Rice straw burning: Alternative policy implications

Authors

Richard L. Nelson
Peter K. Thor
Christine R. Heaton

Authors Affiliations

Richard L. Nelson is Postgraduate Research Agricultural Economists, Department of Agricultural Economists, U.C., Davis; Peter K. Thor is Postgraduate Research Agricultural Economists, Department of Agricultural Economists, U.C., Davis; Christine R. Heaton is Postgraduate Research Agricultural Economists, Department of Agricultural Economists, U.C., Davis.

Publication Information

Hilgardia 34(2):4-6. DOI:10.3733/ca.v034n02p4. February 1980.

PDF of full article, Cite this article

Abstract

Burning rice straw, the residue of harvesting, pollutes the air and is possibly hazardous to health, but other alternatives proposed so far would place a heavy economic burden on growers who may not be able to pass their expenses on to consumers. The most likely long-term solution will be to find a way to utilize rice straw, possibly, for example, as fodder for cattle.