Thailand grants citizenship to half a million people – but not farangs

[rafaelo]

cough cough hack hack

I hate the filthy haze that settles into every nook and cranny during the burn season.

my guess is that you do too.

my other assumption is that the Thais hate it as much but that they haven't actually found a better alternative.

it may be that no one has yet. please consider the following and then do a bit more research if you are interested.

i did a bit and found a lot of information that actually supports controlled burning of rice fields for very important reasons, and alternative uses for remaining straw.

fact 1) burning straw produces little greenhouse effect

look it up yourself, Carbon in rice is fixed from the atmosphere by the plant during photosynthesis. that means that the plant takes all the CO2 it needs from the air as it grows and releases it in almost equal amounts after you burn it or eat it or do whatever to it. there is little net gain in CO2 levels after burns. CO2 emmissions from fossil fuels are the only ones we need to be conscerned with as their combustion releases CO2 from prehistoric atmospheres, resulting in a net increase of CO2 in our current atmosphere.

fact 2) composting rice straw produces methane, burning does not produce methane

methane gas is 20-25 times more greenhouse than CO2. the net effect of composting vs burning is 10 -15 time worse greenhouse effect to composting... interesting huh?

fact 3) rice fields need to be burned to decontaminate the field of weeds. fields that are not burned need herbicides to produce rice. the weeds will continue to become more resistant, so not burning means more and more herbicides. same for pests that would ruin rice crops. rice plants are susceptable to stem rot and other diseases that if unchecked could devastate the economy/ crop/ etc. i mean, what would people here do without their rice... gin mai khao! hehe

what's worse? smoke a few months a year or lots of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers all year round? i don't know. need more info....but i'm leaning towards the smoke, at least i can attempt to escape it, ... spraying would be so much worse overall for the environment imho.

smoke from burns is only a problem if it accumulates over our heads. if burns could be alternated and waited for better meteorological conditions, the smoke would be less, or no issue for most people.

this has 2 components.

a) collecting the straw and waiting for more favorable conditions, maybe just before rains or whenever the haze, smoke, dust etc is carried by the wind. remember no net gain in CO2 so it's no the burning itself that is a problem, it's breathing the concentrated smoke, right?

sterilizing the rice fields... this may be a problem or it may be that fields don't need this to be done after each harvest. it maybe that they can be burned every other year...or maybe, the bulk of the straw can be collected for later burn/other uses and then the fields are burned but with a lot less straw...

finally, their are other possible uses for rice straw like ethanol production for fuel use and many other possibilities that have so far, been too difficult or expensive to carryout in large scale production. the studies are all very old and not much new research or data...

i 'googled'

rice farming burn alternatives

crop burns pros and cons

and i found many sources

here are a few links to get you started.

CA EPA Air Resources Board report on rice straw

Rice into Ethanol

UC Sustainable Agriculture- rice ...

the fact remains that if we are to grow rice we must burn the fileds, no way about it.

one thing is clear is that the thais are very good farmers and sensitive caring people who are appreciative of their health as well as pretty good at making money.

i like to believe that if they had a better solution they'd use it.

a complete ban will never work because it will result in the destruction the rice crops in this area.

therefore it will never happen.

stop asking for it?...

rather that complain about it, i choose to do some research and offer up ideas and possible solutions. i haven't found anything better.

that said,

even in California, a place with some of the highest environmental protection standards in the world, rice farmers still burn their rice fields when it is essential for disease control.

i would love for this to become a thread for people to brainstorm and discuss possible solutions and maybe we can actually help improve our lovely Chiang Mai.

if you agree or disagree with these points, please provide some data/links/resource for us all to evaluate

as for the people burning trash, other plant materials and recycle-ables and plastics et al.. you can shoot them on sight if you like, no matter what time of the year, just don't let them fall into the fire, compost them!

hope this helps ..

clear the air

about rice field burns in CM

[PeaceBlondie]

ever since i started having caral tunnel syndrome i thought maybe i could be a bad english teacher and never again have to find the caps lock or use another aostroheand maybe even stop using the eriod key or the key next to the o

i dont know about rice fields so lease ardon me for being off toic

[Priceless]

I am seriously out of my depth here, having no agricultural training or experience, but anyway: I googled "plough rice field" and found the following article which seems to make a compelling case for why the straw should be ploughed back into the field, rather than burned.

www.metafro.be/leisa/1997/13-3-18.pdf

It would be very interesting to hear the opinions of anybody with more agricultural know-how than I possess.

By the way, particulate matter pollution and the release of greenhouse gasses are two distinctively different problems, albeit related. And another note: What you find through googling is seriously dependent on what keywords (search phrase) that you use

/ Priceless

[rafaelo]

I am seriously out of my depth here, having no agricultural training or experience, but anyway: I googled "plough rice field" and found the following article which seems to make a compelling case for why the straw should be ploughed back into the field, rather than burned.

www.metafro.be/leisa/1997/13-3-18.pdf

It would be very interesting to hear the opinions of anybody with more agricultural know-how than I possess.

By the way, particulate matter pollution and the release of greenhouse gasses are two distinctively different problems, albeit related. And another note: What you find through googling is seriously dependent on what keywords (search phrase) that you use

/ Priceless

yes, Nitrogen fixation is another factor. fields that are burned need to be replenished with 'fixed nitrogen' such as urea.

this means that the rice plant cannot utilize the nitrogen in the air (N2) as is( the atmosphere is about 70% N2), . specialized soil bacteria change ('fix')this N2 into other forms that the rice plant root tips can then absorb and utilize. burning kills them too.

so what's worse, a little urea (20-25 kg per hectare) vs (i don't know how many) kg/hectare of methane gas....?

as for particulate matter.. yes this is the main gripe but can be resolved by postponing & reducing burns until favor able met conditions.

so maybe a more feasible solution is to do a combination of all three,

1) collect some straw for other purposes/ better met conditions

2) incorporate some straw as needed, being sensitive to green house gas emissions

3) burn fields only when needed, to avoid diseases

this still means we need to burn, albiet a lot less

we cannot sit at home and 'ban' burns and expect farmers to comply.

we need to create a program that is more in balance with the environment.

[mobs00]

I was told you need a special plough for this application; its expensive and therefore not very popular.

[Priceless]

I was told you need a special plough for this application; its expensive and therefore not very popular.

According to the report in the link that I indicated, poor farmers in Sri Lanka (probably not much richer than in Thailand) took it up, once educated about it. It also reduced the need for commercial fertilizer, which is a large cost for the farmer.

Anyone have more specific knowledge?

/ Priceless

[mobs00]

Maybe this should be moved to the farming forum. I would be interested in what they all have to say about this.

[rafaelo]

it's a little more work to till it in and the they only need to buy the special ploughs once ... so it would probably result in a net gain in the not so long run and if the ploughs were donated or subsidized by the king, the net gain would appear quickly.

lower costs for the farmers and less smoke in the air.

[rafaelo]

that's a good idea, though i would hope that they already know this..

my intention here was to educate myself and pass the data around that more lay people be better informed about the issues that effect us all. there are thousands(billions?) of concerned people that never bother to look deeper than what they hear on the streets or read online... hence this discussion.

we are all responsible for the air quality of our planet.

[Priceless]

Maybe this should be moved to the farming forum. I would be interested in what they all have to say about this.

Excellent idea! Pretty please, mods

/ Priceless

[rafaelo]

i agree and i can repost it on the farmers forum

please post leave this here. it's our problem too as well as our responsibility.

the latest post about the air quality has over 2500 views, how many of these people read the farming forums?

i posted this in hopes of getting as many lay people better informed.

if the farmers where presented by a well thought out alternative they would respond.

just ignorantly attempting to place bans are always met with defiance, thankfully too.

how many people are supportive of the burn bans without being more informed?

i wasn't. am i the only one? i doubt it

anyway, do as you will

i know where i stand on this issue until new evidence provides an even better solution.

[p1p]

Sorry - reposting is not allowed. It's called spamming. See the rules.

I will now move to Farming as it has no special reference to Chiang Mai.

[p1p]

Having moved the topic, I can now put my thoughts and experiences on record.

In Esarn our family has some 400 Rai of rice paddy. Some five years ago I introduced the aerobic method of cultivating rice. We plough all our rice stalks back into the soil and add composted manure to the ground as a fertilizer. Turn it over again and plant individual rice seeds in rows. The land is then covered with water for a short time and allowed to drain off into ponds we constructed to take the runoff. If it doesn't rain, we pump from the pond to the highest paddy and allow the water to gently flow back to the pond. This is done about four or five times during the growing season.

The yield from the land has more than doubled over our previous, chemintensive "normal" farming methods. The rice is also far better quality, with grains an average of 30-50% larger. Fiscal return is about three times more than before, but expenses are also higher. We provide employment to full time labourers who have to weed the field manually. Weeds are collected and composted before being returned to the soil..

A side benefit is the ponds in which we raise Tilapia. We need to supply far less food than normal because so much is carried to the ponds in runoff from the fields. I am told the fish are better tasting because of it.

Our cultivation methods are fully discussed and highly recommended by the Philippine Rice Research Institute from whom we downloaded PDF's in both Thai and English with full instructions and discussions of the benefits and pitfalls of this method. I shall try to find the link - or upload the PDF here.

[pnustedt]

the fact remains that if we are to grow rice we must burn the fileds, no way about it.

I have a rice harvesting business and make bales from rice straw after harvesting, these are bought by the farmers for later use (when little grazing is available for cattle and mulching plants such as chillies, etc). We also plough in straw when required - you need a large heavy plough, particularly in the dry season. We never burn the fields.

[slapout]

One of the unique uses for any straw after harvest (including rice) is to form it into cattle cube size cubes. This can be used as a heating or cooking fuel. ( I have never observed this in Thailand) The moleboard plow will turn staw under, this provides very little nutrient back to the soil, but it does promote soil condition as well as getting rid of weeds if timed right. Burning is still used to control some weeds (cheat being one) which can lay dorment for years in the ground and then sprout when conditions are right. Burning is best utilized for pasture land on a given time frame to promote new growth, kill weeds, etc. For this or any burn to work, the humidity, wind, dryness of vegation to be burned etc must come into play. The factors I have mentioned are why you may see burning being done at night by farmers who understand what they are trying to accomplish.

[ozzydom]

I read recently of an aerobic bacterial additive made by a Phillipine Ag scientist which is added to the paddy and ploughed under straight after harvest along with the stubble,it is reputed to turn the stubble into compost in about 4 weeks, evidentally it allows three crops per year as long as water is available.

Extra fertilization would be required to maintain soil condition but if the other fundamentals are in place it sounds like an excellent way to added profitability from small holdings.

I imagine these bacteria are similar to those added to sewerage farms around the world to speed up decomposition of the waste products.

[rafaelo]

Having moved the topic, I can now put my thoughts and experiences on record.

In Esarn our family has some 400 Rai of rice paddy. Some five years ago I introduced the aerobic method of cultivating rice. We plough all our rice stalks back into the soil and add composted manure to the ground as a fertilizer. Turn it over again and plant individual rice seeds in rows. The land is then covered with water for a short time and allowed to drain off into ponds we constructed to take the runoff. If it doesn't rain, we pump from the pond to the highest paddy and allow the water to gently flow back to the pond. This is done about four or five times during the growing season.

The yield from the land has more than doubled over our previous, chemintensive "normal" farming methods. The rice is also far better quality, with grains an average of 30-50% larger. Fiscal return is about three times more than before, but expenses are also higher. We provide employment to full time labourers who have to weed the field manually. Weeds are collected and composted before being returned to the soil..

A side benefit is the ponds in which we raise Tilapia. We need to supply far less food than normal because so much is carried to the ponds in runoff from the fields. I am told the fish are better tasting because of it.

Our cultivation methods are fully discussed and highly recommended by the Philippine Rice Research Institute from whom we downloaded PDF's in both Thai and English with full instructions and discussions of the benefits and pitfalls of this method. I shall try to find the link - or upload the PDF here.

wow this is very interesting

but you are actively increasing methane levels and contributing measurably and significantly to global warming.

is this added cost part of the calculation?

[rafaelo]

I read recently of an aerobic bacterial additive made by a Phillipine Ag scientist which is added to the paddy and ploughed under straight after harvest along with the stubble,it is reputed to turn the stubble into compost in about 4 weeks, evidentally it allows three crops per year as long as water is available.

Extra fertilization would be required to maintain soil condition but if the other fundamentals are in place it sounds like an excellent way to added profitability from small holdings.

I imagine these bacteria are similar to those added to sewerage farms around the world to speed up decomposition of the waste products.

what studies have been done to monitor long term environmental impact of adding what i am assuming are non native/indigenous bacteria to your soil?

would a rice farmer in California be able to do this or could this wreck havoc on the rice (or other crop) farmers ecosystems?

and of course you are still producing the greenhouse gas methane at considerable levels?

or not?

[rafaelo]

Sorry - reposting is not allowed. It's called spamming. See the rules.

I will now move to Farming as it has no special reference to Chiang Mai.

well, i would have rewritten it to apply directly to farmers post, so it wouldn't have been 'spam' even by your 'rules'

this was about informing the CM people who whine and moan about the farmers that ignore the ban that there may be other factors to consider.

[ozzydom]

I read recently of an aerobic bacterial additive made by a Phillipine Ag scientist which is added to the paddy and ploughed under straight after harvest along with the stubble,it is reputed to turn the stubble into compost in about 4 weeks, evidentally it allows three crops per year as long as water is available.

Extra fertilization would be required to maintain soil condition but if the other fundamentals are in place it sounds like an excellent way to added profitability from small holdings.

I imagine these bacteria are similar to those added to sewerage farms around the world to speed up decomposition of the waste products.

what studies have been done to monitor long term environmental impact of adding what i am assuming are non native/indigenous bacteria to your soil?

would a rice farmer in California be able to do this or could this wreck havoc on the rice (or other crop) farmers ecosystems?

and of course you are still producing the greenhouse gas methane at considerable levels?

or not?

Well, considering that bovines are the biggest contributors of methane to our atmosphere through their flatulance and pigs are large contributors through their waste products, I feel that the small amount produced from decomposition is fairly insignificant in the scheme of things.

Would you suggest that all bovines and pigs are eliminated or just told to stop farting and poo-ing. Methane production has been with us through natural processes since the beginning of time.

[plachon]

I read recently of an aerobic bacterial additive made by a Phillipine Ag scientist which is added to the paddy and ploughed under straight after harvest along with the stubble,it is reputed to turn the stubble into compost in about 4 weeks, evidentally it allows three crops per year as long as water is available.

Extra fertilization would be required to maintain soil condition but if the other fundamentals are in place it sounds like an excellent way to added profitability from small holdings.

I imagine these bacteria are similar to those added to sewerage farms around the world to speed up decomposition of the waste products.

what studies have been done to monitor long term environmental impact of adding what i am assuming are non native/indigenous bacteria to your soil?

would a rice farmer in California be able to do this or could this wreck havoc on the rice (or other crop) farmers ecosystems?

and of course you are still producing the greenhouse gas methane at considerable levels?

or not?

Couple of brief points here, as I fear you may not be seeing the woods for the trees, in the way you frame the argument.

Firstly, there are many other sound environmental, safety and public health reasons for not burning crop stubbles, incl rice, wherever in the world one is. Environmentally, the greenhouse gases one you use is spurious, esp. the argument that methane is produced in larger quantities if ploughed in vs burned, as much of the Nitrogen content of the straw will be trapped in the soil as organic N and not lost to the atmosphere as methane as you imply.

Secondly, there is the issue of large amounts of particulate matter or soot produced when rice stubble is burned. My basic understanding of this components role is that in the lower atmosphere it warms the air (ie. traps outgoing solar radiation), but if reaching the upper atmosphere (as in volcanic dust) it has a marked cooling effect, due to reflection of solar radiation back into space. Like with ozone, different effects are happening at different atmosphereic levels, so the situation is highly complex.

Also, don't forget the coughing, stinging eyes and dirty washing side of the coin!

Lastly, anyone who argues that California has some of the strictest environmental standards in the world and then starts talking about rice farming examples for me is quite entertaining. The very notion of farming rice in California is a travesty of water management principles (where does the water come from?) and a perfect example of a farming system with a massive ecological footprint and a classic case study of non-sustainability. Talking about whether it is environmentally sound or not for it to burn rice straw, is a bit like pointing to some rare bugs around 3 Mile Island power station as proof that nuclear power is environmentally friendly form of power.

[rafaelo]

Well, considering that bovines are the biggest contributors of methane to our atmosphere through their flatulance and pigs are large contributors through their waste products, I feel that the small amount produced from decomposition is fairly insignificant in the scheme of things.

Would you suggest that all bovines and pigs are eliminated or just told to stop farting and poo-ing. Methane production has been with us through natural processes since the beginning of time.

really where's the data for that?

actually. my understanding is that rice farming is a much larger contributer to methane gas production than bovine... a lot more rice gets consumed than beef or pork world wide and those rice paddies are continuosly 'farting'

since i eat but a few pounds of beef/pork a year and barely a cup or 2 of rice a week, i would argue that even more strongly that

well it's humans that are responsible for increasing greenhouses gasses beyond the balance that has maintained itself for the last 12,000 year or so.... since the last ice age that is..

the topic was about education regarding the need for reconsidering the useless burn ban...

[rafaelo]

Couple of brief points here, as I fear you may not be seeing the woods for the trees, in the way you frame the argument.

Firstly, there are many other sound environmental, safety and public health reasons for not burning crop stubbles, incl rice, wherever in the world one is. Environmentally, the greenhouse gases one you use is spurious, esp. the argument that methane is produced in larger quantities if ploughed in vs burned, as much of the Nitrogen content of the straw will be trapped in the soil as organic N and not lost to the atmosphere as methane as you imply.

Secondly, there is the issue of large amounts of particulate matter or soot produced when rice stubble is burned. My basic understanding of this components role is that in the lower atmosphere it warms the air (ie. traps outgoing solar radiation), but if reaching the upper atmosphere (as in volcanic dust) it has a marked cooling effect, due to reflection of solar radiation back into space. Like with ozone, different effects are happening at different atmosphereic levels, so the situation is highly complex.

Also, don't forget the coughing, stinging eyes and dirty washing side of the coin!

Lastly, anyone who argues that California has some of the strictest environmental standards in the world and then starts talking about rice farming examples for me is quite entertaining. The very notion of farming rice in California is a travesty of water management principles (where does the water come from?) and a perfect example of a farming system with a massive ecological footprint and a classic case study of non-sustainability. Talking about whether it is environmentally sound or not for it to burn rice straw, is a bit like pointing to some rare bugs around 3 Mile Island power station as proof that nuclear power is environmentally friendly form of power.

yes, it gets copmplex doesn't it..

1) there is no Nitrogen in methane... i never meant to imply that.

2)burning looses 'fixed' Nitrogen to the atmosphere and needs to be replaced with urea, a naturally occurring N source, our bodies even make it ..

3)composting results in bacterial production of methane which adds to the greenhouse considerably. well rice farming in general is a major methane gas producer.

4) lots of evidence points t the need to burn rice fields, if only for disease control

CA and water.. yes i agree a problem but that doesn't have anything to do with rice straw management, the point of this post, which is about... i suspect that people started farming rice in CA before air pollution was rally an issue. since CA rice farmers have some of the greatest yields.. well it would be difficult to stoπ them, just like it would be difficult to get people to enforce clean vehicle emissions...

the point about CA was to highlight that even in places where today the air quality standards are high, they still burn rice when the atmosphere can take it away from harming people...

what to do to reduce the immeadiate effects of burning too much during unfavorable met conditions resulting in too much smoke, stinging eyes, etc...

stay on topic?

as for nuclear energy et al...

it turns out from studies of chernobyl and Bikini Isl and other places where we obliterated life with nuclear energy,

they have become some of the healthiest ecosystems around. the nuclear energy drove all life away and then kept humans out.

we humans, jsut our presence are the number one greatest impact on the environment , more so than nuclear contamination...

but really lets stay on topic or not...

[Mapguy]

I have today been told by someone who has lived there all his life that he never saw "traditional" burning of rice straw in the fields of Roi Et, a province on the NE plateau, a very dry place. The NE Plateau (Issan country) is the largest poor area economically of Thailand. I don't think that the poverty is due to a failure to burn rice straw.

There is interesting indirect support for this report. If you look at the PCD results over time, you will see that Khon Kaen, adjacent to Roi Et, characteristically enjoys very, very clear air. I leave it to Priceless to give you good statistics over time. But, in the meantime, you will see that, next to living by the ocean, that living on the plateau is very, very clear, pollution-wise.

From a personal point of view. I can say from my visits to that area that I have been bothered by a lot of dust coming off the roads I drive onto my auto, but the skies have indeed been clear and the air easy to breathe.

As an aside to give mention to a lot of the posts on the topic of air pollution, why do people keep comparing Chiang Mai to the absolute worst places for air pollution!! Why not compare it more often to the least polluted places!

My friend continued by saying that farmers plow under the rice straw. The poorest farmers might still use water buffalo, but farmers on smaller farms generally use the two-wheeled hand-held plow. He had no comment about larger farms, which might be able to afford contract plowing with larger, more powerful equipment.

Would someone knowledgeable about Issan practices and agronomy comment on this, please?

The interest in an answer is not frivolous. In Chiang Mai and in much of the country (central to northern) the reason for the massive air pollution is often given as "traditional practices," that is the thinking of farmers that burning off the rice straw is the best economic (the source of rational farming thinking) answer. Two questions, then: Is it? Is it in light of health considerations and severe damage to the tourist economy?

[Lickey]

Our farm does not have paddies, but we do obtain rice straw to cover newly planted salad beds, the hot sun plays havoc with emerging plants even though the beds are shaded,

This area the straw is used to make wigwam shapes, inside are logs, 2 days burning and they have charcoal, and when the smoke drifts across the village, there are certainly less mosquitos, so every cloud has a silver lining

[ozzydom]

The emphasis seems to be on rice paddy burning, but I would mention that if you had actually burnt rice stubble,you would find that it burns very quickly and emits little smoke,by the time it is burnt cattle have been grazing it for some months and much has been trodden down and is already decomposed ,the remainder is bone dry and burns in a flash.

On the other hand slash and burn in the surrounding hills is semi dry when burnt and really gives off a lot of smoke, also sugar cane burning plays a big part as Chiang Mai residents know when your laundry and light coloured paintwork gets covered in the oily soot from cane burning.

Geographical location,climate and the topography of the area are factors in that it suffers from the problem moreso than most other areas.