Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/05/25/watch-how-organic-farmers-use.html
…
5 Likes
I’m gonna loop that and use it as the Yule Log on my TV this year.
15 Likes
I would assume it burns any crops too… It’s not very selective. I’m guessing it happens just before planting?
I’m surprised by that amount of green weeds left behind, but a YouTube comment mentions that the weeds are dead from the heat, but they don’t burn.
4 Likes
So greenhouse gasses instead of chemicals… always a trade off. This is way cooler (hotter?) than chemicals though.
14 Likes
This looks very much like a much larger version of the Dragon weed torches you can get from Amazon or home and garden stores. As you say, the point is not to burn the weeds to ash, but rather to simply apply enough heat that they’ll wilt a bit and die off completely on their own. I’m guessing that there’s something in the heat action that kills off the plants’ ability to photosynthesize, and that this works because it can completely wipe out immature weeds, but not do enough damage to mature crops to kill them off.
4 Likes
The other video in the article shows it can be used on mid-growth crops.
5 Likes
This is actually highly debated. One theory is that it screws up their hydraulic system, because charred plants die from the base up.
6 Likes
Why is it okay to add tons of CO2 to the atmosphere but not okay to use a little fertilizer and/or herbicide? This is not what I would call a ‘green’ or ‘organic’ process. Don’t forget that both the propane and the diesel for the tractor come from oil.
5 Likes
Because this process takes one hour a year, not one hour a day. The CO2 is negligible.
5 Likes
I can’t say I’m at all surprised by the wasteful burning of greenhouse gases here. Organic has always been worse for the environment. Even if the chemicals being used were less toxic, which they aren’t, the lower yield, lower resistance to disease, and less efficient farming has a far greater carbon footprint compared to more modern farming methods. They are a luxury crop for people with money to throw away on it.
4 Likes
Burning propane produces 12.7 pounds of CO2/gallon of propane. That looks like at least a 1000 gallon tank on the back of the tractor, so that’s 12,700 pounds of CO2 or roughly 6 tons (not counting the diesel for the tractor).
If you have ever farmed you would know that it takes much longer than one hour/yr to cover a field of any size.
4 Likes
Well, depending on what’s being burned/leaking, it’s likely resulting in a lot of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons being deposited in the soil as well.
3 Likes
Well, it’s “organic” because the term “organic” doesn’t really mean as much as people would like to think it does, and this process fits the definition: no synthetic substances are being applied to the crops or soil.
3 Likes
Do you have evidence to back this up? Because it’s a very complex topic, and just going with your gut reaction of “it’s just for yuppie hippies, it must be bad!” is not sound.
Here’s a great discussion on the topic, with lots of well-sourced pieces of evidence. I’m not going to do a lot of justice in summarizing it, but I’ll mention some of the main points:
- If you do a simple lifecycle analysis (energy in, food out), you’ll find that conventional puts significantly more energy from fossil fuels in, and organic gets less food out. (natch)
- The balance of energy-per-lb-of-food varies by product. For some foods, organic was the better option. For many, they were about the same. For some, like poultry and eggs, it seemed that conventional was better.
- However, lifecycle analysis alone is a poor measure of the overall impact on greenhouses gasses from farming. Many factors are overlooked, such as the amount of carbon stored in the soil. Some studies have shown the organic farms store significantly more carbon in the soil.
- Lifecycle analysis also does not take into account the significantly-higher methane output of corn-fed livestock, compared with grass-fed.
- Lifecycle analysis also does not take into account externalities, like the hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention energy, associated with removing pesticides from drinking water.
- Further, there is the question of which model is more sustainable as countries try to (or circumstances force them to) reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. Fertilizer production is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and so conventional farming may be less suited to a fossil-fuel-conserving future.
12 Likes
Mmm. Really fresh popcorn!
Just follow up with a butter sprayer and salt spreader.
10 Likes
I use a much smaller version at home all the time. If you do it regularly you can torch right up next to the plants you want and take out the tiny seedlings as they are popping up without damaging anything.
2 Likes
Interesting! Thank you, I missed that.
2 Likes
Thanks for the quick Roundup™!
4 Likes
It’s not bad because it’s a “yuppie hippie” thing. I like lots of yuppie hippie things! But if we care about our impact on the environment we should spend money and invest time on those things that, at the very least, aren’t worse for it.
- Organic is just less efficient, lb for lb. It takes more resources to grow and gets less yield.
- The efficiency isn’t based on “per lb of food”. It’s in the calories of the yield. Using more to make less is the waste.
- Conventional farming disturbs the soil less than organic methods, sequestering CO2 longer. The claim that it sequesters is in dispute, since it gets much higher carbon input that conventional farming and I couldn’t find a study that controlled for that.
- Livestock farming, organic or not, is a huge use of resources. Reduction in meat consumption overall would have a huge positive environmental impact.
- “Organic” pesticides also need to be removed from drinking water. These are as, if not more, toxic than “non-organic” ones. “Organic” suffers greatly from the naturalistic fallacy.
- Organic fertilizers, aka poop, comes from livestock, which requires food, resource, carbons, etc. Chemical fertilizer production uses less fuel to produce the same fertilizing effect, with less public health hazards. It does not have the same soil maintenance properties, though. I expect a combination of both is best.
The largest problem is the amount of food we have to produce. Yield matters to feed the ever increasing population of the planet. We either must maximize our yield, or reduce our demand. Eating less meat would be a start, having fewer people to feed would be better. If organic can do that I am all for it, but so far it’s been shown that overall it can’t. In the end food is a business, and farmers will use the methods that get the most output for the least input.
3 Likes
So fun, you can’t believe it’s legal! Perfect entertainment for rainy days.
Propane weed burner/ice melter
I use it during drizzle, so I don’t start fires, and you don’t need to go past ‘steamed all to limpness’. They don’t come back from it, and you have almost laser-like precision. DIE! DIE! DIE! You get to let out all your Beavis & Butthead tendencies, and the yard looks better.
4 Likes
