next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
To: All
From: John Sollows
Date: April 28/11
Yup, it's a messy story, one with which I have had some involvement.
It's unfair to accuse government departments of sweeping things under the
rug. We brought the problem up with Environment N.S. in 2008. They
actually moved quickly to start monitoring the situation, and do have
competent staff. That said, they certainly are under-resourced, and do the
best they can under challenging circumstances, which are not likely to
become less challenging under current financial circumstances. Do we want
to pay more taxes to solve the problem?
The geographic distribution of the cyanobacterial blooms and high phosphate
levels cannot give 100% incontrovertible proof that mink farming is the main
culprit, but the circumstantial evidence is extremely strong; strong enough
when combined with common sense to convince me that it's time for all
involved to stop fighting, acknowledge that mink farms are strongly
implicated, and tackle the problem. Many mink farmers comply already and
are good environmental citizens. A smaller number are not and that,
combined with the sins of the past are likely to leave us with a problem for
years to come.
An employee of the mink breeders' association raised the possibility of
climate change, acid rain, and deforestation as possible causes. Yes, they
may aggravate the situation, but he was laying red herrings and wasting
everyone's time. These blooms NOT occur in nearby streams and lakes which
do not lie downstream from mink farms.
This situation is a beautiful example of why rural economic development
needs to be managed on the basis of catchment area.
In my book, mink farmers and their employees have a right to make a living,
but also an obligation to be good neighbours and look after the next
generation.
-----Original Message-----
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca]
On Behalf Of David & Alison Webster
Sent: April-28-11 9:13 PM
To: NatureNS@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: [NatureNS] Mink stink; long
Dear All, Apr 28, 2011
An article in the Chron Hrld today (Minks make stink) illustrates how
difficult it is to correct a problem when the powers that be want to sweep
everything under the rug.
A severe problem in Lake Fanning in 2006 led to field studies by NS DO
Environment in 2008, 2009 and 2010 but the source of contamination wasn't
located because that was not in the mandate. The mandate apparently being
"study this slowly and with blinders pulled tight." Why otherwise, could it
take more than 5 weeks (let along 5 years) to nail down the cause and
develop a solution ?
Reading between the lines of this sketchy article, the source
contamination can not be Nitrate or Ammonia N because the organisms involved
all fix N from air. Presumably P, found to be high, is the culprit..
P can reach water systems (rivers/lakes) only by runoff high in P or by
way of soils that are hugely overloaded with P to the extent it is mobile in
soil water.
One should not rush to judgment, and conclude that mink waste is the
source, but the reminder by Agriculture's communication director that the
industry brings in millions of $$$ is proof, at least from that quarter.
Composting of mink waste is mentioned, but if the waste is in fact high
in P then usual composting practices would be ineffective unless high rates
of suitable P-capturing materials were admixed with or layered below the
compost; e.g. Anhydrite, a by-product of Gypsum extraction, spent fluidized
bed material from power plants or Cement kiln dust.
I was astounded some 15 years ago to learn that NS DOE has no labs and
is staffed largely be people with no science background. DOE employees and
the NS public continue to have my sympathy.
Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects