The ban on straw burning will not only increase the burden on farmers and cause dissatisfaction among the people. In rural areas, straw cannot be burned or used as firewood, so it is necessary to find a piece of land and stack it separately. As a result, more and more straw will accumulate until another piece of land needs to be found. Since this practice reduces production efficiency and runs counter to increasing agricultural productivity, farmers will no longer focus on the number of yields per acre, but will begin to pursue "enough to eat" and "self-sufficiency". This will affect and promote rural work, and the peasants will have dissatisfaction and hostility towards other strata, which is completely detrimental to harmony and unity.
Most of those left behind in the countryside are elderly, who have limited physical strength, but they need to spend a lot of time carrying straw and piling straw, and may have to spend a lot of effort to process straw in the later stage. It is not an exaggeration to prohibit the burning of straw, which is not an exaggeration to describe it as "labor and money". There is no effective follow-up to the ban on straw burning, and farmers are fed up with not being able to burn straw, which only results in less straw production and crop planting. This runs counter to the food production security approach. The biggest consequence is that farmers will use herbicides to reduce straw and grass production, irreversibly polluting the land, not only affecting farmers but also other areas.
The ban on straw burning has forced farmers to increase their yields and have to resort to technology and heavy manual labor, which will exacerbate food safety issues.
Finally, perhaps this is the real reason why many experts support a ban on burning: after the ban on burning, pests and diseases on the land will not be able to adapt to traditional seeds, pests and diseases will increase, and genetically modified crops will become popular!Therefore, the real purpose of banning straw burning is not for the blue sky and white clouds, but to promote genetically modified organisms to transform the soil and the environment!A few years after the ban on straw burning, genetically modified crops were suddenly vigorously promoted, and farmers did find that no matter how many herbicides were used and how many fertilizers were applied, the traditional crops of these years were attacked by pests and diseases, and the yield was worryingIn this case, they had to succumb to genetically modified crops!To sum up, the consequences of banning straw burning are not just an increase in the burden on farmers.
and cause discontent among the people. This reduces productivity and runs counter to increased agricultural productivity. The ban on straw burning has forced farmers to increase their yields and have to resort to technology and heavy manual labor, which will exacerbate food safety issues. The biggest consequence is that farmers will use herbicides to reduce the production of straw and grass, which will irreversibly pollute the land. The real purpose of banning straw burning is not for the blue sky and white clouds, but to promote genetically modified organisms to modify the soil and the environment. As a result, a ban on straw burning would result in farmers having to use genetically modified crops in order to guarantee yields, weakening their choice and control.
Policymakers should reconsider the consequences of banning straw burning and provide farmers with better solutions that balance environmental protection and agricultural production.
What do you think about this matter, please leave a message in the comment area below!