4 ms·

Why burn? Won't they die on their own?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Why burn? Won't they die on their own? "San Joaquin Valley air regulators have struggled for nearly 20 years to outlaw the practice of agricultural burning, encouraging farmers instead to grind up forsaken crops in wood chippers and spread them as mulch. But amid a third year of drought, some fear a resurgence in large-scale burning because it’s cheaper than grinding, and because so many acres are being abandoned due to drought."
- djbusby 4y ago
  Yep, read that in TFA as well. Doesn't answer the question "why" does it?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The "crops" are not wheat or corn or something that the rotted remains can be plowed into the ground next year - they're apparently orchards, trees basically, that need to be ground up or burnt (or left to rot over periods of years).
    - 0des 4y ago
      Sugar cane crops are burned every year, it returns micronutrients to the soil and allows for mycchorizae to re-establish before the next season. Tilling and decomposing not only take longer, but it reduces yield and the tillings can add other fungi that outcompete the natural mycchorizae, making your next crop a season late and less able to intake nutrients efficiently, which increases the cost of fertilizer. Fertilizer runoff is what causes the yellow/green algae blooms in runoff ditches and holding ponds. That high of a concentration of nitrates, nitrites, phosphates, etc are bad for the environment in that concentration, on a similar level to the waste holding areas of a pig farm. It's a net negative for plant and animal life, including humans in the vicinity.
      - ASalazarMX 4y ago
        > Sugar cane crops are burned every year, it returns micronutrients to the soil and allows for mycchorizae to re-establish before the next season Holy cow, have you hit a nerve in me! I lived years in two Mexican cities adjacent to Texas, and I swear they burn the sugar cane when the winds are southbound, so all the contamination ends up in Mexico. Early winter you can see greyed skies and small amounts of ash and soot everywhere. Burning the cane makes it easier to harvest, but there are machines now that do that job, and as a bonus, you don't dehydrate or sterilize the upper soil. To be fair, some farmers also burn their crops in this side too, seeing how little environmental regulation there is. December and January are hard for your lungs there.
    - im3w1l 4y ago
      What chopping the trees down for fuel then? Burn them in a powerplant? Or turn into biogas or something?
      - bombcar 4y ago
        I suspect the energy density is low enough that the activity of moving them to a location for processing would be net-energy negative. Also the idea of getting California to approve a wood-burning powerplant is amusing.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    "because it's cheaper than grinding, and because so many acres are being abandoned due to drought"
  - prvc 4y ago
    In a word, cost.
cperciva 4y ago
Leaving dying plants in situ would probably attract pests... and in drought conditions it would probably all end up burning eventually anyway.
- djbusby 4y ago
  Chop and mulch and compost.
  - 0des 4y ago
    Tractors run on fuel, which is burned and costs money. It is significantly less negative impact to burn the field so the the nutrients are returned to the soil rather than put fuel in the air to do something that takes longer to break down into a bioavailable form and can lead to fungii that out-compete the natural healthy mycchorizal colony in the soil.
    - asdff 4y ago
      When you burn the crop there goes your nutrients in the cloud of smoke. When you grind it you leave everything there for the living soil to break down. You cited sugarcane further up in the thread. Even with that crop there is a lot of interest to develop better methods that don't require burning, because this leads to lung cancer or other issues in the local community. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/SC100 https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/SC100
      - 0des 4y ago
        I'm just explaining the logic behind why it happens, I don't live in that region anymore, and am not in agribusiness. Farmers are the min-maxers of the blue collar trades. Your source actually outlines the process I just described in the summation at the end. "In summary, the soil temperature increases that occurred with burning were higher in sand soil than in muck, and this effect dampened with soil depth. Transient (short-lived) soil temperature increases that occurred during the field burning events were smaller than the naturally occurring diurnal soil temperature swings that occurred throughout the growing season. This observation indicates that burn events likely have minimal impacts on soil microflora and microfauna. Young shoots emerging through the green cane harvest trash blanket during winter months will encounter colder air temperatures. This consistent microclimate effect will either delay growth or, in some cases, lead to frost damage, which translates to a loss in seasonal yield potential. Crop canopy damage by frost is more likely to occur with green cane harvest than with traditional burnt cane harvest. Therefore, switching from traditional burnt cane harvest to green cane harvest may have trade-off value for the growers. In the long term, green cane harvest may add organic matter in the soil (important in sand) and reduce soil loss (important in muck). However, there may be some short-term yield losses through delayed growth and frost damage in young plants. The proper management of the excessive trash may reduce the negative effects of trash blanket on sugarcane growth and yield. The ongoing research on trash management includes the evaluation of trash incorporation into the soil through disking, through raking of trash from the row and leaving it in the inter-row space, and through partial removing of trash from the field." emphasis is mine.

> Why burn? Won't they die on their own? "San Joaquin Valley air regulators have struggled for nearly 20 years to outlaw the practice of agricultural burning, encouraging farmers instead to grind up forsaken crops in wood chippers and spread them as mulch. But amid a third year of drought, some fear a resurgence in large-scale burning because it’s cheaper than grinding, and because so many acres are being abandoned due to drought."

djbusby 4y ago
Yep, read that in TFA as well. Doesn't answer the question "why" does it?
- bombcar 4y ago
  The "crops" are not wheat or corn or something that the rotted remains can be plowed into the ground next year - they're apparently orchards, trees basically, that need to be ground up or burnt (or left to rot over periods of years).
  - 0des 4y ago
    Sugar cane crops are burned every year, it returns micronutrients to the soil and allows for mycchorizae to re-establish before the next season. Tilling and decomposing not only take longer, but it reduces yield and the tillings can add other fungi that outcompete the natural mycchorizae, making your next crop a season late and less able to intake nutrients efficiently, which increases the cost of fertilizer. Fertilizer runoff is what causes the yellow/green algae blooms in runoff ditches and holding ponds. That high of a concentration of nitrates, nitrites, phosphates, etc are bad for the environment in that concentration, on a similar level to the waste holding areas of a pig farm. It's a net negative for plant and animal life, including humans in the vicinity.
    - ASalazarMX 4y ago
      > Sugar cane crops are burned every year, it returns micronutrients to the soil and allows for mycchorizae to re-establish before the next season Holy cow, have you hit a nerve in me! I lived years in two Mexican cities adjacent to Texas, and I swear they burn the sugar cane when the winds are southbound, so all the contamination ends up in Mexico. Early winter you can see greyed skies and small amounts of ash and soot everywhere. Burning the cane makes it easier to harvest, but there are machines now that do that job, and as a bonus, you don't dehydrate or sterilize the upper soil. To be fair, some farmers also burn their crops in this side too, seeing how little environmental regulation there is. December and January are hard for your lungs there.
  - im3w1l 4y ago
    What chopping the trees down for fuel then? Burn them in a powerplant? Or turn into biogas or something?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      I suspect the energy density is low enough that the activity of moving them to a location for processing would be net-energy negative. Also the idea of getting California to approve a wood-burning powerplant is amusing.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  "because it's cheaper than grinding, and because so many acres are being abandoned due to drought"
- prvc 4y ago
  In a word, cost.

cperciva 4y ago

Leaving dying plants in situ would probably attract pests... and in drought conditions it would probably all end up burning eventually anyway.

djbusby 4y ago
Chop and mulch and compost.
- 0des 4y ago
  Tractors run on fuel, which is burned and costs money. It is significantly less negative impact to burn the field so the the nutrients are returned to the soil rather than put fuel in the air to do something that takes longer to break down into a bioavailable form and can lead to fungii that out-compete the natural healthy mycchorizal colony in the soil.
  - asdff 4y ago
    When you burn the crop there goes your nutrients in the cloud of smoke. When you grind it you leave everything there for the living soil to break down. You cited sugarcane further up in the thread. Even with that crop there is a lot of interest to develop better methods that don't require burning, because this leads to lung cancer or other issues in the local community. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/SC100 https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/SC100
    - 0des 4y ago
      I'm just explaining the logic behind why it happens, I don't live in that region anymore, and am not in agribusiness. Farmers are the min-maxers of the blue collar trades. Your source actually outlines the process I just described in the summation at the end. "In summary, the soil temperature increases that occurred with burning were higher in sand soil than in muck, and this effect dampened with soil depth. Transient (short-lived) soil temperature increases that occurred during the field burning events were smaller than the naturally occurring diurnal soil temperature swings that occurred throughout the growing season. This observation indicates that burn events likely have minimal impacts on soil microflora and microfauna. Young shoots emerging through the green cane harvest trash blanket during winter months will encounter colder air temperatures. This consistent microclimate effect will either delay growth or, in some cases, lead to frost damage, which translates to a loss in seasonal yield potential. Crop canopy damage by frost is more likely to occur with green cane harvest than with traditional burnt cane harvest. Therefore, switching from traditional burnt cane harvest to green cane harvest may have trade-off value for the growers. In the long term, green cane harvest may add organic matter in the soil (important in sand) and reduce soil loss (important in muck). However, there may be some short-term yield losses through delayed growth and frost damage in young plants. The proper management of the excessive trash may reduce the negative effects of trash blanket on sugarcane growth and yield. The ongoing research on trash management includes the evaluation of trash incorporation into the soil through disking, through raking of trash from the row and leaving it in the inter-row space, and through partial removing of trash from the field." emphasis is mine.