Stubble Burning Fact and Fiction

Now that the harvesting season is around the corner it’s important to examine the issue of stubble burning. There’s a tremendous amount of misconception and misinformation floating around on Stubble Burning. Common people and Media squarely blame the farmers. But gleaning through Wikipedia as a proof of what one has been saying, is that it’s a world wide phenomenon. The pollution due to Stubble Burning is not as acute as is made out to be. Also, hold your breath, there are some beneficial effects. This is not to recommend Stubble Burning at all, but to introspect as well, think. Can one month of this activity cause pollution all the year round? Who are the other culprits hiding behind the farmers backs. What are the solutions?

According to Wikipedia:

Stubble burning is intentionally setting fire to the straw stubble that remains after grains, like paddy, wheat, etc., have been harvested. The practice was widespread until the 1990s, when governments increasingly restricted its use.

The burning of stubble, contrasted with alternatives such as ploughing the stubble back into the ground or collecting it for industrial uses, has a number of consequences and effects on the environment. Generally helpful effects Kills slugs and other pests. Can reduce nitrogen tie-up. Generally harmful effects Loss of nutrients Pollution from smoke Damage to electrical and electronic equipment from floating threads of conducting waste Risk of fires spreading out of control There is a perception that stubble burning contributes to atmospheric CO2. However carbon dioxide releases are only slightly greater than those from natural decomposition. Attitudes to stubble burning

Stubble burning has been effectively prohibited since 1993 in and Wales. A perceived increase in blackgrass, and particularly herbicide resistant blackgrass, has led to a campaign by some arable farmers for its return. In stubble burning is “not the preferred option for the majority of farmers” but is permitted and recommended in some circumstances. Farmers are advised to rake and burn windrows, and leave a fire break of 3 metres around any burn off. In the The burning of stubble, contrasted with alternatives such as ploughing the stubble back into the ground or collecting it for industrial uses, has a number of consequences and effects on the environment.[1] Generally helpful effects Edit Kills slugs and other pests. Can reduce nitrogen tie-up. Generally harmful effects Edit Loss of nutrients Pollution from smoke Damage to electrical and electronic equipment from floating threads of conducting waste Risk of fires spreading out of control There is a perception that stubble burning contributes to atmospheric CO2. However carbon dioxide releases are only slightly greater than those from natural decomposition. Attitudes to stubble burning Edit Stubble burning has been effectively prohibited since 1993 in England and Wales. A perceived increase in blackgrass, and particularly herbicide resistant blackgrass, has led to a campaign by some arable farmers for its return. In Australia stubble burning is “not the preferred option for the majority of farmers” but is permitted and recommended in some circumstances. Farmers are advised to rake and burn windrows, and leave a fire break of 3 metres around any burn off.

In the United States, fires are fairly common in mid-western states, but some states regulate the practice, e.g. In the , the Common Agricultural Policy strongly discourages stubble burning. In , there is a government ban on stubble burning; however the practice remains fairly common. In northern , despite a ban by the Punjab Pollution Control Board, stubble burning is still practiced. Authorities are starting to enforce this ban more proactively. Stubble b