*sigh* I really wanted my first blog
post to be an introduction to the blog... a sort of “About me” kind of
deal. Instead, my first
real blog post is, perhaps fittingly, a rant about anhydrous ammonia. *facepalm* I know. I know. But if you know me or follow me at
all, this shouldn’t really surprise you.
Let’s be clear: I’m not here to make
friends and state popular opinions or give you watered down, status quo
agronomy. I’m here to
educate you and to help make you better producers with more profitable
operations.
On May 16th, 2016 the Nebraska Corn Growers released this press release. There are a couple of VERY noteworthy points in this press release. Here’s the first:
"In July of 2015, OSHA reversed a long-standing policy of exempting anhydrous ammonia retail facilities from extensive federal regulations governing management of hazardous chemicals."
Apparently I’ve been living under a rock. Why on earth would anhydrous ammonia be exempt from “extensive federal regulations governing management of hazardous chemicals” when it’s arguably one of the most dangerous substances ever used in agriculture? Now to be fair, their next statement clarifies this a bit:
"OSHA initiated the changes as a direct result of an explosion at a fertilizer company in West, Texas in April of 2013. While anhydrous ammonia was present at the Texas facility, its presence was not a contributing factor to the explosion."
Yes. It’s true that anhydrous had nothing to do with that explosion. But here’s the problem: These are entirely separate issues. The fact that OSHA doesn’t understand agriculture well enough to connect the dots (or in this case, NOT to connect the dots) about what caused an explosion and what didn’t is troubling, don’t get me wrong. But they’re NOT wrong for wanting to de-exclude anhydrous from federal regulations that govern the management of hazardous chemicals. Like it or not, anhydrous is nothing if NOT a hazardous chemical.
“Part of the cost includes adapting the standards. For some, that’s added training, documentation, changing out equipment. That also includes storage tanks and piping."
One of the arguments against this
change is the expense to the retailers that they will almost certainly pass on
to farmers. How expensive will it be? That
depends on who you ask. According
to that same article in Ag Professional, OSHA estimates approximately $2,100
per facility. According to the NECGA press release, it’s closer to $100,000 per
facility.
So what does this ultimately mean for
farmers? The Ag Professional article states,
So allow me to go ahead and state the uncomfortable and unpopular truth: Anhydrous was NEVER the “cheapest form of fertilizer” – not if we’re honest with ourselves about all the hidden costs associated with anhydrous. (I PROMISE I’m working on getting the “6 Reasons to Avoid Anhydrous Ammonia” video re-recorded, and I’ll link to it again once I get it done.)
At the end of the day it would appear that this unpopular piece of legislation, which was admittedly passed for the wrong reasons, may be a good thing for farmers. It will force farmers to take a long hard look at their farming practices and re-evaluate them. Maybe it will encourage producers to be better economic and environmental stewards and they’ll split apply their N and take into account the impact of things like timing and placement.
And for the final kick in the teeth statement of this post: this is not a bad thing. Yes, it’s unfortunate that it had to happen because we in agriculture wouldn’t police ourselves. But it did happen. Maybe instead of trying to figure out how to fight it, we should invest our time, mental energy, and money in figuring out how to be better producers – ones that don’t use anhydrous ammonia.
If you'd like to learn how to be more profitable in the face of more and more government regulation please feel free to send me an email or call 641-919-5574.
"But farmers say making all these regulatory changes to handling the cheapest form of fertilizer is adding a lot of red tape--and expense--during a time of lower farm income.”
So allow me to go ahead and state the uncomfortable and unpopular truth: Anhydrous was NEVER the “cheapest form of fertilizer” – not if we’re honest with ourselves about all the hidden costs associated with anhydrous. (I PROMISE I’m working on getting the “6 Reasons to Avoid Anhydrous Ammonia” video re-recorded, and I’ll link to it again once I get it done.)
At the end of the day it would appear that this unpopular piece of legislation, which was admittedly passed for the wrong reasons, may be a good thing for farmers. It will force farmers to take a long hard look at their farming practices and re-evaluate them. Maybe it will encourage producers to be better economic and environmental stewards and they’ll split apply their N and take into account the impact of things like timing and placement.
And for the final kick in the teeth statement of this post: this is not a bad thing. Yes, it’s unfortunate that it had to happen because we in agriculture wouldn’t police ourselves. But it did happen. Maybe instead of trying to figure out how to fight it, we should invest our time, mental energy, and money in figuring out how to be better producers – ones that don’t use anhydrous ammonia.
If you'd like to learn how to be more profitable in the face of more and more government regulation please feel free to send me an email or call 641-919-5574.
Comments
Post a Comment