Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

Study finds declining sulfur levels due to drop in pollution and coal use is hurting soil.

2016-05-15

Since coal use is down so much the farmland in Illinois is getting low in sulfur (air pollution used to provide it) and may now need to be fertilized with sulfur based fertilizers.
Air pollution legislation to control fossil fuel emissions and the associated acid rain has worked - perhaps leading to the need for sulfur fertilizers for crop production. A University of Illinois study drawing from over 20 years of data shows that sulfur levels in Midwest watersheds and rivers have steadily declined, so much so that farmers may need to consider applying sulfur in the not too distant future.

Posted by:3dc

#11 "The law of unintended consequences once again bites man in the ass."

I've begun to believe none of this crap in unintended, #1 Darth. >:-(

Posted by: Barbara 2016-05-15 19:44

#10 On Glenmore's note, see Wiki for 'Hydrodesulfurization' and a newer process here.

Lot's of sulfur removed here too, especially since the 'Low Sulfur Diesel' mandate.

Posted by: Mullah Richard 2016-05-15 17:26

#9 There are mountains of sulfur in Kazahkstan extracted from the sour oil so they can sell it. You can probably name your price if you come get it. Likewise, lots of sulfur removed from gas and oil in other places - come and get it. So much sulfur is available that the true sulfur mines have shut down as uneconomic.

Posted by: Glenmore 2016-05-15 16:38

#8 Sent the story to a family farmer in Neb who have had their farm for >120 years. This year was the first time their soil ever needed sulfur added. 25lbs/acre. (+3000 acres)

Posted by: 3dc 2016-05-15 15:51

#7 Peak Sulfur!
Yep
It's worse than we thought.

I'll recon Snowy thing could find you some sulphur.

Posted by: Shipman 2016-05-15 15:45

#6 "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

--Ronald Reagan

Posted by: charger 2016-05-15 11:54

#5 No you can't replace sulfur with another compound. Sulfur is a plant nutrient. It was in my old horticulture texts that said that lack of sulfur was rare because of fossil fuel use. So most recommendations for fertilizer was say to use ammonium nitrate instead of ammonium sulfate since the soil had plenty of sulfur.

Posted by: Pliny Glons2836 2016-05-15 11:12

#4 ...and may now need to be fertilized with sulfur based fertilizers.

That stinks.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2016-05-15 07:37

#3 Yet another opportunity for farm subsidy. Evidently there are a few who are not yet Democrats. We must go after them to ensure they vote properly. See your extension office for details.

Posted by: Besoeker 2016-05-15 03:18

#2 while this may be so, the article misstates the cause of acidic soil. Rain is naturally acidic in the absence of ash in the air. Ash gets in the air from burning fuel. 'Acid rain' only became a problem when at the behest of the EPA ash was removed from the air to reduce pollution by it. Fortunately acid soil or water is easily sweetened by application of lime, and acid rain is therefore not a significant problem anywhere.
Lack of sulfur in soil can probably be handled by application of some other compound.

Posted by: Grins Snese4215 2016-05-15 01:59

#1 The law of unintended consequences once again bites man in the ass.

Posted by: DarthVader 2016-05-15 01:29

00:00