Burning Controversy Rages In Eastern Idaho, Too

Scientists say fall burning of fields to get rid of stubble is a practice that can’t be defended on economic or environmental grounds.

Farmers acknowledge burning fields to get rid of stubble isn’t a good idea in the long run, but they’re unlikely to change.

Scientists and conservationists oppose burns, calling them irresponsible and impractical in almost every case.

“Air quality-wise and aesthetically, I find it repugnant,” said Marv Hoyt of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. “It seems to me like the Natural Resource Conservation Service and everybody like them has tried to convince folks that they shouldn’t do it, but it hasn’t stopped.”

Soil scientists cite data going back decades showing that burning grain stubble is bad for air quality, depletes soil nutrients and increases erosion.

But farmers say it’s the cheapest way to clear a field for the next year’s crop.

“I think farmers get worried there might be too much straw on the field, and they have to get rid of it,” said Emma Broadfoot of the Natural Resource Conservation Service. “(But) it literally costs them money. All they can see is the excitement of a field going up right now, but ultimately, it’s like a taking a dollar bill and lighting a match to it.”

Bonneville County extension agent Roger Ashley said a lot of farmers believe burning saves money because otherwise expensive fertilizer would have to be added to a field to break down stubble. That’s true, Ashley said, but field burning ultimately depletes the soil.

The burning controversy is even hotter in northern Idaho. Ashley said those issues are different from eastern Idaho. That’s because the primary crop burned is bluegrass, and fire is critical to the growing process.

“That’s a different deal there,” he said. “They’re working with a perennial crop where burning actually stimulates it to flower.”