I want Rob Sand to be successful. He needs to stop with the "both parties are the same, I wish I could be an independent" garbage. The parties are not the same. If he thinks they are he needs to do the hard thing and run as an independent. The democratic party will need a standard bearer, not some candidate whose slogan is "vote democrat, they're the lesser of two weasels". He is frankly coming across as a typical politician when he behaves this way.
Thank you for asking all of the right questions, Art. I hope Sand can come up with some good answers in time instead of continuing to fall back on way too many non answers.
Sounds like Sand is tip-toeing around the water pollution problem. He needs to get some religion, let the scales fall from his eyes, and see the problem as it really is.
As a farm owner with a background in the old ways and also a degree in Chemistry, I see too many contradictions. We don’t have time to farm as we did. We dump a water soluble chemical fertilizer on our land and then act surprised when it’s in our watershed. We must over produce to pay all of the bills and bite our fingernails because someone destroyed our overseas
Markets. We owe the Bank because we don’t farm like our Grandfathers. No one had time to let the fields lay fallow so we have turned out rich Iowa Prairie into hardpan with a 4” layer of dust on top. Our farm has the advantage of not being leveraged to the point of loosing it but too many are not in that shape. What I see as a path forward is to see what we can do within existing market conditions and question the Corporate Model being imposed upon the Iowa Farmers today. It ain’t working folks so stop doing it.
I’m a non-farming member of both the Practical Farmers of Iowa, and the Iowa Farmers Union. These folks are working hard to implement more sustainable farming systems. We need to come together to find solutions for this problem. Thanks for your comment!
What do you think about using some of the crop insurance subsidy to fund a supply control program such as the old soil bank? Contracts would need to be longer than year to year. Good for the environment and depending on the acres, should bump the price of corn/beans.
I know as much about farming as the average person that detasseled in the 70's and now eats sweet corn would know but I do understand the chemistry side. Is there a PIK program that could be applied to certain "watershed" areas to allow for some healing to the aquifers while we work on sustainable, cost-effective solutions. I only interject cost because that's what will get the most attention. I went to a County Extension meeting by invite to discuss water treatment solutions to the livestock industry in the early '90s. Solutions were discussed right up until dollars and cents were discussed; anything over $.10/head was outside of any ROI. If agriculture is going to continue and I like to eat, I'm willing to bet it's going to take municipalities to deal with it.
Water is becoming the New Oil in some regions. Whether it is wasted or poisoned , it is no longer of any use. If one does not consider out ultimate survival as a species then the $10. Per head is a sizable obstacle. On our Texas land, $10 per acre is the leasing rate for grazing
Thanks, and the decimal was before the 1....I brought up the cost near the end of my 5 minutes on Wastewater treatment, should've put it earlier and gotten my Ribeye sandwich and split. I mentioned that capital investment would likely be around $200,000 for a 5,000 head feed lot. "$40 a head?!" came out of the back of the room faster than an echo of my own words. It was now that the moderator jumped in and asked the question he wanted to ask: "By a show of hands, what's a price per head you think is fair?" And he opened the bidding at $10/head. He descended to a $1.00 before one hand went up and a Quarter before he had a consensus.
That was in 94 or 95 and in Dallas County. The ribeye's were really good though.
Additional thought Sir. Do we need to view the cost spread over a number of year? To invest in a treatment plant for a cattle operation, it likely is still in operation next year also. To look at an investment over a long term lowers the cost. Recalling the argument against corn as a motor fuel where the cost of the tractor and implements were calculated as if they were an annual cost. Will stop beating this horse but it concerns me.
Spot on Brian, capitol expense would have been amortized over 20 years at minimum. Similar operating systems I sold in 1995 are either being updated, overhauled or replaced today. Annual operating costs at 5% maybe, difficult to generalize but thats an educated guess. Another point or two for maintenance and repair, service the debt and you're still in a $2+/head window. Cover crops, rotation, PIK options are likely better options overall for acreage. Poultry, swine and cattle lots are going to require government bond level intervention.
This gets us back to Farming like Grandpa did. This was always my favorite. Manure was an asset on the farm then. Spreading it on the field daily eliminated Nitrate Fertilizer both in cost and poisoning water sources. When we find ourselves lacking money besides the Bank’s money, what do we have? Time? This was also a time of crop rotation and often grazing the fields following harvest.
Bingo. You can apply that formula across all spectrums. Too much money, spread like ao much spaghetti to see what sticks. Faster, more, AI, money in politics, and not education.
I wish I'd done better for my grandkids, hope they can recover from our mistakes
This is worthy of consideration . Makes more sense than Washington destroying the Market and giving a subsidy for the loss. That program had the advantage of allowing the soil to recover.
Sand's unwillingness to address issues like stinking water because they are unpopular with polluters or because they will affect him financially is the very reason so many of us are disenchanted, if not antipathetic, to the Democratic Party. Even when we elect Democrats, even when they have majorities, they succumb to their own financial priorities and those of their business associates. Where will we find candidates who support radical ideas like potable water, healthy soil, and economic equity?
I've been unimpressed with the first stages of his campaign. Iowa has big problems which is going to require leadership to fix. So far I've seen nothing resembling a willingness to lead, just a fear that he will offend someone (other than trans athletes). Not the way to build excitement for a campaign.
I'm going to bite. Google AI says: "The primary purpose of sports is to promote physical activity, improve motor skills, and enhance overall health and well-being. Beyond the physical benefits, sports also contribute to mental well-being, personal development, and social interaction."
Winning isn't on that list, but social interaction is. What better way to learn how to interact than to include trans men and women on teams. The alleged damage is that women will have to compete with transwomen and that's unfair. It's only unfair if the only reason to play is to win.
But even there, we could create a catagory for women and transwomen. What's really unfair is to leave transwomen out of the experience of team sports.
That all said, our whole problem is that it's now fair game to disrespect some people and that needs to stop. Utah banned transwomen from team sports--and they have a total of zero transwomen participating. This is a very boutique issue that impacts almost no one--the purpose is to divide us and make us hate one another. Talk about lousy leadership.
Great info from book, "Dodge County Inc." by Sonja Trom Eayrs. This is an instructive time-line when Big Ag got it's foot in Iowa's open door and is now a disastrous, polluting monstrosity. The biggest culprit, of course, is the America Farm Bureau Federation. They don't care about the farmer but are in it for the buck. CAFOS, meanwhile, have set Iowa back not too a few decades with factory farms. The AFBF, meanwhile, like the handful of cattle slaughter houses and chicken factories, steamroll filthy water and dirty air unchecked. Meanwhile, Grassley and Ernst, Feenstra and Nunn are asleep at the switch with the current Farm Bill: like 643 days and counting.
During the Dust Bowl era, FDR’s government stepped in to help farmers navigate sustainable farming methods. Farmers were losing their farms due to the drought but their farming practices were part of the problem, much like today.
The government provided subsidies for farmers to adopt practices such as planting trees as windbreakers to reduce soil erosion, terracing, crop rotation and contour plowing and even bought their starving cattle.
These practices weren’t mandated but if we can mandate ethanol in Iowa, surely some political leader can find the will to right the ship with a mandate to adopt basic conservation practices to save Iowa’s water and reduce our cancer rates.
One would think this might be a place to start in a Farm Bill even though I believe ag polluters need to have some skin in the game and help pay for the solutions so the public can reclaim their right to safe water and better health.
Assuming that federal relief is not a priority under the current administration, it’s more important than ever that Iowa flexes its own authority with political leaders that will tackle our water quality and cancer crisis.
The cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle, our eyes are now wide open and there is no turning back no matter the amount of state-sponsored propaganda that keeps getting flung about like a typical fall manure season. A full-court press is needed and any potential governor candidate should be the one leading the charge.
He should stop by Ames and chat with Practical Farmers of Iowa. Goto a field day next…
If he is going to flip 200,000 registered republicans in Iowa, he is likely being careful on how he talks about these issues. Finding the common ground might be the best strategy and coming together to solve for water.
Could not agree more. Sand is surely knowledgeable and conversant on all sides and factors involved in water quality, farm chemicals, cancer, etc. He is smart enough to prioritize what it takes to win--first the primary without unnecessarily driving away Ds, Rs and Inds, then the general election. He will advance and elaborate on the pertinent issues as the venue evolves and he likely can win, bringing us to divided government and the necessity to drop the silly stuff and concentrate on the essentials.
I’m hoping he finds a way to get us moving swiftly in the right direction. Practical Farmers of Iowa are getting the job done and could be a model. Even the big guys could start! In the meantime it’s more inequality as Some people can afford reverse osmosis systems. Cancer is not waiting.
For someone whose entire schtick as auditor is “accountability”, Rob sure seems reluctant to hold the ag industry accountable for polluting our water. This is a non-starter for me as a voter. Not only on issues of nutrient pollution, but on so many other issues I care about, Rob won’t clarify his positions. He lists no “issues” of import on campaign website. Rob needs to do better if he wants my vote.
If you were the candidate on the first swing through some Iowa cities, what would you suggest about the water? Are there any solutions that both parties would agree on? Solutions that could be put into practice quickly enough that you'd be re-elected in the next election? Just currious
Perhaps he could start by speaking about a check list of possible partial solutions to help improve situation and about ways the state could encourage more of those actions. You know, like Kim starts each year with her legislative list.
On slide 45, he makes recommendations that could be put into practice quickly, but the Ag Industry -- ethanol lobbyists, Tyson & other meatpackers, fertilizer salesmen, insurance salesmen like the Iowa Farm Bureau -- definitely doesn't want to see them implemented. It's all about the bottom line for them. As Chris says, we're growing corn, soy, and CAFOs at such a large scale, that our landscape can't handle it. Others states have regulations that our farmer-controlled legislature won't implement. That's why Iowa is referred to as "the sacrifice state". Legislators are sacrificing our wellbeing on behalf of big Ag.
Let’s not even dare mention the annihilated Mississippi delta, which was considered to be one of the largest most bountiful estuaries in the world and now locals boat miles out to find any kind of sea life. Shame on the Midwest and especially the state of Iowa .
I have read all of the comments below. Almost...I repeat...almost all are negative, make generalizations based on what they have just read or heard, and further the divisiveness that flourishes from the current administration. I have followed Rob Sand for several years. I am an eight decade native of Iowa. Some of you want an answer to decades old issues from this candidate right now! Have you asked this of any other in the past? His record speaks for itself, on his integrity and willingness to reach across what is now a grand canyon...to promote cooperation. I will give him this chance. I am surprised at you, Art...and disappointed, for the first time. Respectfully...
I want Rob Sand to be successful. He needs to stop with the "both parties are the same, I wish I could be an independent" garbage. The parties are not the same. If he thinks they are he needs to do the hard thing and run as an independent. The democratic party will need a standard bearer, not some candidate whose slogan is "vote democrat, they're the lesser of two weasels". He is frankly coming across as a typical politician when he behaves this way.
Thank you for asking all of the right questions, Art. I hope Sand can come up with some good answers in time instead of continuing to fall back on way too many non answers.
Sounds like Sand is tip-toeing around the water pollution problem. He needs to get some religion, let the scales fall from his eyes, and see the problem as it really is.
As a farm owner with a background in the old ways and also a degree in Chemistry, I see too many contradictions. We don’t have time to farm as we did. We dump a water soluble chemical fertilizer on our land and then act surprised when it’s in our watershed. We must over produce to pay all of the bills and bite our fingernails because someone destroyed our overseas
Markets. We owe the Bank because we don’t farm like our Grandfathers. No one had time to let the fields lay fallow so we have turned out rich Iowa Prairie into hardpan with a 4” layer of dust on top. Our farm has the advantage of not being leveraged to the point of loosing it but too many are not in that shape. What I see as a path forward is to see what we can do within existing market conditions and question the Corporate Model being imposed upon the Iowa Farmers today. It ain’t working folks so stop doing it.
I’m a non-farming member of both the Practical Farmers of Iowa, and the Iowa Farmers Union. These folks are working hard to implement more sustainable farming systems. We need to come together to find solutions for this problem. Thanks for your comment!
Brian,
What do you think about using some of the crop insurance subsidy to fund a supply control program such as the old soil bank? Contracts would need to be longer than year to year. Good for the environment and depending on the acres, should bump the price of corn/beans.
I know as much about farming as the average person that detasseled in the 70's and now eats sweet corn would know but I do understand the chemistry side. Is there a PIK program that could be applied to certain "watershed" areas to allow for some healing to the aquifers while we work on sustainable, cost-effective solutions. I only interject cost because that's what will get the most attention. I went to a County Extension meeting by invite to discuss water treatment solutions to the livestock industry in the early '90s. Solutions were discussed right up until dollars and cents were discussed; anything over $.10/head was outside of any ROI. If agriculture is going to continue and I like to eat, I'm willing to bet it's going to take municipalities to deal with it.
Water is becoming the New Oil in some regions. Whether it is wasted or poisoned , it is no longer of any use. If one does not consider out ultimate survival as a species then the $10. Per head is a sizable obstacle. On our Texas land, $10 per acre is the leasing rate for grazing
Thanks, and the decimal was before the 1....I brought up the cost near the end of my 5 minutes on Wastewater treatment, should've put it earlier and gotten my Ribeye sandwich and split. I mentioned that capital investment would likely be around $200,000 for a 5,000 head feed lot. "$40 a head?!" came out of the back of the room faster than an echo of my own words. It was now that the moderator jumped in and asked the question he wanted to ask: "By a show of hands, what's a price per head you think is fair?" And he opened the bidding at $10/head. He descended to a $1.00 before one hand went up and a Quarter before he had a consensus.
That was in 94 or 95 and in Dallas County. The ribeye's were really good though.
Additional thought Sir. Do we need to view the cost spread over a number of year? To invest in a treatment plant for a cattle operation, it likely is still in operation next year also. To look at an investment over a long term lowers the cost. Recalling the argument against corn as a motor fuel where the cost of the tractor and implements were calculated as if they were an annual cost. Will stop beating this horse but it concerns me.
Spot on Brian, capitol expense would have been amortized over 20 years at minimum. Similar operating systems I sold in 1995 are either being updated, overhauled or replaced today. Annual operating costs at 5% maybe, difficult to generalize but thats an educated guess. Another point or two for maintenance and repair, service the debt and you're still in a $2+/head window. Cover crops, rotation, PIK options are likely better options overall for acreage. Poultry, swine and cattle lots are going to require government bond level intervention.
This gets us back to Farming like Grandpa did. This was always my favorite. Manure was an asset on the farm then. Spreading it on the field daily eliminated Nitrate Fertilizer both in cost and poisoning water sources. When we find ourselves lacking money besides the Bank’s money, what do we have? Time? This was also a time of crop rotation and often grazing the fields following harvest.
Bingo. You can apply that formula across all spectrums. Too much money, spread like ao much spaghetti to see what sticks. Faster, more, AI, money in politics, and not education.
I wish I'd done better for my grandkids, hope they can recover from our mistakes
This is worthy of consideration . Makes more sense than Washington destroying the Market and giving a subsidy for the loss. That program had the advantage of allowing the soil to recover.
Sand's unwillingness to address issues like stinking water because they are unpopular with polluters or because they will affect him financially is the very reason so many of us are disenchanted, if not antipathetic, to the Democratic Party. Even when we elect Democrats, even when they have majorities, they succumb to their own financial priorities and those of their business associates. Where will we find candidates who support radical ideas like potable water, healthy soil, and economic equity?
I've been unimpressed with the first stages of his campaign. Iowa has big problems which is going to require leadership to fix. So far I've seen nothing resembling a willingness to lead, just a fear that he will offend someone (other than trans athletes). Not the way to build excitement for a campaign.
Water issues require real solutions — thanks for again pointing out the waffling of those seeking office, Art!
I'm going to bite. Google AI says: "The primary purpose of sports is to promote physical activity, improve motor skills, and enhance overall health and well-being. Beyond the physical benefits, sports also contribute to mental well-being, personal development, and social interaction."
Winning isn't on that list, but social interaction is. What better way to learn how to interact than to include trans men and women on teams. The alleged damage is that women will have to compete with transwomen and that's unfair. It's only unfair if the only reason to play is to win.
But even there, we could create a catagory for women and transwomen. What's really unfair is to leave transwomen out of the experience of team sports.
That all said, our whole problem is that it's now fair game to disrespect some people and that needs to stop. Utah banned transwomen from team sports--and they have a total of zero transwomen participating. This is a very boutique issue that impacts almost no one--the purpose is to divide us and make us hate one another. Talk about lousy leadership.
Great info from book, "Dodge County Inc." by Sonja Trom Eayrs. This is an instructive time-line when Big Ag got it's foot in Iowa's open door and is now a disastrous, polluting monstrosity. The biggest culprit, of course, is the America Farm Bureau Federation. They don't care about the farmer but are in it for the buck. CAFOS, meanwhile, have set Iowa back not too a few decades with factory farms. The AFBF, meanwhile, like the handful of cattle slaughter houses and chicken factories, steamroll filthy water and dirty air unchecked. Meanwhile, Grassley and Ernst, Feenstra and Nunn are asleep at the switch with the current Farm Bill: like 643 days and counting.
During the Dust Bowl era, FDR’s government stepped in to help farmers navigate sustainable farming methods. Farmers were losing their farms due to the drought but their farming practices were part of the problem, much like today.
The government provided subsidies for farmers to adopt practices such as planting trees as windbreakers to reduce soil erosion, terracing, crop rotation and contour plowing and even bought their starving cattle.
These practices weren’t mandated but if we can mandate ethanol in Iowa, surely some political leader can find the will to right the ship with a mandate to adopt basic conservation practices to save Iowa’s water and reduce our cancer rates.
One would think this might be a place to start in a Farm Bill even though I believe ag polluters need to have some skin in the game and help pay for the solutions so the public can reclaim their right to safe water and better health.
Assuming that federal relief is not a priority under the current administration, it’s more important than ever that Iowa flexes its own authority with political leaders that will tackle our water quality and cancer crisis.
The cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle, our eyes are now wide open and there is no turning back no matter the amount of state-sponsored propaganda that keeps getting flung about like a typical fall manure season. A full-court press is needed and any potential governor candidate should be the one leading the charge.
Sorry for all the idioms, they just felt right 😊
Yes!
He should stop by Ames and chat with Practical Farmers of Iowa. Goto a field day next…
If he is going to flip 200,000 registered republicans in Iowa, he is likely being careful on how he talks about these issues. Finding the common ground might be the best strategy and coming together to solve for water.
Could not agree more. Sand is surely knowledgeable and conversant on all sides and factors involved in water quality, farm chemicals, cancer, etc. He is smart enough to prioritize what it takes to win--first the primary without unnecessarily driving away Ds, Rs and Inds, then the general election. He will advance and elaborate on the pertinent issues as the venue evolves and he likely can win, bringing us to divided government and the necessity to drop the silly stuff and concentrate on the essentials.
Keep on pushing common sense young Art, god only knows we need a ton of it these days.
I’m hoping he finds a way to get us moving swiftly in the right direction. Practical Farmers of Iowa are getting the job done and could be a model. Even the big guys could start! In the meantime it’s more inequality as Some people can afford reverse osmosis systems. Cancer is not waiting.
For someone whose entire schtick as auditor is “accountability”, Rob sure seems reluctant to hold the ag industry accountable for polluting our water. This is a non-starter for me as a voter. Not only on issues of nutrient pollution, but on so many other issues I care about, Rob won’t clarify his positions. He lists no “issues” of import on campaign website. Rob needs to do better if he wants my vote.
If you were the candidate on the first swing through some Iowa cities, what would you suggest about the water? Are there any solutions that both parties would agree on? Solutions that could be put into practice quickly enough that you'd be re-elected in the next election? Just currious
I’m not the candidate and that’s the point. I would start with a ban on fall fertilizer. I would encourage cover crops. I would say something.
Perhaps he could start by speaking about a check list of possible partial solutions to help improve situation and about ways the state could encourage more of those actions. You know, like Kim starts each year with her legislative list.
It’s always about the reelection isn’t it.
Water scientist, Chris Jones, has given variations of this excellent presentation to many audiences across the state:
https://cjones.iihr.uiowa.edu/sites/cjones.iihr.uiowa.edu/files/2022-04/Geog%201070.pdf
On slide 45, he makes recommendations that could be put into practice quickly, but the Ag Industry -- ethanol lobbyists, Tyson & other meatpackers, fertilizer salesmen, insurance salesmen like the Iowa Farm Bureau -- definitely doesn't want to see them implemented. It's all about the bottom line for them. As Chris says, we're growing corn, soy, and CAFOs at such a large scale, that our landscape can't handle it. Others states have regulations that our farmer-controlled legislature won't implement. That's why Iowa is referred to as "the sacrifice state". Legislators are sacrificing our wellbeing on behalf of big Ag.
Let’s not even dare mention the annihilated Mississippi delta, which was considered to be one of the largest most bountiful estuaries in the world and now locals boat miles out to find any kind of sea life. Shame on the Midwest and especially the state of Iowa .
I have read all of the comments below. Almost...I repeat...almost all are negative, make generalizations based on what they have just read or heard, and further the divisiveness that flourishes from the current administration. I have followed Rob Sand for several years. I am an eight decade native of Iowa. Some of you want an answer to decades old issues from this candidate right now! Have you asked this of any other in the past? His record speaks for itself, on his integrity and willingness to reach across what is now a grand canyon...to promote cooperation. I will give him this chance. I am surprised at you, Art...and disappointed, for the first time. Respectfully...
He is in a hard place since his in-laws are putting up a bunch of money for his campaign that comes from fertilizer.
Hoping it doesn’t take one of his own getting cancer to persuade him to get off the both sides train.