Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
Sat Oct 4, 2014, 01:26 PM Oct 2014

From the Malthusian Files: World's topsoil gone in 60 years?

This is an intensely sobering article. Seems like a classic Malthusian limit may be coming into view...

http://www.eclectications.com/

How much erosion is acceptable? For the better soils of the Midwestern corn belt, about five tons per acre per year -- in theory. The Soil Conservation Service, who are now the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), speak of the acceptable erosion rate as the Soil Loss Tolerance Rate, or sometimes the "T factor."

NRCS reported in 2007 that only 28% of US cropland was eroding faster than the acceptable rate "T" -- not an ideal situation, but apparently much better than "gone by 2075." Yet the more detailed NRCS data don’t fully support this statement. And the T factor itself is a puzzling legacy..

NRCS publications don’t say how T was calculated, though it’s tabulated in the soil survey for every soil in every county of the US. The calculation took into account the natural rate of soil formation, but only as one factor among many. Judging from some discussions back in 1956, T was mainly designed to keep the topsoil deep enough for crop production, free of serious gullying, and capable of holding most of the nutrients applied to it. The soil formation rates considered may have been some early, highly optimistic estimates.

Current estimates suggest that soil forms at about half a ton per acre per year in some representative Iowa and Minnesota soils. Even the lowest T values are many times higher. Soil scientist Leonard Johnson reviewed the research behind the T factor in 1986. He concluded that erosion control based on T values "..should be considered as provisional or short-range."

Conservation planning is difficult because the accepted method of estimating soil erosion in a given field, refined and extended since the 1930s, is still inadequate. New studies, in which actual runoff from test fields is collected and measured, show that actual soil erosion is 100-200% worse than the most sophisticated estimate. (One of the test fields is being farmed by the best no-till methods.)

With actual soil erosion this severe, we may be losing topsoil at 10 to 30 times the rate it is forming. That range echoes the 10x-40x estimate of an Australian soil scientist, Prof. John Crawford, for the entire world’s cropland. He told Time magazine in 2012 that
"A rough calculation of current rates of soil degradation suggests we have about 60 years of topsoil left. Even the well-maintained farming land in Europe, which may look idyllic, is being lost at unsustainable rates."
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
From the Malthusian Files: World's topsoil gone in 60 years? (Original Post) GliderGuider Oct 2014 OP
And people ask why I feel hopeless for humans. I thought we were going to fix this after hollysmom Oct 2014 #1
Then agribusiness cut them down a few years later Warpy Oct 2014 #2
well, not a few years, ,lets just say until our parents were retired. hollysmom Oct 2014 #3
Topsoil is renewable Demeter Oct 2014 #4
So is oil, theoretically NickB79 Oct 2014 #5

hollysmom

(5,946 posts)
1. And people ask why I feel hopeless for humans. I thought we were going to fix this after
Sat Oct 4, 2014, 01:35 PM
Oct 2014

the dust bowl. My dad was sent around the country planting trees on farmland

Warpy

(111,267 posts)
2. Then agribusiness cut them down a few years later
Sat Oct 4, 2014, 03:05 PM
Oct 2014

because they represented dollars getting away from them.

It's hard to wrap my mind around the colossal, blinkered stupidity of big business and the "pro business" government it bought.

So I'll be gone, but the kids my friends had, people I love, will be facing a country with little potable water and no topsoil.

If I could go back in history, I'd give Big Daddy Koch a vasectomy.

hollysmom

(5,946 posts)
3. well, not a few years, ,lets just say until our parents were retired.
Sat Oct 4, 2014, 03:57 PM
Oct 2014

People get mad at me for saying well, I will be dead, but it is true, I don't expect to live over 100, heck making 90 is my goal, but you can see the hard financial times the your friends are having. To add the burden of a bad climate and fewer resources and seeing their obliviousness to this, I do worry.

 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
4. Topsoil is renewable
Sat Oct 4, 2014, 06:39 PM
Oct 2014

in two years, you can replenish it, if you want to.

Trouble is, nobody thinks that way, except for the subscribers to Rodale.

NickB79

(19,247 posts)
5. So is oil, theoretically
Sun Oct 5, 2014, 06:10 PM
Oct 2014

But the timescales are a little, shall we say, problematic for modern global civilization and 7 billion humans.

in two years, you can replenish it, if you want to.


I've been intensively composting and mulching my garden for 5 years, adding leaves, grass clippings, chicken manure, green manure plantings, etc, and the rate to actually build soil (not just rebuild soil nutrients) is EXCEEDINGLY slow. I'd say your 2 year estimate is a wee bit optimistic unless you can present some other information to reinforce it.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»From the Malthusian Files...