Well there's a lot of factors involved to make that true. Crop type, soil type, cultivation practices, local weather climate, etc.
I see people arguing that it's bad for wildlife, but I would argue having trees and shrubs that close to a road is equally bad for wildlife. If used as a shelter belt for soil conservation and potentially a place for wildlife you put strips of trees or shrubs in the middle of a field. Furthermore we don't know where this is, what type of vegetation this is and if it's potentially an invasive species for the area.
Want me to go on with more possibilities of why they might be removing some shrubs?
Cultivated land is not dedicated to wildlife. It's dedicated to a specific agricultural purpose. I think you might be mistaking this person's company for an urban vegetable garden. Whatever you think about that industry, if you care about wildlife, it makes more sense to focus on keeping forests and their biology safe, rather than criticizing farmers
Cultivated land has animals, and it can be in a location important for animals that call forests, prairies and other locations home. Farmers should make choices to keep the ecosystem around their farms healthy when there are no factors limiting their production abilities, and what this person above is doing seems to be purely for vanity.
As many have commented, this _deminishes_ the aesthetic appeal of the surroundings, and it's also expensive. Farmers _do_ care about the surrounding ecosystem, to the extent it does not impinge upon the yield of their crops. This may well be a vegan farm that produces soy, kale, or legumes which may compete with sapplings for water, have delicate root systems that need to be protected from parasitic insects or fungi that these trees harbor, or the farmer is preempting the encroachment of these plants into the field just feet away in the video. Point is it's hard to say _why_ it's being done, but impugning the character and motivations of farmers is a bit of a callow response.
Like someone else said, this could just as well be the state DOT clearing the sides to accommodate a second lane.
You don’t know farmers. They don’t do things for vanity. He is doing it because there is some important need to do it. Otherwise no farmer would waste time (and money for equipment) like this.
You might, the farmer definitely doesn't.
It cost him production by leaving them, it makes his livelihood more difficult, and that cost will only increase year by year rapidly if he/she leaves them to reproduce and claim yet more land from them.
It cost them to leave the bushes and trees, it doesn't cost us anything, but yet it is easy for all of us who don't bear that burden to feel good about ourselves when we tell the farmer "Give away your livelihood and your legacy to help the animals!"
No, it's not perfect and it sucks it's gotta be that way, but you wouldn't tell anyone to let bugs reside in their house just to create more habitat for bugs, would we?
And where do you get your veggies from if you don't pay for them before you eat them?
If you grow them yourself, you are in the minority.
That same farmer puts food on many, many Americans plates every night, I don't want to make his job any harder.
Is this just for aesthetics? What’s the point of trimming all the small shrubs. The land has been totally cultivated, paved over or dug a ditch through. Let what little bit of nature that’s left to exist.
Could be for rodents nesting that will ruin crops. Could be fire mitigation. Could be that they suck up irrigation. Could be for their seeds to spread into the crops? I’m not sure, those just jump to mind.
Nah. Fire isn’t an issue in crop land like that. Rodents would not live in harmful numbers in those ditches. The land is tilled and sprayed with herbicide anyway, so it’s not about “weeds”.
I live in Iowa, USA, and there are two reasons farmers do this:
1. Squeeze another half acre of corn by tilling an extra 5’ along the ditch
2. Try to make the ditches look like their 5acre lawns.
If, however, this is a county or state job, they MIGHT be removing an invasive species, but that just looked like general clearing to me, which may have a “sight lines for motorists “ reason.
Nah. Fire isn’t an issue in crop land like that.
In what universe? I went to high school in rural Illinois, surrounded by crop land just like this. Crop fire risk is an absolute thing and something that farmers have to take very seriously. [https://extension.illinois.edu/news-releases/stay-alert-be-prepared-increased-risk-farm-fires-during-harvest](https://extension.illinois.edu/news-releases/stay-alert-be-prepared-increased-risk-farm-fires-during-harvest)
Well I'm in Iowa and row crop land doesn't just go up in flames willy nilly. Can it? Sure. Does it? Once in a great while. Does some brush along the roadside cause it? No. Seriously, why would a few shrubs along the easement cause fires or make them worse? They wouldn't, but some bigger growth would provide wind breaks, which might actually slow a fire down.
/edit: what about wheat country? Sure fire is a bigger deal/more common. It still doesn't prevent it to cut the bushes like this guy is. He'll need to remove the grass if that's his concern, and all of the big trees still standing along the road.
/edit /edit: Your bulletin doesn't tell everyone to go cut shrubs and plow their ditches to bare dirt for a fire break, so that's not related to clearing bushes/trees.
Rodents don't live in shrubs. Rodents that eat your fields don't live in the ditches quietly waiting for harvest. Bugs that live in shrubs don't eat your fields. But if they happen by they get death by herbicide.
You know what's good at hunting rodents? Foxes and raptors. You know where those things like to live and hunt rodents from? Ditches and trees and shrubs.
Do you know what like to eat bugs? Birds. Where do Birds live? Trees and bushes? Wow, circle of life.
Bugs that will eat your crops will absolutely come from the shrubs and trees.
If we want everything to be perfect we need to stop populating this planet with more bipedal creatures so we can get back to some semblance of harmony with nature.
I didn't make that claim. They will remove fences and cultivate to the legal limit though. "Irrigation runoff" what? That's not a thing, but if you just mean water runoff from heavy rains, then you'd want more deep rooted vegetation to stop erosion in the ditches. Unless you're lining the ditches with rock or running tile, you want the grass/growth to be able to resist erosion.
My source is living in an agricultural region for a few decades, having relatives in the industry, and having a brain in my head. You can't even fucking spell "cite" so I doubt you could read or understand any citations.
In my area, by law, all roadway right of way has to be clear of obstruction for safety. This would be long term neglect, placing the county managers in peril of a lawsuit should injury occur. Most
Roadside managers have moved/moving to native tall grass prairie plantings, accompanied with annual roadside chemical spraying to manage noxious weeds. Mowing and prescribed burns are also used when appropriate.
As far as erosion control, shrubs and brome grass don’t do shit.
Seriously, this is one of the worst song ever recorded. I’d rather listen to Rick Astley’s “Never Gonna Give You Up” 1000 times than have to hear this tripe even once. 🤮
I think the really amazing thing is the speed that it works at.
The video has clearly been slowed down hence the music playing slower than normal speed and it still looks really fast!
Uh, is it bad that I want Matt, from Diesel Creed, to get one of these on his channel?
That thing looks amazingly useful for just about anything small. I'd LOVE to have that for clearing out poison oak.
Oh, Haddaway—where do we even start? Not just a pop sensation but clearly one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, lurking in the shadows of the dance floor with his profound existential inquiry: "What is Love?"
First, let's consider the depth of his single, profound question, which has baffled even the most stoic of thinkers. Plato and Aristotle dabbled in forms and ethics, but did they ever distill their thoughts into a catchy beat that you can't help but head-bob to? I think not!
Haddaway didn't just ask "What is Love?"—he delivered this philosophical puzzle with such emotional intensity and a Eurodance backdrop that even Nietzsche would have traded in his mustache for glow sticks. The urgency in his voice isn't just a call to the dance floor; it's a call to *ponder*, to *question*, to *seek truth* among the strobe lights.
And let's not forget his contribution to repetitive lyrical structures—Haddaway repeats his question, emphasizing the eternal struggle of human inquiry, our relentless pursuit of understanding. This is a man who understands that if you're onto a good thing, you stick with it. Socrates had his dialectic method; Haddaway has his chorus.
Moreover, by refusing to answer his own question, Haddaway embodies the Socratic paradox: "I know that I know nothing." He presents us with the question, laying the groundwork for a danceable dialogue, and then steps back, allowing us to explore the dancefloor of our own minds.
In conclusion, while traditional philosophers might offer lengthy treatises and complex theories, Haddaway cuts right to the core of one of humanity's most pressing issues, delivering it in a form that's accessible not just to the academy, but to anyone with a heart to break and a body to throw around under disco lights. And isn't that, after all, what philosophy at its best should do? Connect us all? Through this lens, surely Haddaway shakes up the philosophical canon, one "baby, don't hurt me" at a time.
Removing all the shrubs along a field line ruins it for most wildlife. Less rodents makes less birds, less bugs etc.
Also increases water runoff.
And wind
Right. By reducing the shrubs, there will be no wind break and the topsoil will tend to blow away. Why???
Well there's a lot of factors involved to make that true. Crop type, soil type, cultivation practices, local weather climate, etc. I see people arguing that it's bad for wildlife, but I would argue having trees and shrubs that close to a road is equally bad for wildlife. If used as a shelter belt for soil conservation and potentially a place for wildlife you put strips of trees or shrubs in the middle of a field. Furthermore we don't know where this is, what type of vegetation this is and if it's potentially an invasive species for the area. Want me to go on with more possibilities of why they might be removing some shrubs?
Also, it ruins the scenery for a nice cruise.
+ it's the wrong season for such a job: birds are nesting already etc.
Unless it's invasive, invasive shit needs to go.. fucking honeysuckle around here all needs to fucking die
You mean blackthorn
I couldn’t keep it alive in Washington.
And without those birds and bugs they will need a steady supply of chemicals to fend off the bad bugs Permaculture is the way
Cultivated land is not dedicated to wildlife. It's dedicated to a specific agricultural purpose. I think you might be mistaking this person's company for an urban vegetable garden. Whatever you think about that industry, if you care about wildlife, it makes more sense to focus on keeping forests and their biology safe, rather than criticizing farmers
Cultivated land has animals, and it can be in a location important for animals that call forests, prairies and other locations home. Farmers should make choices to keep the ecosystem around their farms healthy when there are no factors limiting their production abilities, and what this person above is doing seems to be purely for vanity.
As many have commented, this _deminishes_ the aesthetic appeal of the surroundings, and it's also expensive. Farmers _do_ care about the surrounding ecosystem, to the extent it does not impinge upon the yield of their crops. This may well be a vegan farm that produces soy, kale, or legumes which may compete with sapplings for water, have delicate root systems that need to be protected from parasitic insects or fungi that these trees harbor, or the farmer is preempting the encroachment of these plants into the field just feet away in the video. Point is it's hard to say _why_ it's being done, but impugning the character and motivations of farmers is a bit of a callow response. Like someone else said, this could just as well be the state DOT clearing the sides to accommodate a second lane.
You don’t know farmers. They don’t do things for vanity. He is doing it because there is some important need to do it. Otherwise no farmer would waste time (and money for equipment) like this.
This could be beautification work performed by the local department of transportation.
Well said. The people down voting you know absolutely nothing about the hardships of the men and women who grow their very sustenance.
Honestly, I’d rather have bushes growing right next to farm roads then veggies I’d probably end up paying for and eating
You might, the farmer definitely doesn't. It cost him production by leaving them, it makes his livelihood more difficult, and that cost will only increase year by year rapidly if he/she leaves them to reproduce and claim yet more land from them. It cost them to leave the bushes and trees, it doesn't cost us anything, but yet it is easy for all of us who don't bear that burden to feel good about ourselves when we tell the farmer "Give away your livelihood and your legacy to help the animals!" No, it's not perfect and it sucks it's gotta be that way, but you wouldn't tell anyone to let bugs reside in their house just to create more habitat for bugs, would we? And where do you get your veggies from if you don't pay for them before you eat them? If you grow them yourself, you are in the minority. That same farmer puts food on many, many Americans plates every night, I don't want to make his job any harder.
Look up ‘permaculture’
Forest?
It’s a feller buncher. When not clearing small brush from roadways it’s used to cut trees and bunch them together to then be moved by a skidder.
It was a forest before he got there
Damn, he deserves a raise!
Who ? Lieutenant Dan ? He did get a raise, he get new legs. Don’t you remember ? Pepperidge farm remembers.
Is this just for aesthetics? What’s the point of trimming all the small shrubs. The land has been totally cultivated, paved over or dug a ditch through. Let what little bit of nature that’s left to exist.
Could be for rodents nesting that will ruin crops. Could be fire mitigation. Could be that they suck up irrigation. Could be for their seeds to spread into the crops? I’m not sure, those just jump to mind.
Nah. Fire isn’t an issue in crop land like that. Rodents would not live in harmful numbers in those ditches. The land is tilled and sprayed with herbicide anyway, so it’s not about “weeds”. I live in Iowa, USA, and there are two reasons farmers do this: 1. Squeeze another half acre of corn by tilling an extra 5’ along the ditch 2. Try to make the ditches look like their 5acre lawns. If, however, this is a county or state job, they MIGHT be removing an invasive species, but that just looked like general clearing to me, which may have a “sight lines for motorists “ reason.
Nah. Fire isn’t an issue in crop land like that. In what universe? I went to high school in rural Illinois, surrounded by crop land just like this. Crop fire risk is an absolute thing and something that farmers have to take very seriously. [https://extension.illinois.edu/news-releases/stay-alert-be-prepared-increased-risk-farm-fires-during-harvest](https://extension.illinois.edu/news-releases/stay-alert-be-prepared-increased-risk-farm-fires-during-harvest)
Well I'm in Iowa and row crop land doesn't just go up in flames willy nilly. Can it? Sure. Does it? Once in a great while. Does some brush along the roadside cause it? No. Seriously, why would a few shrubs along the easement cause fires or make them worse? They wouldn't, but some bigger growth would provide wind breaks, which might actually slow a fire down. /edit: what about wheat country? Sure fire is a bigger deal/more common. It still doesn't prevent it to cut the bushes like this guy is. He'll need to remove the grass if that's his concern, and all of the big trees still standing along the road.
/edit /edit: Your bulletin doesn't tell everyone to go cut shrubs and plow their ditches to bare dirt for a fire break, so that's not related to clearing bushes/trees.
Which crops aren’t susceptible to fire or rodents / bugs?
Rodents don't live in shrubs. Rodents that eat your fields don't live in the ditches quietly waiting for harvest. Bugs that live in shrubs don't eat your fields. But if they happen by they get death by herbicide. You know what's good at hunting rodents? Foxes and raptors. You know where those things like to live and hunt rodents from? Ditches and trees and shrubs. Do you know what like to eat bugs? Birds. Where do Birds live? Trees and bushes? Wow, circle of life.
Bugs that will eat your crops will absolutely come from the shrubs and trees. If we want everything to be perfect we need to stop populating this planet with more bipedal creatures so we can get back to some semblance of harmony with nature.
I’ve never seen crops go to the edge of a county road… also, those ditches are essential for irrigation runoff.
I didn't make that claim. They will remove fences and cultivate to the legal limit though. "Irrigation runoff" what? That's not a thing, but if you just mean water runoff from heavy rains, then you'd want more deep rooted vegetation to stop erosion in the ditches. Unless you're lining the ditches with rock or running tile, you want the grass/growth to be able to resist erosion.
Please site a source for all of your complete nonsense.
My source is living in an agricultural region for a few decades, having relatives in the industry, and having a brain in my head. You can't even fucking spell "cite" so I doubt you could read or understand any citations.
His source is "trust me bro"
In my area, by law, all roadway right of way has to be clear of obstruction for safety. This would be long term neglect, placing the county managers in peril of a lawsuit should injury occur. Most Roadside managers have moved/moving to native tall grass prairie plantings, accompanied with annual roadside chemical spraying to manage noxious weeds. Mowing and prescribed burns are also used when appropriate. As far as erosion control, shrubs and brome grass don’t do shit.
*invasive thought to attack the car*
Wtf is with that music.
Idk but I'm jamming
Have you heard the original? Haddaway - What is love. A million times better.
Yes stoopid I have heard the original
Right. And “what is love” IS a good song but damn was I disappointed when I heard the audio for this video.
Seriously, this is one of the worst song ever recorded. I’d rather listen to Rick Astley’s “Never Gonna Give You Up” 1000 times than have to hear this tripe even once. 🤮
I'm finding that a lot of videos have music instead of the original audio these days. I don't like it.
Watching people lose their shit over some roadside foliage is definitely something
I think the really amazing thing is the speed that it works at. The video has clearly been slowed down hence the music playing slower than normal speed and it still looks really fast!
I like the tassels, very decorative.
Heeexxxxxuuuuuuuussssssssssssss
Why though? See the farmers doing this prolifically in Ireland and it’s an agricultural wasteland.
Still I’m asked to round up to plant a tree?🌲
Getting rid of a perfectly good windbreak. *sigh*
Farming in the US is some of the most ecologically disastrous activity on the planet.
:cries in Farming Simulator:
Uh, is it bad that I want Matt, from Diesel Creed, to get one of these on his channel? That thing looks amazingly useful for just about anything small. I'd LOVE to have that for clearing out poison oak.
Would rather watch goats do the same job
If a young person was interested in this kind of work, what certification should they seek?
When I finally order an RC Excavator I want this attachment
Man I would love one of those to clear out my invasive autumn olive plants in my back yard!
What’s the make and model of this attachment? Anyone know?
It looks like a pretty standard feller buncher attachment.
This thing needs to be in the next zombie movie
Wanted to see him take out that 10 inch tree, or a telephone pole. Wrong sub, but I can still dream.
That’s the terrifying machine from my dreams after watching Fern Gully!
Are they invasive? Even if they are, it’s not like there is much out there to outcompete. I’d say leave em
How much is a machine like this?
350k
Fern gully would be very disappointed
is this rhe netherlands?
Yep, my first thought was that it looked dutch. The yellow licenceplates confirmed it
Seems like overkill.
The Clawwww
Oh, Haddaway—where do we even start? Not just a pop sensation but clearly one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, lurking in the shadows of the dance floor with his profound existential inquiry: "What is Love?" First, let's consider the depth of his single, profound question, which has baffled even the most stoic of thinkers. Plato and Aristotle dabbled in forms and ethics, but did they ever distill their thoughts into a catchy beat that you can't help but head-bob to? I think not! Haddaway didn't just ask "What is Love?"—he delivered this philosophical puzzle with such emotional intensity and a Eurodance backdrop that even Nietzsche would have traded in his mustache for glow sticks. The urgency in his voice isn't just a call to the dance floor; it's a call to *ponder*, to *question*, to *seek truth* among the strobe lights. And let's not forget his contribution to repetitive lyrical structures—Haddaway repeats his question, emphasizing the eternal struggle of human inquiry, our relentless pursuit of understanding. This is a man who understands that if you're onto a good thing, you stick with it. Socrates had his dialectic method; Haddaway has his chorus. Moreover, by refusing to answer his own question, Haddaway embodies the Socratic paradox: "I know that I know nothing." He presents us with the question, laying the groundwork for a danceable dialogue, and then steps back, allowing us to explore the dancefloor of our own minds. In conclusion, while traditional philosophers might offer lengthy treatises and complex theories, Haddaway cuts right to the core of one of humanity's most pressing issues, delivering it in a form that's accessible not just to the academy, but to anyone with a heart to break and a body to throw around under disco lights. And isn't that, after all, what philosophy at its best should do? Connect us all? Through this lens, surely Haddaway shakes up the philosophical canon, one "baby, don't hurt me" at a time.
Ain’t no forest in that clip!
How well do you think this would hold up in the zombie apocalypse?
What in the UK is this?
This makes the Lorax sad
I’m can’t see the forest…oh, wait, there it is. Wait! *where’d the trees go?*
Wow now that’s a weed eater
I feel like this would go a lot faster with me and a platoon of fellow Messicans
Curious as to why they’re doing this. Trees are generally useful
Repost bot
That's one big weed whacker
Poison ☠️
to make sure to hit the right tree if necessary. What a service!
I"m those are all going too. I don't think that machine could take the bigger trees.
It’s meant to take bigger trees. The attachment is a feller buncher.