NEWS & VIEWS Farm Bureau Bulletin Begets Bees’ Nest On June 24, the Maryland Farm Bureau
Well, you spoke and the Maryland Secretary of
released its regular Government Relations Bulletin, which contained an alert regarding proposed changes to Maryland’s nutrient man- agement regulations. T is information prompted an immediate
reaction in the ag community (including horse farm owners). T e Equiery posted an op/ed piece by Pam Saul on our News & Views blog on
equiery.com, and this one subject garnered more comments than have any other blog postings, including allegations of criminal neglect and/ or abuse. We can’t help but surmise that, if you really want to get a rise out of the horse com- munity, tell horse farm owners they are going to have to spend money to install more fencing to prohibit horses from entering run-off , intermit- tent dry stream beds or that they can not spread manure for a sizeable chunk of the year. We promptly heard not just from horse farm owners, but elected offi cials as well (more ex- cerpts on
equiery.com–look under the News & Views archives for “Perspectives & Points of View” and look for the June 24 posting for “Proposed Changes to Law Onerous To Horse Farm Owners.”) Most of the comments were on point; unfortunately, a few tried to point fi ngers at other farm owners, which (understandably) upset the Farm Bureau, which is trying to work on these issues on behalf of all farm owners.
Agriculture heard you, and quickly issued a press release (which you can also view on
equiery.com on the same archive page) in an attempt to as- sure all farm owners that these proposed changes are not yet a done deal, that everyone is reacting to a preliminary proposal that was intended for review by a small group of industry stakeholders, and that there will be plenty of time for public comment after the actual proposed changes are fi rst vetted out by the Administrative and Ex- ecutive Legislative Review (AELR) Committee and then are published in the Maryland Register for a 45-day comment period. Not everyone, however, is reassured, and T e
Equiery will continue to support a public dia- logue on the topic. Comments may be sent to
editor@equiery.com or may be posted on either of the two blog threads on the topic. Meanwhile, perhaps coincidentally, or not co- incidentally, fi ve days after MDA’s press release assuring farm owners that there would be plen- ty of time for the public to comment on any proposed changes to the nutrient management regs, MDA issued a press release announcing over $340,000 now available for cost-share grants to help farm owners implement…nutri- ent management plans! If the law is going to require that farm owners implement a nutrient management plan, then
Maryland Farm Bureau’s Government Relations Bulletin, June 24, 2011 Maryland Department of Ag Propses Changes to Nutrient Management Program
MDA is proposing to change the nutrient management plan requirements in the Manual and Guide- lines issued to consultants. T e changes include: 1. No fall application of commercial fertilizer to fall-planted small grain crops unless a soil nitrate test shows less than 10ppm for wheat or 15ppm for barley. (T is will allow all small grain crops to count as cover crops in the TMDL calculation.) 2. A uniform 35-foot setback from the edge of surface water for all broadcast fertilizer and veg- etated buff ers. (Eff ective January 1, 2014) 3. Stream fencing – A uniform 10-foot setback from water (including continual and intermittent streams) for pastures and hayfi elds. No nutrient can be applied mechanically or deposited by live- stock within the setback. (Eff ective January 1, 2014) 4. From March 1st – September 9th all manures and other organic nutrient sources must be injected or incorporated within 72 hours. 5. Operators and generators of livestock manures must make plans to have “adequate” storage to eliminate the need for winter application by July 1, 2016. 6. Until July 1, 2016, winter application of manure due to lack of adequate storage must be injected only and applied only to existing vegetative cover or signifi cant crop residue. 7. No application of any nutrient sources shall be made between November 16th and February 28th after July 1, 2016. 8. All soil conditioners, soil amendments, waste materials or effl uent applied to agricultural land must be registered with the state chemist and applied using all restrictions contained in the nutri- ent management law. T is means sewage sludge applications will not be allowed to be applied from November to March under the same conditions that apply to manures and other organic nutrients.
MDA has asked for preliminary comments by June 29th. Sometime after that date MDA will for- ward the proposal to the AELR Committee of the Legislature and publish it for public comment as required by law. Attached are the draft comments from Maryland Farm Bureau. MFB’s comments will be fi nalized on Tuesday, June 28th and fi led with MDA. If you would like to fi le comments of your own, please email them to
MercerJA@mda.state.md.us. Please copy
valeriec.mdfb@
verizon.net so we can include your thoughts in our offi cial comments as well.
10 | THE EQUIERY | AUGUST 2011
we suppose there is something to be said for the fact that they are willing to help defray the costs. Mind you, those cost-share dollars origi- nally came out of our tax dollars, so it is simply returning our money to us, but with red tape. To read the press release, please visit equiery.
com’s News & Views blog and click on “An- nouncements.”
From
equiery.com T e following excerpts are from comments posted
on News & Views on
equiery.com, in response to an editorial published June 24, 2011 entitled “Proposed Changes to Law Onerous to Horse Farm Owners” (You don’t have to wait to read this in the print edi- tion; you can sign up to receive these postings to your e-mail account for free, just visit
equiery.com)
“Every horse owner needs to know about pro- posed change #3,which requires that all livestock (including horses) must be fenced out of all con- tinual and intermittent streams. What this means is that if you have a dry creek that runs through the middle of a paddock, then horses are not al- lowed access to it and you must fence it off . “T is is a serious change and one that will
certainly have drastic changes to a majority of the horse farms in this area.” -Pam Saul, Rolling Acres Farm, Montgomery Co.
“More government regulation without the science to back it up. It’s unrealistic to think every small stream or run-off area can be fenced, fragmenting pastures and forcing huge expenses on land owners. Enforce- ment of these new regulations would be impossible. T e state needs to rethink its program of water protection–go after those developments with dysfunctional silt fenc- ing pouring run-off into the rivers and bay– I see it every time it rains.” -Naomi Manders, former Equine Trails Coor- dinator for Maryland National Park & Plan- ning Commission
“First, what are the reasons and back-
ground behind these proposed changes? As presented, they appear to have been drawn up from an “academic” viewpoint with little thought to practicality, expense or particu- lar situations. Are these aimed at major of- fenders and the rest of us are caught up in the system? I agree with other posted com- ments regarding these proposed changes, especially the impracticality and expense of fencing off all intermittent streams...” -Karla Stoner, Bloomsbury Forge
“I recently looked over a report for chang- es to the Nutrient Management plans un- der consideration [by MDA], and in my opinion, none of these are necessary. “We are trying to ensure the success and
800-244-9580 |
www.equiery.com continued....
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96