Winning: EPA Swamp Being Drained

[Sunni Man]

Winning and Winning and Winning!! ....

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. I claimed that farmers now use less fertilizer per bushel of product than they have in the past, and nothing more. You claim that can't be true because we still have agricultural runoff. In other words, computerized applicaiton of fertilizer can't be happening because it should eliminate agricultural runoff.

You're so stupid you don't even understand what you have posted.

Sure, dope.
You didn't claim that at all in response to me stating they use too much?

Sure you did.

They can't be both using the right amount and such a large amount still be running off.

You understand that both cannot be true. Right?

Like I said, the logic skills of a turnip.

Sorry, turd, but you have presented no proof that the right amount means there will be no runoff. The optimum amount for profitability may require a certain amount of runoff. One thing I do know is that farmers are much more judicious in their use of fertilizer than they were in the past.

What could be more ironic than you accusing me of having difficulties with logic?

The optimum amount for profitability may require a certain amount of runoff.

That's the point, dope.
Poor practices allow for a run off percentage. This was nowhere near as large of a problem fifty years ago. The art of land management has been replaced by profit motive and poor practices. There is more agricultural contamination of waterways today than at any other time. So all your bullshit is meaningless.

No, that isn't the point, moron. I'm saying even the best practices may be unable to prevent runoff. Your theory that every problem has an easy solution is one of the main reasons liberalism always fails.

You have yet to demonstrate that farmers are using more fertilizer per bushel of product today than they did 50 years ago. You simply assume it. Everything you have claimed in this thread is assumed, not proven. Your belief that farmers weren't interested in making a profit 50 years has to be the whopper of the day . Another is your belief that the profit motive leads to bad agricultural practices. That's pure communist ideology.

Try reading some actual economics rather then communist propaganda.

I'm saying even the best practices may be unable to prevent runoff.

Again, turnip. This problem has largely come within the last fifty years and it's a worldwide problem. Obviously best practices are no longer practiced. There is no refuting where the source of the problem lies.

You make claim after claim after claim without a shred of evidence to support them. Your claim that agricultural runoff is something new is positively absurd. Of course, the source of the problem is agriculture. Who's denying it? However, your belief that it's because farmers have gotten greedier in the last 50 years is laughable.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Sure, dope.
You didn't claim that at all in response to me stating they use too much?

Sure you did.

They can't be both using the right amount and such a large amount still be running off.

You understand that both cannot be true. Right?

Like I said, the logic skills of a turnip.

Sorry, turd, but you have presented no proof that the right amount means there will be no runoff. The optimum amount for profitability may require a certain amount of runoff. One thing I do know is that farmers are much more judicious in their use of fertilizer than they were in the past.

What could be more ironic than you accusing me of having difficulties with logic?

The optimum amount for profitability may require a certain amount of runoff.

That's the point, dope.
Poor practices allow for a run off percentage. This was nowhere near as large of a problem fifty years ago. The art of land management has been replaced by profit motive and poor practices. There is more agricultural contamination of waterways today than at any other time. So all your bullshit is meaningless.

No, that isn't the point, moron. I'm saying even the best practices may be unable to prevent runoff. Your theory that every problem has an easy solution is one of the main reasons liberalism always fails.

You have yet to demonstrate that farmers are using more fertilizer per bushel of product today than they did 50 years ago. You simply assume it. Everything you have claimed in this thread is assumed, not proven. Your belief that farmers weren't interested in making a profit 50 years has to be the whopper of the day . Another is your belief that the profit motive leads to bad agricultural practices. That's pure communist ideology.

Try reading some actual economics rather then communist propaganda.

I'm saying even the best practices may be unable to prevent runoff.

Again, turnip. This problem has largely come within the last fifty years and it's a worldwide problem. Obviously best practices are no longer practiced. There is no refuting where the source of the problem lies.

You make claim after claim after claim without a shred of evidence to support them. Your claim that agricultural runoff is something new is positively absurd. Of course, the source of the problem is agriculture. Who's denying it? However, your belief that it's because farmers have gotten greedier in the last 50 years is laughable.

I never claimed it was new, turnip.
Only that it has become much worse with much higher levels of contaminants.

If not profit. What?
Larger yields, less rotation and fewer fallow periods equals what?
Like everything else. It's about money.

The optimum amount for profitability may require a certain amount of runoff.

your belief that it's because farmers have gotten greedier in the last 50 years is laughable.

^Turnip logic.

 

[KissMy]

We need more Barbara Streisand preaching to us about pollution and helping the poor from her 12,000 sq ft mansion on Malibu Beach.

How much have you donated? Barbara Streisand donated $40 million to charities.

 

[evenflow1969]

Sorry, turd, but you have presented no proof that the right amount means there will be no runoff. The optimum amount for profitability may require a certain amount of runoff. One thing I do know is that farmers are much more judicious in their use of fertilizer than they were in the past.

What could be more ironic than you accusing me of having difficulties with logic?

The optimum amount for profitability may require a certain amount of runoff.

That's the point, dope.
Poor practices allow for a run off percentage. This was nowhere near as large of a problem fifty years ago. The art of land management has been replaced by profit motive and poor practices. There is more agricultural contamination of waterways today than at any other time. So all your bullshit is meaningless.

No, that isn't the point, moron. I'm saying even the best practices may be unable to prevent runoff. Your theory that every problem has an easy solution is one of the main reasons liberalism always fails.

You have yet to demonstrate that farmers are using more fertilizer per bushel of product today than they did 50 years ago. You simply assume it. Everything you have claimed in this thread is assumed, not proven. Your belief that farmers weren't interested in making a profit 50 years has to be the whopper of the day . Another is your belief that the profit motive leads to bad agricultural practices. That's pure communist ideology.

Try reading some actual economics rather then communist propaganda.

I'm saying even the best practices may be unable to prevent runoff.

Again, turnip. This problem has largely come within the last fifty years and it's a worldwide problem. Obviously best practices are no longer practiced. There is no refuting where the source of the problem lies.

You make claim after claim after claim without a shred of evidence to support them. Your claim that agricultural runoff is something new is positively absurd. Of course, the source of the problem is agriculture. Who's denying it? However, your belief that it's because farmers have gotten greedier in the last 50 years is laughable.

I never claimed it was new, turnip.
Only that it has become much worse with much higher levels of contaminants.

If not profit. What?
Larger yields, less rotation and fewer fallow periods equals what?
Like everything else. It's about money.

The optimum amount for profitability may require a certain amount of runoff.

your belief that it's because farmers have gotten greedier in the last 50 years is laughable.

^Turnip logic.

Greed is almost always a factor in any problem but ignorance is just as culpable in this case. Bad timing is also a factor. If it rains right after spreading a great deal is lost due to run off. Farmers are not happy when this happens as fertilizer is not free. The ignorance comes in as we have recently figured out the causes. We are working on injection techniques to cut down on run off. We have not perfected them yet. Better weather forecasting would also help aviod spreading at inopportune times. There is another cause other than just fertilizer run off we also elliminated a good percentage of the swamps that use to filter the water shed before the water hit our lakes and rivers. Yes there are farmers that over fertilize do to greed but this is again ignorance as many times these idiots reduce yeilds through fertilizer burn.