- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Has the sugar industry become exploitative in south Louisiana?
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:23 pm
I guess some would argue that every industry is somewhat exploitative. But clearly it's good for the country to have high agricultural output.
But this got me thinking with all the social media posts about the black snow (heavy ashes falling from the sky) in parts of the Baton Rouge area from the burning of the sugar cane fields. Farmers burn sugarcane fields before harvest to clear away dry leaves and tops, making it easier and cheaper to harvest the sugar-rich stalks. This practice creates significant air pollution and particulate from the burning of the organic matter and all pesticides/herbicides sprayed in those fields......but environmental regulators look the other direction for the sugar industry.
Cane in particular offers low job density per acre, and much the labor it does bring on tends to rely heavily on migrant visas during harvesting season, bypassing a lot of the local labor pool and concentrating the earnings on the corporations and families that own the operations.
From a macro-economic perspective - is it economically safer for the state's agricultural output be more diverse (maybe increasing production and processing of cattle, poultry, beans, etc. and reducing the amount of acreage devoted to sugar exclusively)?
Should the recent immigrant labor reform efforts slowly target agriculture to rebuild the local labor agricultural labor pool?
From an environmental perspective - should regulators end the practice of selectively enforcing the laws for some industries but exempting agriculture? Or should they relax standards for all industries?
Should price floors and price controls for the output from any industry be set to protect producers that rely so heavily on lax environmental controls and migrant labor?
My thoughts are that if the oil and gas industry was this reliant on exemptions from emissions laws or migrant labor.....a lot of locals in Louisiana would be furious. Why do we look the other way for sugar?
But this got me thinking with all the social media posts about the black snow (heavy ashes falling from the sky) in parts of the Baton Rouge area from the burning of the sugar cane fields. Farmers burn sugarcane fields before harvest to clear away dry leaves and tops, making it easier and cheaper to harvest the sugar-rich stalks. This practice creates significant air pollution and particulate from the burning of the organic matter and all pesticides/herbicides sprayed in those fields......but environmental regulators look the other direction for the sugar industry.
Cane in particular offers low job density per acre, and much the labor it does bring on tends to rely heavily on migrant visas during harvesting season, bypassing a lot of the local labor pool and concentrating the earnings on the corporations and families that own the operations.
From a macro-economic perspective - is it economically safer for the state's agricultural output be more diverse (maybe increasing production and processing of cattle, poultry, beans, etc. and reducing the amount of acreage devoted to sugar exclusively)?
Should the recent immigrant labor reform efforts slowly target agriculture to rebuild the local labor agricultural labor pool?
From an environmental perspective - should regulators end the practice of selectively enforcing the laws for some industries but exempting agriculture? Or should they relax standards for all industries?
Should price floors and price controls for the output from any industry be set to protect producers that rely so heavily on lax environmental controls and migrant labor?
My thoughts are that if the oil and gas industry was this reliant on exemptions from emissions laws or migrant labor.....a lot of locals in Louisiana would be furious. Why do we look the other way for sugar?
This post was edited on 12/27/25 at 1:25 pm
11
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:24 pm to frequent flyer
The sugar industry is a leech. Pollution. Government subsidies. Very few well paying jobs and a lot of illegals.
This post was edited on 12/27/25 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:25 pm to frequent flyer
We’ve been burning sugar cane fields for hundreds of years and people have been just fine.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:30 pm to NIH
quote:
The sugar industry is a leech. Pollution. Government subsidies.
Unfortunately this is 100% true. My criticism of the sugar industry is very similar as my criticism of the solar industry, only amplified.
quote:
From an environmental perspective - should regulators end the practice of selectively enforcing the laws for some industries but exempting agriculture? Or should they relax standards for all industries?
I mean I can't even buy a pickup truck without thousands of dollars worth of unnecessary environmental controls that have a severe negative impact on the long term reliability and operating costs of that pickup truck.
But we can burn entire sugar cane fields without any concern over the environmental impact?
This kind of nonsense is yet another example why nobody trusts government regulators. When you need them, they are not there. When you don't need them....they are ruining everyone's life.
This post was edited on 12/27/25 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:32 pm to dewster
Louisiana farmers cannot fairly compete with foreign grown sugar. I have no issue with protecting a historically important domestic industry in Louisiana.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:36 pm to Riverside
quote:
I have no issue with protecting a historically important domestic industry in Louisiana.
I would argue that their increased dependency on migrant labor in the last 30 years and total disregard for the environment makes them unworthy of special treatment that only inflates land prices and squeezes out other types of agriculture.
It would be a lot easier to look the other way if the migrant labor wasn't 90+% of their workforce.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:40 pm to frequent flyer
quote:
From a macro-economic perspective - is it economically safer for the state's agricultural output be more diverse (maybe increasing production and processing of cattle, poultry, beans, etc. and reducing the amount of acreage devoted to sugar exclusively)?
Should the recent immigrant labor reform efforts slowly target agriculture to rebuild the local labor agricultural labor pool?
From an environmental perspective - should regulators end the practice of selectively enforcing the laws for some industries but exempting agriculture? Or should they relax standards for all industries?
Should price floors and price controls for the output from any industry be set to protect producers that rely so heavily on lax environmental controls and migrant labor?
My thoughts are that if the oil and gas industry was this reliant on exemptions from emissions laws or migrant labor.....a lot of locals in Louisiana would be furious. Why do we look the other way for sugar?
Agricultural protections in general need to be scaled back and eliminated - especially for sugar and corn.
Our protections are why we are losing smaller scale producers in this country. And the protections wouldn't be needed if our trade polices weren't so flat footed historically.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:42 pm to frequent flyer
You do realize there has NEVER been a subsidy payment to a US sugar farmer ever, right?
You think this liver fluke mecca would work for cows?
How about peanuts, or corn, or wheat that need dry ground.
Sugarcane is an insanely expensive crop to grow and contributes billions to Louisiana’s economy- it takes 5 times as much equipment per acre to farm than comparable row crops in the midwest….
That means more diesel, more parts, more repairs, more stuff.
So yeah, it may be farmed by LEGAL H2A workers- but don’t dare discount the thousands of high paying jobs that make the local economies work in sugar cane towns.
Sorry you built your McMansion next to a field that’s been there for over 200 years.
ETA- know how I know you don’t know anything about sugarcane farming in Louisiana?
The cane isn’t burnt standing- haven’t done that for hundreds of years when hand cutting went the way of the DoDo bird. The chaff, however is burnt after harvest, however, because it’s so wet here, too much humidity would be retained and it would rot next year’s crop and cause disease. You knew that, right? sugarcane is actually fairly efficient from a plant physiology perspective because it’s a perennial. Just a few years ago, it needed to be replanted every 3 years. Because of work by LSU and the USDA, new varieties can be productive for 5 or more years.
I wish you could see what life was like in countries that can’t feed themselves.
Also, frick off. I bet you live in a subdivision.
You think this liver fluke mecca would work for cows?
How about peanuts, or corn, or wheat that need dry ground.
Sugarcane is an insanely expensive crop to grow and contributes billions to Louisiana’s economy- it takes 5 times as much equipment per acre to farm than comparable row crops in the midwest….
That means more diesel, more parts, more repairs, more stuff.
So yeah, it may be farmed by LEGAL H2A workers- but don’t dare discount the thousands of high paying jobs that make the local economies work in sugar cane towns.
Sorry you built your McMansion next to a field that’s been there for over 200 years.
ETA- know how I know you don’t know anything about sugarcane farming in Louisiana?
The cane isn’t burnt standing- haven’t done that for hundreds of years when hand cutting went the way of the DoDo bird. The chaff, however is burnt after harvest, however, because it’s so wet here, too much humidity would be retained and it would rot next year’s crop and cause disease. You knew that, right? sugarcane is actually fairly efficient from a plant physiology perspective because it’s a perennial. Just a few years ago, it needed to be replanted every 3 years. Because of work by LSU and the USDA, new varieties can be productive for 5 or more years.
I wish you could see what life was like in countries that can’t feed themselves.
Also, frick off. I bet you live in a subdivision.
This post was edited on 12/27/25 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:42 pm to Riverside
quote:
Historically important
Key word: historically. Having a few companies employ hundreds of illegals doesn’t help our economies.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:50 pm to NIH
quote:
Key word: historically. Having a few companies employ hundreds of illegals doesn’t help our economies.
Yep...
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:51 pm to Riverside
quote:
Louisiana farmers cannot fairly compete with foreign grown sugar. I have no issue with protecting a historically important domestic industry in Louisiana.
I've discussed this with relatives in New Iberia who own large acreage of sugar cane. They readily admitted that if protectionism against imports were eliminated they would simply shift to other crops, saying: 'The soil here is very fertile and will grow almost anything.'
This post was edited on 12/27/25 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:52 pm to NIH
bullshite- the industry is so heavily regulated by the US labor department, every single Mexican you see in the field is on an H2A visa.
Periodic housing inspections mandated by the feds.
You think any illegals would be around for that?
Periodic housing inspections mandated by the feds.
You think any illegals would be around for that?
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:53 pm to frequent flyer
quote:
Farmers burn sugarcane fields before harvest to clear away dry leaves and tops, making it easier and cheaper to harvest the sugar-rich stalks. This practice creates significant air pollution and particulate from the burning of the organic matter and all pesticides/herbicides sprayed in those fields......but environmental regulators look the other direction for the sugar industry.
This tells me you know absolutely nothing about sugar cane farming. Farmers do not burn fields before harvest. You may have seen that on TV somewhere in equatorial climates but not here. Fields are burned after cane is cut. Leaves are shucked on the ground by the cutter and burned later. They have to burn the chaff because the fields are flat as a pancake and the leaves would accumulate in a rain and cause flooding, erosion, and rot/disease.
As for the ash and smoke they are relatively harmless to nature because they are a one off event per year. The ash is nothing but carbon charcoal and is harmless.
As for the economic side. The revenue is so low that farms need 2000+ acres to make a decent profit yr over yr.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:53 pm to subMOA
quote:
subMOA
Keep sucking on that government tit.
Just a few more price controls here and there doesn't make you a socialist, right?
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:55 pm to Zach
quote:
They readily admitted that if protectism against imports were eliminated they would simply shift to other crops, saying: 'The soil here is very fertile and will grow almost anything.'
Yep. The land would relatively quickly be repurposed for production that doesn't require so much protection and government intervention to support.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 1:58 pm to NIH
quote:
Key word: historically. Having a few companies employ hundreds of illegals doesn’t help our economies.
They aren’t illegals. Migrant farm workers are perfectly legal.
And again, sugarcane is a historically important crop to Louisiana that is worth protecting from foreign imports.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 2:00 pm to frequent flyer
quote:
Farmers burn sugarcane fields before harvest to clear away dry leaves and tops, making it easier and cheaper to harvest the sugar-rich stalks. This practice creates significant air pollution and particulate from the burning of the organic matter and all pesticides/herbicides sprayed in those fields......but environmental regulators look the other direction for the sugar industry.
You should see the pollution I put out from my smoked Thanksgiving turkey, smoked sausage, smoked pork and beef. I put out a lot on my bbq pit, and don’t even start on the fire place or pit!
Trash is burned legally in much of rural America.
Also lightning, Indians, and settlers have been burning the Southeast for thousands of years. Many ecosystems depend upon it.
Get a clue and hold on tight to it.
This post was edited on 12/27/25 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 12/27/25 at 2:02 pm to subMOA
quote:
Heavily regulated
I spent the first 26 years of my life in South Louisiana. Go bullshite someone else.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 2:04 pm to frequent flyer
If the sugar cane workers that earn a living in Louisiana could read English, they'd be furious with this whole thread.
But they all speak Spanish so you'll just get a few idiots that worship agriculture and see it as being "different" from every other highly controlled, highly subsidized business that they love to criticize.
But they all speak Spanish so you'll just get a few idiots that worship agriculture and see it as being "different" from every other highly controlled, highly subsidized business that they love to criticize.
Posted on 12/27/25 at 2:17 pm to Riverside
quote:
historically important
But currently only important to few corporations, immigrant laborers, and big landowners.
I think that's the point of this thread and it's a damn good point. Sugar isn't the job producer it used to be. If it were, Donaldsonville, Morganza, and Plaquemine wouldn't be dead towns today.
Politically....demanding that an industry with so many protections employ more local labor and cared more for their local environment is a fair ask, especially if it's not a big bang approach that hits the industry all at once.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News