SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Each summer, grass seed farmers in Oregon clear their fields after harvest to make way for new growth. Some simply till their land, while others get rid of grass stubble, weeds and insects using a practice that goes back more than 50 years: field burning. This method has long been controversial in Oregon, where many residents claim the smoke leads to long-term health problems.
Track star Steve Prefontaine took a stand against field burning in 1975. (Many Oregonians will also remember the 1988 fatal traffic accident caused by smoke from a nearby field.) The issue is heating up again in the 2009 legislative session, where two bills have been introduced that would get rid of field burning altogether.
House Bill 2183, backed by Governor Ted Kulongoski, would phase out field burning over a three year period and Senate Bill 528 would immediately ban the practice. Conservation advocates are in favor of the regulations, but grass seed farmers say they're too extreme.
Do farmers burn fields near your property? How does it affect you? Do you burn your fields? What would a ban mean for your farming practices? What about your livelihood?
GUESTS:
- Charlie Tebbutt: Staff attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center and co-director of the Campaign to End Field Burning
- Nick Bowers: Co-owner of Tydan Farms in Harrisburg, Oregon and chairman of public relations committee for the Oregon Seed Council
- Floyd Prozanski: State senator (D-South Lane and North Douglas Counties) and co-sponsor of Senate Bill 528
- Roger Beyer: Executive secretary of the Oregon Seed Council, independent lobbyist representing farming and other interests and a former Oregon State Senator
Tagged as: air quality · farming · field burning
Photo credit: Damien /Flickr/ Creative Commons
-
Smoke and fine particulate, regardless of the source, has the potential to make life a living hell for sensitive groups of people. However, it is a mistake to single out one industry.
Do you drive your car on a daily basis? If so, you are also contributing fine particulate into the atmosphere.
Do you buy products made in China? If so, you are contributing to the burning of coal in Chinese powerplants that have virutally no regulatory restrictions and therefore spew gigantic amounts of fine particulate into the atmosphere (which ends up on the West Coast, btw).
Do you have a woodstove or fireplace that you enjoy sitting in front of on a cold winter night? If so, you are contributing fine particultes to the atmosphere during a time of year when ventilation is extremely low and those particulates hang around low to the ground.
Does your house have any vinyl siding, windows, or floor tiles? If so, you are contributing to fine particulate and VOC pollution from the factories that make your products.
Do you buy products that were shipped by truck? You guessed it, you are contributing to fine particulate pollution from diesel exhaust.
Although I understand the frustration of these sensitive groups of people, the government can only do so much before industry -- any industry -- becomes incapable of operating. At some point, government regulations have to stop and personal responsibilty has to take over.
It would be a mistake to take field burning away from farmers completely. Over the last 20 years, grass seed growers have reduced field burning to the bare minimum needed to remain competitive in the market, keep soil from eroding, and keep tillage to a minimum.
Instead of banning the practice altogether, perhaps there are better ways to provide sensitive people with more warning of impending smoke intrusions? Perhaps organizing a non-partisan/multi-party state task force to tackle just this topic would end up helping everybody out? It would also represent a more reasonable step towards solving an emotionally charged issue.
-
Let's get this right - asthma is a disease (unlike the Oregonian, which editorialized about the death of a "perfectly healthly" asthmatic). People with diseases should not live in areas that exacerbate their diseases. Smoke is smoke. There is far less biogenic smoke in Oregon than there was 100 years ago. 100 years ago, they had a word for asthmatics - dead.
-
You got that right!
-
PW & Jewels :
Many folks had a word for African Americans back 100 years ago that we don't use any more - fortunately, our attitudes towards many things have evolved for the better, including (for most of us) our respect for our shared environment. The "good old days" are gone, and good riddance.
-
Oregon, along with the remainder of the United States, is undergoing a time
of virtually unparalleled recession and economic instability. The survival
of Oregon's grass seed industry, Oregon's second-largest agricultural
industry, is vital to Oregon. The present economic situation is akin to
continuing business operations in the midst of an earthquake. Any reduction
or elimination of field burning, unlike during prior years when there was a
strong economy, will most certainly be the straw that shatters the already
broken bones of the camel's back, crumbling the economic foundation on which
this state stands. There will be scant hope for recovery from jobs lost as a
result of farm failures and the ripple effects to former employees,
suppliers, and consumers, all those they touch, ad infinitum. Massive lost
income tax revenue, coupled with greater unemployment benefit costs, will
require the state to redefine the term "Depression". -
I lived in Eugene during the 60's. The smoke would be so bad that you literally could not be across the street. It not near as bad now but it is at last time to end the practice.
-
As an ecologist it is once again the annoyance we see trumping the damage we don't. Your speaker talked about missing three beautiful days in August. Poor thing.
The whole Willamette Valley is a flood plain. The soil is easily erodable and porous silt or heavy clay. That means that it erodes easily and dramatically and chemicals pass through it easily and quickly and right into the ground water or the river. The other alterrnatives to burning are massively more expensive and more damaging but he won't have to see them or deal with them since he is upstream.
-
Thank you for this comment! People are not considering the basic geology of life. Soil is a valuable resouce and plowing squanders it in dust clouds on the hot days of summer. Also, most field burning occurs on very steep hillslopes where erosion can quickly decimate soil quality. Field burning is a simple, natural practice that is effective.
-
This is a process that has been in place for several decades. Why is this such a concern now? The farmers dont burn every day, and if you or your children have asthma or any other condition, then stay away from those areas until the farmers are done. Pretty simple. Burning doesnt kill our ozones, or any other damage to our atmosphere, like many other businesses. Come on. Why is this an issue?
-
I researched this industry for a 400 level ethics class in college with the intent of shutting it down. I too resented the smoke in summer as I was an avid water skier. However, after doing the research I came to the conclusion that field burning was the best solution.
I also fight asthma that is why I no longer live in the Southern Willamette valley which I came to find out is one of the worst places in the world to live if you have allergies. If health is really the concern. MOVE!
-
Field burning is a long established and effective agricultural practice. Plowing the land instead of burning is not always an acceptable alternative. Plowing increases erosion, loss of topsoil, and requires weeks of plowing. After a field burn new grass shoot can return within weeks. I have lived my whole life next to grassseed fields, though I am not a farmer, but would much prefer living with an afternoon of smoke than weeks of plowing.
Oregon is an agriculture state and I grow tired of newcomers moving to the state and complaining. People have moved to the Willamette Valley in great numbers over the years, and then expect us to change our ways. If folks have bad alergies or dislike the smell of smoke in the fall, maybe they should move out of the state to a more urban friendly environment such as Seattle or San Francisco.
-
Matt, you or your ancestors were a newcomer to the state of Oregon once too. The argument that newer citizens are less entitled to an opinion or have less perspective is fallacious - many of us have come from other places that have struggled with many of the same issues found in Oregon - why do you dismiss the perspective of these folk as less worthy? Oregon is not the center of the world, and times and mainstream viewpoints do change. Maybe you should move to a more rural state such as Kansas?
-
I can't believe that this ridiculously outdated farming procedure is still allowed here. This is crazy. Epecially considering the brush fire dangers inherent to the Western States.
I moved here recently from the East coast and this practice has been banned in most states there becuase it's ineffective and mainly just adding to air pollution.
Word up to farmers: Travel back East and learn some newer agricultural techiniques.
-
Word up to transplants,
If you don't like it, Move back to the east coast.
-
The Harrisburg farmer just said it - we can't bear the cost of removing the waste product from this product, so we shift the burden of that cost to others, with the added benefit of inflicting this ongoing health threat on those around them.
If the crop is not profitable, sorry, but not my problem.
Glenn
Sisters
-
I cannot believe there can't be market for grass seed straw!
When I lived in Astoria I met scientists from all over the world working to find new ways to use fish by-products from fish sauces to new ways to present less favored fish.
Oregon must think forward!!!
Nancy
-
How can your guest claim that tilling in the stubble doesn't work because there is not the necessary soil organisms in his soil, when the symthetic fertilizers and pesticides that are commonly used by grass seed farmers seriously degrade the natural soil microbes? Don't claim that the necessary conditions do not exist (for tilling) when it is your practices that contribute to those conditions not existing.
-
It is not a choice of bad for good as is implied. Of course people are opposed to field burning in and of itself when not compared to anything else. Everyone is, probably even your grass seed farmer if he had an overall better choice.
Go back to your medical people and ask them which they would RATHER have dust+chemicals+erosion or smoke? I would rather everyone in the state stops driving because of the air quality because I ride my bike every day. I think car exhaust is far far more dangerous than smoke.Will Mr Tebbutt get rid of his car for my health? Is he next going to make people shut down their fireplaces and barbecues? Because that is certainly uncontroled burning often of unknown and unhealthy materials.
-
I also believe that for those who have problems like asthma, they should not live in the valley because it is a given that pollen and other natural content of our air (even short of having anything to do with field burning) will cause them problems. I think they need to realize that the Willamette Valley, despite and because of its beauty, will cause them grief. Many of those who complain are those who move in from elsewhere. I think there is a sound reason to suggest they live elsewhere because this area will never be right for them.
I have heard of a medical theory which states that when impurities, stresses, irritants, bacterias, and viruses are removed from our environment (a consequence similar to the use of anti-bacterial soap) this actually causes our immune systems to become weaker due to a lack of a stressor. In my lifetime, I am not aware of any farmers or other natives to the area who
had or have health issues exacerbated by field burning. I would have to believe that we, in ever greater numbers, would be in poorer health if some of these stresses from our lives are ever removed.
I also find that SB528 is unnecessarily discriminatory and restrictive in that it selects out particular crops and methods of control, while only nine counties would be affected. I believe that, above all else, Oregonians want to be fair and would be strongly opposed to this bill. Farmers of the selected crops and listed in the counties included in SB528, Section 1, Paragraph 1 would be the recipient of unwarranted discrimination and be put at a disadvantage to other Oregon farmers not from the listed counties. All burning (e.g., for other crops, fireplace, backyard, etc.) from all Oregon counties (since smoke drifts) should be restricted if smoke is the primary consideration for the creation of this bill. -
Would changing the public’s tolerance for weed seed in their grass seed products allow growers to sell seed with higher weed seed percentages? And would this change in the public attitude naturally result in less field burning?
-
Since tilling does not always work and pesticides are so agregious what are the other alternatives? Come up with valid, cost effective alternatives which are environmentally friendly and the field burning will stop. Emulating natural burning of weeds, pests and undergrowth needs to be expanded to our forests. Removing the straw or undergrowth removes nutrients that are returned to the soil after a burn.
I put up with wood smoke 9 months out of the year because wood stoves are so predominant in rural Polk county. But those wood stoves were there before I was born here. Telling all these people they need get rid of their wood stoves seems pretty arrogant to me.
-
Instead of a complete ban, is it possible to make field burning more efficient? remove some of the straw, add accelerant that burns relatively cleanly, and speed the burn process, at a higher temperature with less by product? Has anyone looked into improving the method of the process itself? Off the top of my head, it seems removing 2/3 of the straw would leave plenty of straw for fuel, add a quick, high temp acclerant like a sugar based alcohol to improve the actual burn process would lessen smoke, particulate and length of time of the burn while still killing the weed seeds?
-
This is clearly an economic issue. Mr Bowers has pointed out propane burning was ineffective due to too low of a temperature. This could be resolved with better engineering of the equipment. The lack of a market for straw may better be stated as there is no profit in dealing with the straw. I would suggest if there is such a tight margin on annual rye grass, perhaps a different crop (grass or other) should be grown. As the acres of rye goes down, the price will go up and thus the ability to pay for the elimination of the open burning practice will occur and the crop will still be profitable.
-
I am a 4th genertation farmer Northeast of Salem. We do not practice field burning, we are orchardist. It is my understanding that that proposed bills would eliminate all agriclutural burning. We burn trees when we renew orchards, we also burn diseased trees to eliminate pathogens.
The burning of the Willamette Valley prairie grasses was practice for millenia by Native Indians. The burning practices used by todays farmers are regulated and safe.
-
The relatively small amount of field burning that still occurs is done on land/crop types that require it. If you have a heavy clay soil, as Mr. Bowers does, you cannot till your straw back into the soil. If you have annual ryegrass, as Mr. Bowers does, there is no market for the straw. Also, the fine fescues that are grown in the Silverton hills require burning to set seed. The fields that are grown on steep slopes are burned because it is incredibly dangerous to till soils on those slopes and if you did till, the amount of erosion that would occur would be huge.
-
Very few farmers burn their fields in Mr Bowers' area. I guess they lucked out and didn't get those heavy clay fields.....
-
Even if there is a method of disposal for grass chaff, you need to replenish the nutrients removed in the grass.
-
"Thermal sterilization!"
Yow! What a great way to solve a problem, just call it something new! Ha ha ha, I have to wonder if the Infamous Frank Luntz is involved in this new Big brother lie?!?!
Why can't a Conservative just tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
"Thermal sterilization!"
That's a howler!
-
I believe that most of the smoke seen last year was a result of California and Oregon wildfires. There was so little grass acreage burned last year that I believe there was NO impact from those burns.
-
How dare the grass seed growers pollute the air we all breathe!
Could I go into their backyard and dispose of my unwanted waste because it's economically good for me?
No!
So...........stop polluting the air we all breathe!
-
It is economically good for you to pollute my air using your vehicle and other things you and others may do (e.g., burn backyard debris). Please don't pollute my air. I will also not be held responsible for the water you have now required to be polluted with chemicals.
-
uncle1
I don't drive.
You imply that the only alternative to field burning is the use of more chemicals. Hogwash.
Farmers that grow grass seed need to get a life and organically grow crops that can be eaten by humans.
Grass seed. What a waste.
So, uncle1...answer the question I posed: Could I go into your backyard and pollute the air you breathe? The air belongs to us all. You and other proponents of field burning have no right to destroy the air shed for your own economic gain.
-
And also-
Let's stop the insane practice of slash burning after we clearcut.
Stop clearcutting. Stop all burning.
-
I would just like to point out that matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change shape. If you compost, feed, or find some other use for the straw it is still going to give off the same amount of gasses as it decomposes as burning it. The removal of the straw also mines nutrients out of the soil that then have to be replaced for the next crop.
-
Healthy environments still contain human health hazards of many kinds.
Sadly, our region is not hospitable to allergy or asthma sufferers. Some of my cousins live elsewhere for this reason. The Willamette Valley has always grown grass. Native medicines include many remedies for "sore eyes" and "sore throat," symptoms of pollen allergies and smoke exposure.
Today, Oregon grows something like 92% of the nation’s grass seed. Not just lawn grass, but also nitrogen-fixing rye grass for crop rotation. Burning practices date from before white settlement. Traditional (i.e. sustainable) farmers and nomadic cultures across the world use burning to promote food plants and inhibit weeds.
Erosion, tilling, and pesticides threaten soil health, salmon and other riparian species, and public health (cancers and reproductive harm, airborne dust and pollutants).
It would be great if farmers could just “not use bad techniques,” but all practices have consequences. Untested practices, or unsuitable ones, can cause long-term harm.The knowledge that a farm family acquires over four generations in one place, can't be replicated by grad-students or armchair researchers. Ecologies operate on 30- and 50- and 100-year cycles, not just years. We've had problems with this before: out-of-state companies breaking up the 100-year-forestry-plan, and then using the environmentalists as a smoke-screen to cover their exit.
I appreciate that state agriculture officials and farmers do what they can to mitigate human health impacts. But I won't tell a century-farmer his business. Growers' jobs are going to be hard enough in the coming decades, with global climate change and urbanization.
I don't support any measure that pits urban activists against those whose livelihood actually depends on healthy, local soils.
- EKW, Portland, OR
-
In the 20th century, a "public health" campaign removed wetlands (to stop mosquitoes). Now we're putting the wetlands back: they are vital for water management, wildlife, and soil health.
Our "economy" might consider both of these actions as a benefit: after all, jobs were created. But our ecology suffers when massive experiments are undertaken without controls. Mandating widespread changes in agricultural practices constitute a massive biological experiment - no matter the intentions, the risks are great.
Polarized politics are not good for our region. The energy spent promoting “bans” on historic practices might be better spent on food security, sustainable industry, or education.
55% of Oregonians moved to our beautiful state from elsewhere. They can out-vote those who've been here for generations, but I hope they will consider the consequences. Oregon’s character was not created overnight; and opinion is a poor substitute for experience.
- EKW, Portland, OR
-
ah yes, the old "we were here first" argument, whereby any "newcomers" opinions don't count as much.
get over yourself and your "native" Oregonian malarky - or tell it to the natives who were here before you and see if they can keep a straight face.
-
I found Mr Bowers' comments quite disengenious. He uses a cheap* method of control that puts other farmers, who are more attentive to those around them, at a competitive disadvantage.
Public record shows that he burns more than 2 or 3 "problem" fields per year as he claims. If one were to drive along Bowers Drive outside Harrisburg, and adjacent roads, one would see that very few of Mr Bowers' farming neighbors burn their fields.
Of those few remaining farmers who burn their fields, I'd submit there is an attitude of "this is my land and I'll do as I please" with little regard for others' well being.
I would also submit that very few farmers, Mr Bowers included, will go out of business once field burning is eliminated. The overwhelmingly vast majority of Oregon grass seed farmers have adopted other control methods and are still in business.
* Next time someone needs to clean up their property they could save money by dumping the waste on Mr Bowers' fields---it'd be a lot cheaper than going to the landfill like everyone else does.
-
It is my impression as a scientist working in this industry that shutting down the last 40,000 acres of field burning will likely do very little to reduce the amount of smoke breathed by people in western Oregon - simply because most of the smoke in lower levels of the atmosphere in late summer comes from wildfires in Oregon, Washington, and California, while smoke in the winter comes from our fireplaces and is trapped by thermal inversions. Do the proponents of the total ban on field burning have any evidence that there will be a measurable improvement in human health brought on by their proposed ban? I would be astonished if the smoke from field burning amounted to more than 1 to 3% of the total smoke enhaled by Oregonians over an average year. I'm not claiming that that 1 to 3% might not injure some individuals, I'm just rather dubious that anybody will be able to detect differences in human health outcomes attributable to ending the last of the field burning. I certainly don't expect the skies to be much clearer in August.
-
"As a scientist working in this industry" - if you're going to post a comment as a supposed professional, please post your actual name and employer for purposes of full disclosure. Otherwise your comment's implied claim to greater knowledge or perspective lacks any value.
-
I see this as a matter of the inability of the grass field farmers who still burn their fields to empathize with the many people the smoke from field burning sickens. That, and that the remaining field burning grass seed farmers don't want to change.
And I cannot be convinced that growing grass seed for golf courses is a worthy industry, more important than the health of people living in the southern Willamette Valley. Those extremely sterile looking, control freak lawns waste a lot of water and use a lot of chemicals, not to mention "spoiling a good walk," as Mark Twain described golf. I remember driving through Boise one summer when the water supply was extremely low-- people had been rationing water-- but the sprinklers were going on the golf course. I would say that just about anything is more important than playing golf, and that the air does not exclusively belong to grass seed farmers.
Many other crops can be grown in Harrisburg and the Willamette Valley-- clay soils are rich in nutrients. How about orchards, hops, or other food? My grandparents were Willamette Valley farmers, and they grew wheat and fruit, and raised dairy cattle. They didn't burn their fields.
-
The grasses that are being demonized provide significant amounts of oxygen and sequester carbon in the soil (except when the crops aren't growing in the summer), filter rain runoff, reduce dust the rest of the year. How much oxygen do you produce?
The 10% of grass seed acreage still using field burning a few days of the year have very few (if any) viable and economical options - that is why they are still doing it. Not all grasses can be managed the same way. Spend some time learning about why they do what they do and you might be doing the same thing.
Grow food? Farms used to grow a lot of wheat in the foothills east of Salem where the fine fescues are grown (a long lived perennial crop that needs burning to stay productive) and the erosion was bad enough to cause significant problems in area streams. So they are doing what is recommended by Federal agencies (NRCS) - even with the temporal problems associated with field burning. Little else but annual ryegrass can be grown in chunks of the south valley.
I don't see any comments providing valid, profitable alternatives for the seed growers who are still using field burning to stay in business. It is easy to tell someone else what to do, but with no viable solutions, is a bit empty and false. Provide real alternatives before closing the door on what works.
Life isn't risk free - we all drive cars without thinking, yet tens of thousands die from this each year!
-
The land around Harrisburg where Mr Bowers farms is flat. The majority of his neighbors don't burn because they, apparently, have found viable options. Apparently being progressive isn't in the mindset for some of these farmers.
-
Comments are now closed.
I have lived in beautiful Oregon since 1973. It is my home and dear to my heart.
I am proud of our state and the environmental awareness of our government and our citizens.
HOWEVER..... I am not proud of our barbaric practices of field burning and slash burning.
I live in the Willamette Valley and am heavily impacted by the smoke. I can't believe that Oregon hasn't taken full and permanent action re: this health insanity.
Why? For the profit of a few grass seed growers? We know that 80% of the growers don't resort to field burning any more. Why do we continue to allow 20% to put us at risk?
Idaho has been smart and proactive enough to ban field burning in 2007. What is wrong with Oregon?
This is a priority! The health of Oregonians matters. Don't we realize that all of us pay in health related costs? Don't we realize that this costs all of us in funding the Oregon Health Plan for breathing & asthma difficulties?
I have a dear friend who cannot even come to the Willamette Valley during certain parts of the year due to her asthma. She lives in LaPine because the air is at least a little bit cleaner there. And even there, we permit slash burning in the forests and contaminate the air. What is wrong with our collective thinking?
Please do everything you can to support Senate Bill 528 (the Holvey/ Prozanski bill) which would end field burning in the Willamette Valley.
Please make this matter a priority.... for all of us.