« Dutch Dhimmitude Expressed as Sick Joke | Main | La Raza Takes a Scalp in Kansas City »

"Average of 3 feet of topsoil" You gotta be kidding me. We have about 8' inches around here, and this is considered good farm country. Desert arctic, and rainforest areas have even less topsoil - sometimes none.

What's the deal here? They're inflating the amount of topsoil so they can pump up the loss figures? Or maybe some idiot who doesn't know a damn thing about topsoil has confused feet with inches.

Isn't paying farmers to practice soil conservation like paying an ice-cream shop to keep the freezer plugged in?

Back in the warmer than today 1930s (dust bowl) they didnt practice soil conservation. Today even in drought areas of the southeast there is no dustbowl precisely because farmers already practice soil conservation methods with things like no-till farming - at least in North America and Europe. Of course in backwater countries of Asia and Africa, they really dont practice soil conservation much as they just do what their ancestors 100 or 1000 years ago did.

If the plan is to pay these backwards farmers to do it, then its just another plot to transfer the wealth of the developed world to the 3rd world socialist hell holes. Maybe they can send Brad "Arm" Pitt and his family to teach them how to farm better on their dime? Maybe Angelina could even pick up few more non-white children as a bonus to add to her collection?

I forgot to mention. My local area, with its whopping 8" of topsoil, has been farmed for about 300 years - and it's still good farmland. Amazing! /sarc

The main downside is that milk cows tend to tromp all up and down some mighty fine trout streams. This is easily remedied by fencing the banks with barbed wire to funnel the cows into one of two crossing points. Simple and cheap - no government program needed. Sometimes Trout Unlimited - a private organization - chips in with volunteers and a little money to defray the costs of the wire. Planting some srubs on the bank is another simple, cheap thing they do.

Organic farming? Using poo? Thats a good way to spread E-coli and other nasty bugs. Those promoting organic farming want us all to live like those in the killing fields of Cambodia during the reign of Pol Pot.Empty out the cities! To the fields everyone! Organic farming isnt all its cracked up to be. You generally end up with low crop yields, insect infestations and produce that is wilted and under sized. Only those organic farmers who cheat by using chemicals under the cloak of darkness can match what regular farms produce. Thats pretty much why organic produce cost so much more than regular.

This is why natural floods (rivers and streams) are good for farmers. A pain when they occur, but when the water recedes, fresh new top soil

"Anonymous at January 23, 2008 8:09 AM"

Good point.
In the thirties, the topsoil blew away, often being dumped on cities, other farms and water. So where the heck is TODAY'S soil going, MARS? If it's not, then we are not "losing" it, it's just being shifted around.

And topsoil is also being created all the time, albeit slowly, from the decay of organic matter.

Ever notice how your lawn gets thicker (the soil level gets higher) as the years pass, especially if you don't bag your lawn clippings? All that grass dies and decays and turns into ... dirt!

Uh, given that topsoil is being "lost", are they distinguishing between "washed away (and not, as with the Nile banks, replaced)" and "paved over or carted elsewhere (for use)" in the study? Are the dust storms that occasionally strip surface sand (is that "soil"?) from the Sahara (and dump it in France and some other parts of Europe, and of course the Med) included?

OK, there is some reason for alarm - agriculture in some areas has vastly increased in recent decades with no local idea of how to conserve the soil (crop rotation, curved plow lines, and much more) and these places are in danger of becoming even poorer than they are now.

But "cropland in the U.S. is being eroded at least 10 times faster than the time it takes for lost soil to be replaced" seems either overstated or cherry-picked (lots of farms in New England have ceased to exist in the past 40 or so years: is that "lost topsoil"?). If the soil took 10,000 years to be made (since the glaciers retreated from, say, Nebraska, leaving dirt rather than fertile soil?) then even at this rate surely it will take 1,000 years to "lose" it. Worrisome and worth consideration, perhaps, but not panic-worthy.

“Somebody told me it was frightening how much topsoil we are losing each year, but I told that story around the campfire and nobody got scared”

Jack Handy