached to the soil, most of the time. After harvest bacteria eats the stubble and turns it to carbon which returns P into the soil. Bad if you fall plow or bale the crop residue. I love Seneca lake. Herm does have a fact, phosphates kill almost everything in water in a concentrated dose. More than a cow**** ammonia foam runoff. We can get back on topic. What is the real deal on "heartbreak lake"? In 10 years I'll figure it will be the new norm. Tight lines for the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going with dude because I'm 31lol I appreciate your pm I asked about the black Lund because you seem to know what's going on just wanted to make sure with the age group you mentioned that it was not you with a 25 thousand dollar boat giving me a hard time In my 68 star caft

 

Hey hey be gentle on guys with black Lunds there still are some good guys with ones out there!!!!!   :envy:  :envy:  :envy:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, phosphorus, when it's in it's best state, good. That is naturally in the ground, but farms usually put 7 to 10 gallons per acre on in the nitrogen recipe before or while planting. It will bond with opposing ions in the dirt & not leech. Too much will, it is a neutral, essential to good plant health. I'll let it out. I'm a cash crop corn/soybean farmer. The only animal on the farm is me. Phosphates are toxic to almost everything under the water also. Good point HERMIT. CARBON, sorry, caplock works here, will absorb phosphates. Agree, phosphorous is more concentrated than any lakes carbon level can absorb it if the phosphates run off. All my stuff is injected into the dirt. It bonds with + & - charges to stay attached to the soil, most of the time. After harvest bacteria eats the stubble and turns it to carbon which returns P into the soil. Bad if you fall plow or bale the crop residue. I love Seneca lake. Herm does have a fact, phosphates kill almost everything in water in a concentrated dose. More than a cow**** ammonia foam runoff. We can get back on topic. What is the real deal on "heartbreak lake"? In 10 years I'll figure it will be the new norm. Tight lines for the future.

NOTHING wrong with farming and its nice to hear that some farmers understand and farm using practices to limit run off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow that yak!

Sent from my XT1080 using Lake Ontario United mobile app

That's funny a few months ago my buddy was on you end in a red Lund or maybe his gray one not sure but some guy was in a yak and out fished them then you post about fishing in you yak the next day it was fun to show him the post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the greatest thing about this website is the fact that folks can share info and opinions that allow others to react and offer additional insights....it is what learning is all about. For example the comments from hermit and 2lbperch are very illuminating and are more valuable pieces to add to the "puzzle". I guess a lot of us including me have mixed or conflicting feelings about some of these issues but it is important to discuss since we all have a vested interest in the environment and the fishery in particular. Divergent opinions and views are just as important to understanding as the "status quo" views and I guess a little tolerance for this goes a long way in either case.  I for one feel that I have learned from this post and the views expressed and thanks to all who have interacted. It gives a lot to further think about.

Edited by Sk8man
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually what we're joking about is this kayak that we saw at Cabelas yesterday all tricked out. Minkota motor in the center that lifts up for hauling in a pick-up, foot pedals wired to a rear rudder, sonar, live well, bicycle flag etc and all kinds of other good stuff with tax and extras around a mere $3500 especially designed for finger lakes perch :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

post-143007-0-06483700-1458932448_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

2lb,

Do you see a direct difference between spraying or injecting chemicals such as nitrogen versus planting a cover crop such as rye to "naturally" introduce more nitrogen into the soil?  Wouldn't this reduce the likelihood of it reaching the lake in  a "toxic" level? Reason I ask is I grew up on a small farm and am surrounded by a huge farm that plants miles of rye for cover/nitrogen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. A cover crop is beneficial for a few reasons. It holds the soil preventing erosion during snow melt and heavy spring rains, the roots keep heavy clay soil a bit looser allowing it to breathe. (keeps the beneficial bacteria in the soil happy) It is also a nitrogen factory at a minimal cost. The best thing that it does is creates more organic material in the topsoil layer. O.M. effects the many organisms living in the dirt in a good way. It makes a less sterile environment for the little party in the soil to rock if you watched it under a microscope. The extra O.M. it gives is best, the free nitrogen is a bonus. The different types of cover crops is a whole new topic. Rye needs to be plowed under or sprayed to kill it, after breaking down, the N is available to other plants. Oats get killed by a hard frost, no plowing or extra spray. My farm is minimal tillage, oats win. A dairy needs tillage to incorporate the manure into the dirt, rye wins for them. The different crops need different amounts of N. Corn needs lots, a form of grass. I apply 40 to 50 gallons per acre of a solution containing 32% nitrate. Soybeans need little to none, legumes make their own. In the end all nitrogen goes down and down into the ground and leaches. Nothing can stop that. It rides down into the ground water bit by bit with rain. It only stays if a plant has consumed it. That is world's different than a river of manure dumping into a creek. Injecting fertilizer puts it where the plant roots can access it faster with minimal surface erosion loss. That cover crop helps, but in the end, not enough N to grow a crop of corn. But if you see something growing, it is consuming and holding nitrogen, keeping it out of the lake. Sorry for the book guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...