Discussions

What farmers are going through and what is coming in the near future, I can't imagine. Respect to the farmer who grows and provides food on our plates. The farm life can't be easy. Getting up at 3 am at - 30 c with the wind howling making sure all the animals are okay. Trying to get seeding done during a rainy spring. Equipment breaking down, hay and feed shortages. The stress a farmer and family must go through. I respect you all, thank you. If you have extra meat or produce to sell please send me a private in box message, needing tomatoes and chickens and a turkey or 2 for canning. Once again thank you

Thank you for your support and business.  
We appreciate it.

I appreciate Farmer George and many others.  
 
In this economically unstable and volatile world, we need to practice gratitude here at home and do something pro active to show them the love.

Very good read if I knew how to share the link. Hopefully someone will see it as well and share it. But it shows how politics are using the urban centres to push their agendas through. If your complaining about the price of food now wait until we can’t use fertilizer anymore.

The 30% fertilizer application reduction is a media produced red herring. The proposal is actually a 30 % reduction in fertilizer related emissions. That shouldn’t be hard to meet by improving fertilizer manufacturing techniques and by improving application methods and striving to achieve greater efficiency from fertilizer used, which is in everyone’s best interest. It’s a challenge rather than a problem. Challenges are a good thing.

Farmer George So for last few years we’ve been hearing we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so how do we do that we quit using or come up with alternative (ex electric vehicles wind power solar power). So how do we reduce fertilizer emissions we quit using or find alternatives. You as a farmer should know that farmers are the best Stewarts of the land. But like anything it comes with a price and that will end up becoming our food supply

also good at adapting to new technology that makes their farms more efficient and reduce costs. Fertilizer and fuel are big expenses. If farmers can use less of those products, it's better for them. Farmers have gone from horses, to steam tractors, to gas/diesel equipment. Looking at the progress made in farming in even the last 100 years is astounding. Farmers will adapt to new types of power like they always have.

It’s complicated but not impossible.  
As farmers the first thing is to use the tools available to us now starting with 3 depth soil testing and detailed analysis. By seeking advice and guidance from professional independent agronomists and tissue testing our crops we can better understand the products that we apply and how the plants use them. This allows us to fine tune products used , their placement in the soil profile , the timing and placement of application. This reduces wasted product, over application, harmful emissions and run off.  
Proper crop rotation helps, Too many producers are stuck in a two year , two crop rotation which is neither helpful for soil health, plant health , diversity or efficient use of fertilizers and chemicals. This is just the very basic starting point which through collating years of data we can further improve. Technology can help but is not the whole answer. We need to better understand the soil. On my farm we fertilize to soil requirements first to ensure continued soil health. Crop requirements are considered secondary and can be carefully adjusted. Better use and understanding of micros and the effect that they can have on macro efficiency and overall plant health is important and can similarly reduce over application of macro fertilizers. Healthier crops are more resilient, more efficient and require less fungicides and insecticides. Healthier crops are more competitive against weeds requiring less herbicides and reducing herbicide resistance in weeds.  
More mixed farming integrating grazing livestock, perennial forage growth alongside growth of crops will also create healthier more biodiverse soils and produce a more complete carbon cycle reducing emissions and increasing carbon sequestration into the soil where it can benefit growing plants .  
All this started with simple three depth soil analysis, one tool available to us which is nothing new.  
Anyone challenges me to reduce fertilizer emissions, you bet I’ll take that challenge. That’s something we should all be accepting.  
This is a small part in the equation though. Fertilizer manufacturers and shippers have a part to play by using cleaner or renewable power sources in their extraction and production and shipping shorter distances using cleaner fuels or alternatives.  
The question is not if we can reduce emissions from fertilizer, we can with little difficulty.  
The question is how can we quantify those reductions throughout the supply chain in a way that people can understand and appreciate, in a way that proves the successes achieved.

Canadians support out farmers, and I have a little bit of a different perspective on this issue that I think is important. I would encourage anybody taking a position on this issue to take a look at all sides to see if there is a way of coming up with a better solution than currently exists. While I support small farms and recognize that fertilizer is a very important, if not one of the most important, input for growing crops, I am increasingly concerned about some of the practices surrounding the use of fertilizer that I think needs to be better looked at. Today's farmers have been taken on a journey over the decades where small farming operations can no longer survive. Big agribusiness in collusion with the banks and government have increasingly made it more difficult as a small family farming operation. It seems that in many cases, you are forced to go big, or get out. With the expensive equipment and input costs, together with a climate that is changing the risk profile associated with farming, the farmer is left to carry the risks, where a substantial amount of his profit is taken by governments, big agribusiness and the oil and gas sector. Natural gas is used to make fertilizers, and agribusiness takes very little risk and much of the profit, on a comparative basis with the average Canadian farmer. It is no wonder then that farmers are becoming increasingly concerned about their survivability, with the cost of fuel and seed and insurance and fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide inputs, the risk of losing your farm from a few bad years, could not be higher. I have noticed that the last few decades that flooding is more severe, rainfall is heavier, and we have extended periods of severe drought. My concern in this math goes outside the farm. I look at our lakes, and the health of those ecosystems, and I have to say that where we have evolved to to this point is not working. Take Killarney Lake, or Pelican Lake or any of the lakes in Westman surrounded by farmland, and it pains me to think that excessive runoff from fertilizer is damaging our lakes. On a different level, many Manitoban's invest in cottage property and are often left with scum filled lakes by July. We get two to three months of the year where we can actually get out and visit our lakes, pay our taxes on our cottage properties, pay for the upkeep and the buildings and the lots, and we are left with toxic algae blooms that are a direct consequence of fertilizer (nitrogen and phosphorous) that have been bought by the farmers, which are not actually being used in their fields to grow crop and food. This waste is of no benefit to the farmer. It is a direct cost to his business, and it removes money from his bottom line. The real winner in this are the oil and gas companies, the fertilizer companies, and big agribusiness that are advising the farmer on the products he needs to use in his field. Toxic algae blooms in Manitoba lakes benefit big agribusiness. They hire agronomists to advise on proper fertilizer levels, and push the limits of fertilizer inputs to increase their bottom line. More product you can sell, the fatter your profit margins. While I take no position on the fertilizer situation, I do think that fertilizer use needs to be looked at. Maybe we could start with very small reductions and try to measure what effect that has on crop yields. Over time, I think we need to reevaluate the threshold that we are currently using to top up nutrient levels in today's fields. Maybe we could try a 5% reduction year over year to see if we reach a level where algae growth in Manitoba's lakes and waterways might be reduced to levels that benefit farmers and the average family/cottage owner. It simply is not fair to the cottage industry to be at the losing end of fertilizer practices that are not working to control waste / leaching into Manitoba waterways. Not sure how this can be done. I don't agree with imposing severe restrictions in a short period of time, but I do agree that all sides need to come to the table to talk about their own concerns with fertilizer use, and to try to determine if there is a better path forward that benefits all sides, including the farmer. I have long felt that fertilizer use by Canadian farmers was wasteful and harming ecosystems, lakes, fisheries, and waterways. I recognize that the industry has evolved in ways that make application of these nutrients and pesticides/herbicides more precise but it has not gone far enough to protect Manitoba waterways, and maybe we could try small incremental changes in the amount that is applied to see if we can better control waste and leaching into our lakes.  
 
For many of us out here that are not farmers, but cottage owners at Manitoba lakes including Killarney Lake, Pelican Lake, Lake Winnipeg, this is the discussion we want to come out of this, to see if there is a better path forward for all:  
 
https://www.google.com/search?q=killarney+lake+manitoba+algae&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR0vex0LD5AhV_k4kEHb2xDc4Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1536&bih=750&dpr=1.25

This is partly true and somewhat accurate but you raise important points . My own perspective comes from a small 5 th generation family operated mixed livestock and grain farm business. Small farms an survive but it is not easy although we can keep overheads and variable costs down more easily.  
I stressed the employment of an independent agronomist as being important. My agronomist does not sell product and her only interest is in helping us to grow and raise our products in an efficient sustainable way which benefits soil and water health. Our farm is more or less split by half into grain production, tame permanent hay production and permanent native grass land interspersed with protected wetlands, woodlands and grazed by a small cow calf herd using the twice over grazing system.  
I feel that this is a proven system providing efficient food production whilst protecting and enhancing natural environments and biodiversity.  
Fact is we are being asked to reduce fertilizer emissions not necessarily quantity used. Fact is at the moment quantity used is taken wrongly as an indicator in calculating emissions and efficiency of use . These are difficult things to accurately measure currently and that is where much more work and studies needs to be applied very quickly to make informed and beneficial changes.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2022-08-05 18:26:44

Again, everybody supports our farmers. I just wanted to respond to address some of the other issues at play here as I see it, from the perspective of things that I feel need to be addressed. In my last post, I talked about fertilizers and how they have played a roll at fertilizing our lakes and rivers, and leading to toxic algae blooms, and how that, I felt, was not fair to cottage owners that were having their lakes destroyed by fertilizer inputs in these areas. But this issue is very complicated, and there are many things at play here, that need to be considered here. One of the biggest things that has taken place over the last 10 to 15 years is that the agriculture industry has, in many cases, sought out the drainage of wetland areas from farms, in order to increase the acreage of these farms. Having to navigate heavy machinery around wetland areas makes farming more difficult navigating around these areas, and removing them allows for more land area to farm. But removal of wetland areas is not conducive with the natural landscape, and while the farmer may think he benefits from installation of drainage pipe, I personally do not see this as a benefit. Not only are wetland areas extremely important for biodiversity and natural ecosystems that support a wide range of life, but they are important to farms for water retention in periods of drought. The problem in many ways, is that while SOME farming operations may see wetlands as a hinderance, installing draining pipe in fields creates massive water problems in other areas downstream to other farms, and eventually to river and lake systems that are unable to receive such large volumes of water over short periods of time. I have seen time and time again, farmers looking "upstream" to whatever is coming down the pipes, and it seems the strategy is to push that water through for fear of being flooded out. Eventually, less and less water is being retained on the landscape, and more and more water is making its way into river systems that flood out low lying farm areas, lakes, communities, cities. And the cost of having to deal with this through repair of infrastructure (culverts, roads, etc) or the building of dykes, is astronomical. Furthermore, when drainage systems in fields are the direct cause of flooding in downstream areas, then the flooding immediately leads to dilution of fertilizer that was previously applied to flooded fields, and as a consequence, the removal/waste of fertilizer from fields, directly into river and lake ecosystems, which lead to algae blooms and the eventual destruction of that habitat. We often hear that ag-technology helps machinery reduce fertilizer and chemical waste, and while that is true, there is no controlling the retention of fertilizer and chemical on field, when we are implementing drainage systems that are the direct cause of overland flooding during periods when we experience moderate to high rainfall. I would like to see the retention of rainfall left on fields through the development of wetlands, and the banning of drainage systems in fields all-together. Allowing farms to retain rainfall, and to release this water SLOWLY into river and lake systems is going to have to be a part of this fertilizer strategy. Instead of forcing the reduction of fertilizer use by farmers, perhaps the best starting point is to reduce the amount of drainage first. I do recognize that not all farming operations seek the removal of wetlands from their farms, and while many view wetland areas as a necessity, the tendency over the past few decades has been towards more drainage, and this I view to be a very large problem in how fertilizer nutrients make their way into river and lake systems, leading to the destruction of that habitat, the fishery, and the recreational opportunities for cottage owners using those lakes. We should be looking at ways to keep fertilizer in the fields as a first strategy. I know that farmers often use vegetative buffer zones, but when we continually see massive flooding, I view this to be a MAJOR cause of most of the problems we are seeing today with agriculture. One of the things that strikes me most is the increased use of aeration in lakes, that use oxygen injection to break down algae blooms caused by nutrient loading. Pelican Lake reached a point where aeration systems needed to be implemented, and we are seeing increased use of these aeration systems in other lakes including Sandy Lake up north of Brandon. Anyways, I do recognize that fertilizer is extremely important to farming, but in my opinion we should be first looking to reduce overland flooding caused by increased drainage strategies, and to increase the retention of water on the natural landscape, in a strategy that uses fields to hold water back and slowly release this water into the river and lake systems downstream. Then, perhaps we could look at reviewing the dosing of fields with nutrients, and trying to reduce fertilizer use in a way that allows these nutrients to be used by plants, and not transported into areas where crops are not being grown. This would be of benefit to the farmer, and to cottage owners in Manitoba Lakes, but let us review wasted fertilizer first, and then consider possible reductions through policies that protect the farmer, and help to reduce overhead costs. The topic is complicated, so my posts are in trying to open up the conversation to understanding other areas that fertilizer use impacts, which is not often discussed in these types of conversations.

It is a complicated issue but you are right , too many wetlands have been drained and destroyed, too much bush has been pushed and too much unsuitable land has been ploughed which should never have been broken and should have been left in grassland instead.

of the problems is that of the reeds encroaching into the sloughs more, reducing the surface area of the water. Many of the reed beds are now almost totally covering the wetland and need digging out to allow more water for the wildlife.  
I appreciate the reeds provide nesting habitat for water birds and the blackbirds, but open water is also necessary for amphibians and insects like dragonflies and mayflies.  
Our yard was so wet this spring that reeds are actually growing in the vegetable patch and flower beds.  
There are also very few bees and only a few Monarch Butterflies this year. I have only found maybe a dozen of the Monarch caterpillars on the Milkweed this year.

Also of paramount importance is policies and help being made available to encourage young people to enter the industry as agronomists, vets , technicians and most importantly farmers.  
We are all getting older and not many youngsters are coming up to replace us. In short time there is going to be a huge skills shortage in food production and land management.

This is a recent Government of Manitoba article discussing the effects of phosphorus and nitrogen on water quality for Manitoba lakes and rivers. It is a good read for anybody that has any interest:  
 
https://www.manitoba.ca/sd/pubs/water/lakes-beaches-rivers/setting_phosphorus_and_nitrogen_targets_to_improve_water_quality_november_2020.pdf  
 
While I do believe this to be important, I wish any policies directed towards fertilizer reduction imposed on farmers would start with re-establishing drained wetland areas. I believe better controls over flooding situations after moderate to severe rainfall events through the re-establishment of wetland areas on farms, will go a long ways towards keeping these nutrients in the fields where they belong, rather than in water habitat systems like rivers and lakes, where the fishery, ecosystem, and recreational opportunities are impacted. I'm not sure that a forced reduction in fertilizer use without looking at re-establishing wetlands is going to work. If we can address fertilizer waste through flooding events, I believe this is the best start to resolving all of these issues: (1) waste of input fertilizer to the farmer's field, which he pays for and gets no benefit from when the fertilizer is diluted through overland flooding, (2) increased flooding events, damaging road and other infrastructure, taxpayer costs associated with these events, including building of dykes in cities, and costs of flooding of farmland and communities, (3) pollution of rivers and lakes, impacting cottage owners, fishery, and recreational opportunities for Manitobans caused by eutrophication leading to toxic algae blooms, etc. (4) retain the water in the fields where it belongs, of benefit to farmers for drought protection, protection of natural areas and habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife, and burning off any excess nutrients through primary production in fields, rather than in lakes. If government wants to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous nutrients by 30%, then focus on the waste of this product through flooding and you might get they results you are seeking without forcing farmers to reduce nutrient inputs as a first measure to tackle this problem. It seems to me that government should capture these nutrients and achieve these reduction targets through carrots that incentivize protection of wetland areas in fields, rather than targeting a reduction in fertilizer that will have a direct input on crop yields, with minimal impact on river, lake and ecosystem health through policies that fail to address causes of flooding events.

The simple way to encourage sustainable responsible reinstatement and conservation of wetlands and native grasslands is to encourage and increase cattle and bison production and a return to more traditional mixed livestock and grain farming on smaller farms which would also support our small struggling communities.

I agree, but that doesn't seem to be the path we are on. Farmer George one of your recent comments talked about policies that seek to maintain the family farm for future generations with the skills to be able to run a farming operation: (quote) "of paramount importance is policies and help being made available to encourage young people to enter the industry as agronomists, vets , technicians and most importantly farmers. We are all getting older and not many youngsters are coming up to replace us. In short time there is going to be a huge skills shortage in food production and land management." My take on this is that this is getting to be nearly impossible now unless you are already involved in a farming operation and expect the farm to be passed down through the generations. I am afraid that as a young person, it is becoming more and more difficult to become a part of this occupation, with farm prices out of reach for most young people, and farmland getting swallowed up by large corporations often owned by extremely wealthy individuals. Food production will soon be held by a few extremely wealthy people, along with the land that now occupies these farms. On this trajectory, I don't see a future where family farms will exist, where increased risk will be implemented through government policies that seek to transfer this land to fewer and fewer owners. Take, for instance, fertilizer reduction policies mandated by government as an example of where exposure to higher financial risk, may end up putting the family farm on the chopping block. Pretty sure this is what most farmers are considering these days as these operations wonder what the future holds for the common local farmer trying to maintain his family business operations.

I am a farmer myself. But am enjoying reading how only the farmers are to blame for the algae bloom in the lakes. Now I’m guessing that nobody in the towns or cities put fertilizer on their lawns that if a large rain comes along runs directly into the storm drains or the fact that lots of laundry detergent has or had phosphate in them over the years. I’m sure for lots of years some of these cottages drained sewage or waste water into the lakes they sit on. So really if you stop and think about it everyone is to blame.

That’s the whole narrative that needs to change . We have been on this path for a lot of years now as we lose smaller family operations.  
If this doesn’t change then primary food production will indeed fall into the hands of a very few cooperate entities with little regard for the environment , quality of produce or local communities. The warnings have been out there some years but the publics relentless greed for cheap food relative to their income with little regard where it comes from has been driving us towards this point. It’s coming to a head now and unless things change and new people enter the industry a lot of the efficiency gains from recent years will be lost, a lot of knowledge of the land and soil will be lost and a lot of good work towards greater sustainability will be destroyed. The era of plentiful, nutritious and conveniently available food will end.

The serious issue of urban sprawl and development of greenfield sites and some of our prime agricultural land needs to be addressed and stopped as well as does the very common practice of building new developments on natural flood plains and wetlands.  
Development of prime arable land around cities and towns has not only destroyed the production potential but has also fuelled the need to convert marginal lands for arable production which would be better kept as native pasture and used for grazing of livestock instead.  
 
Edited by Farmergeorge, 2022-08-12 10:57:13

Jeremy Perriman, I have never made this claim that "only farmers are to blame for all of the algae in the lakes" but you do bring up a good point. As I stated in my previous comments, this is a very complicated issue, and there surely is a lot of blame to go around. Take for instance the City of Winnipeg and their failure to build waste water treatment plants to treat the sewage waste from that city, entering Lake Winnipeg and contributing to the algae problems there. That's all true, and the failure to build infrastructure to address this part of the equation is a failure of government. That is all true, and is another complicated piece of this puzzle. And you are correct, laundry detergents and other cleaning products do often contain phosphorus which is likely the single nutrient that is responsible for algae blooms in water systems. So as a society, we should be trying to push the manufacturers of these products to remove phosphate from these detergents. These are all contributors. But the discussion here is about mandated fertilizer reductions imposed by government, and while the farming industry is largely responsible for much of this nutrient input, my point is that we need to do better. I know the industry has moved to precision agriculture, and has been able to use technology to help apply the fertilizer in precise quantities and in the right spots, in order to reduce waste. And while this is all good, my point is that, as I see things, the fertilizer problem with agriculture now needs to address the problem of fertilizer removal from flooding events. I believe there is a significant amount of fertilizer that is lost during these uncontrolled events, and any amount of precision application through tech solutions, doesn't address this problem. So I am proposing restoration of wetland areas to retain water on farmland, so that it be released slowly into the river and lake systems. You indicate that fertilizer is washed from city properties during rainfall events, and while this is true, what I am talking about here is OVERLAND FLOODING that is OUT OF CONTROL, and while some fertilizer is likely lost from city lawns, the amount is not going to be significant COMPARED TO agriculture operations where water is being directly dumped into water systems as a part of wetland drainage strategies. The topic came up as a part of forced reductions in fertilizer use by farmers as a government policy. As noted earlier, fertilizer waste is harmful to farming operations. We can see the effect of this waste, which is a direct cost incurred by farmers in lakes surrounded by agriculture such as Killarney Lake, Pelican Lake, Sandy Lake and many others. These lakes are being polluted by agriculture operations, and not by cities that apply fertilizer on lawns. Take Pelican Lake, for instance. It is located at the top of the watershed and so are not other inputs into this lake other than agriculture operations. Killarney Lake is pretty much the same. Lake Winnipeg receives it all, agriculture and city produced inputs, so you have a strong case here. And so my point is to reassess the farming operations, identify paths where waste harms the farmer, and try to resolve that situation through the re-establishment of wetland areas. Wetlands are beneficial to everybody, including the farmer, the cottage owner, the ecosystem and the lakes. So yes, it is a very complicated issue, many individuals are responsible, and I am horrified to see that farmers are being mandated to reduce fertilizer input without a thorough review of the wetland issues first. In my estimation, re-establishment of wetland areas will go a long ways towards helping to resolve the nitrogen and phosphorous reduction mandates. Let's focus on keeping these nutrients out of our lakes, and the waste savings there will help both farmers, the environment, the carbon reduction strategies, and the eutrophication of waterways and lakes. It's win-win for all, including farmers.

Russell Brand came out with an interesting take on the fertilizer situation that is currently underway. Can't say I disagree with this assessment, especially when our government preaches one thing and does the complete opposite:  
 

I’m sorry but this is somewhat misleading. It has been widely accepted for some years now that over application of lawn and garden pesticides and fertilizers has caused huge amounts of waterbody pollution. Excessive use and poor application methods such as broadcast fertilizers by hand coupled with the concentration of nutrients and pesticides in city storm drains and sewers is a known and serious issue worldwide and has directly led to restrictions on sale and use of many of these garden products.  
Producers in Western Canada are widely proven to be among the most efficient users of fertilizers in the world and have been proven to minimize waste through correct placement, careful rate calibration and timing alongside reduced tillage. Restrictions to prevent application of manure during cold months and injection of liquid manures directly into the soil help. Now we can always do better and increased used of ruminant livestock to graze and protect marginal lands ( while efficiently converting non palatable grasses into nutritious, vitamin rich and healthy meat) rather than cropping would be a benefit and sequester more carbon into the soil.  
The issue here is to reduce emissions from fertilizer manufacturing and use. In Canada we can and will improve but the fact remains that the rest of the world has an awful lot of catching up to do before they reach our already high standards.

have to take a drive following a creek, or a river to see that most farms were located near a water source. Livestock waste runs into these streams, creeks and rivers in the spring, and during heavy rains. The regulations are not being followed, or enforced.

Not sure if this is relevant or not, but I recently bought a used herbicide tote and was surprised to see the chemical was a product of china, I know, everything is made in china these days, I just never expected our farm chemicals would be too I guess.  
 
I wonder if our government mandates the chinese chemical companies reduce their emissions too or is just for the canada made stuff ?

This is typical of misinformation and outright lies spread by you. Get your facts straight. I can categorically tell you that these regulations are absolutely enforced , monitored and they should be.  
On top that much work has been done to take heavy livestock pressure away from surface water bodies and riparian areas through fencing, shallow water line installation and use of solar pumps to water animals away from water sources. This has been highly effective in reducing pollution, reducing trampling and damage in riparian environments and improving the cleanliness and lowering the temperature of water delivered to livestock. It’s a win win for producers, livestock and the environment and is supported by Conservation districts,Manitoba Habitat and Heritage , Ducks Unlimited among others.

What I can tell you is that I have seen some of the nutrient data that, for instance, has been taken at Pelican Lake. I am not associated with this group, but I know the Healthy Lake Committee has tried many things to try to clean up the water at Pelican Lake over many years. There are a lot of complicating factors there, including a large body of water and comparatively shallow water (with an average depth of about 10' but some areas deeper and other areas shallower) which heats up the water quicker than say, lakes with much deeper water. But the thing about this lake is that it is located very close to the top of the water system here, and still struggles with eutrophication as a consequence of what can only be fertilizer inputs from agriculture operations. There are not city inputs for this lake like, for example Lake Winnipeg which is the end basin that gets sewer and drain water from large population areas like Winnipeg or even Brandon. So this, as well as Killarney Lake and even Sandy Lake, are good examples of eutrophication from what can only be agriculture operations, that have had a direct impact on the quality of the water (algae blooms, etc) in this area, for which aeration systems have been implemented to help burn off the high nutrient load. I have also seen information on, in the instance of Pelican Lake, where the aeration system appears to work well to inject oxygen into the lower depths of the lake to burn off high nutrient loads, but the lake is massive (18 km long) and there is really only so much that you can do, at extremely high financial and time cost to volunteers dedicating themselves to these operations. It would appear from the data, that the aeration system works to help clear out some of the nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient loads to more acceptable levels, until some spring flooding event, or moderate to high rainfall event happens during the summer, and with the overland flooding, the nutrient levels are destroyed again until the passage of one or two more good years where aeration has a chance to burn off these nutrient inputs. While everybody appreciates all of the work that this committee does, they are (in my estimation) working to resolve a problem that has been created through mismanagement of drainage practices by the agriculture industry, and so as a cottage owner and recreational boater in this area I would really like to see other things being done by the agriculture industry itself, to help reduce these inputs. I have stated previously that I don't think the starting point in this should be the mandated reduction of fertilizer use by farmers, but by practices that seek to first retain water on landscapes by farms, through the reestablishment of wetland areas. Let's stop the drainage practices through the implementation of drainage pipe in fields, and stop the overland flooding that is happening which, in my estimation, removes fertilizer that the farmer has paid for, from his field. If we can start with reestablishment of wetlands, and perhaps other practices noted by Farmer George involving livestock, then perhaps the next step could be a look at a very slow reduction of fertilizer inputs onto fields through further study that strikes a balance between the needs of the farmer, and the health of the ecosystem including lakes and other water bodies. One last thing that I would like to mention is that, in my estimation, studies that seek to determine optimal fertilizer use are just studies, and while these studies are looking to optimize fertilizer application for optimal plant growth, I don't see that they necessarily look at the pitfalls of that formula in other areas. So while we are optimizing fertilizer application for plant growth, this doesn't necessarily mean that we have not incorporated waste of the fertilizer product (lost to lakes and steams) into this overall formula. So I would like to see studies that take more of a wholistic approach to determining optimal fertilizer applications, that review not only the needs of the farmer but all of those other areas that fertilizer use impacts (such as lakes and streams). Again, if we are seeing eutrophication of lakes and streams from agriculture inputs, let's try to derive solutions that seek to reduce this waste which can only occur as a consequence from flooding and moderate to high rainfall events. And to me, this starts through another look at wetland development, and mandates that seek to reduce the fast drainage of water from our natural landscapes. When I think of the past 20 years, I think of a direct drainage pipe being connected to farmer fields, all immediately draining snowmelt or moderate to high rainfall events out of those fields, and into a river system that was never designed to retain such large volumes of water. I think of the massive costs associated with drainage, and the damage to infrastructure including roads and culverts and dykes, and there simply needs to be a better solution. Look at what has happened to Brandon over the past decade, where we have had to build a dyke and flood massive areas west of 18th Street, just to contain the water that has been drained from fields due to increased drainage. While rainfall has likely become more intense due to changes in climate, personally I think it is likely the consequence of drainage pipes installed under fields, to remove snowmelt and rainfall at the earliest opportunity. And I know that in the farming community, often farmers don't mind retaining water in their fields, but they often need to be mindful of water from neighboring farms being pushed down into their own properties. It seems that in these cases, all farmers look upstream for what is being pushed down into their own properties, and the only thing they can do is to ensure they don't get flooded out by making sure that water is immediately pushed downstream again to the next in line ... which is a massive problem in itself in trying to devise a solution to drainage. This, I believe, is where government has failed at addressing the root issue of this problem. Focus on wetlands first. Then we can possibly look at nitrogen and phosphorous reductions as a secondary solution to this problem.  
 
These guys do an amazing job at Pelican Lake, so a huge shout out to Trevor and the crew with the Healthy Lake Committee:  
 
https://www.healthylake.ca/

Many of these lakes you talk about Charlie Brown use to be treated with blue stone. Once the government banned the sale of it that’s when Killarney and pelican lake started having their problems.

So what you're saying is that eutrophication from agriculture has been a problem for a very long time then.  
 
Is that what you are saying, cause that's how I'm interpreting this comment.  
 
I have been down at these lakes for a very long time, and while I have perhaps witnessed intermittent blue stone chemical use by private individuals to control weeds in front of their cabin, the algae in these lakes have been a problem for a very long time, and have been made worse in the last 10 to 15 years through wetland drainage projects, and frequent overland flooding into these lakes. Again, Pelican Lake is at the very top of this water system, so your original claim that city residents using fertilizer on their lawns doesn't hold water, and you don't seem to be willing to accept that this could be an agriculture problem, which is affecting a massive number of cottage owners, who spend half of their summer swimming in algae soup, and paying serious amounts of cash on cottage properties and recreational boats.  
 
I think we need a rethink of the facts of what is causing these algae blooms, and I'm pretty sure it has nothing, or very little to do with, blue stone. If your claim that blue stone use helped to clear the water, then we are still left with a fertilizer problem, or a wetland problem, that is causing water to flood and dump nutrients into Manitoba lakes. The spike in aeration systems over the past 10 years, correlate with wetland drainage practices, so to me this is where we start. But we all get an opinion on this ...