5 ms·

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

by 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.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    They're not optimizing for benefit to society, mostly just cost.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      Optimized for maximum profit, really. That does not not necessarily mean optimized for cost. For example, society willing to pay a sufficient premium for grapes that come with a no-burn guarantee would mean that burning, while less costly than alternatives, is less profitable in the aggregate. The market would trend towards avoiding the practice. However, you will find no such agreements because society does recognize the practice as being a problem to society.
imtringued 4y ago
That may work in a water rich environment but in California you are basically throwing money away by reducing water retention and increasing evaporative losses.

by 0des 4y ago

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.
- kadoban 4y ago
  They're not optimizing for benefit to society, mostly just cost.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    Optimized for maximum profit, really. That does not not necessarily mean optimized for cost. For example, society willing to pay a sufficient premium for grapes that come with a no-burn guarantee would mean that burning, while less costly than alternatives, is less profitable in the aggregate. The market would trend towards avoiding the practice. However, you will find no such agreements because society does recognize the practice as being a problem to society.

imtringued 4y ago

That may work in a water rich environment but in California you are basically throwing money away by reducing water retention and increasing evaporative losses.