“OK. There are more living organisms in one tablespoon of soil than there are people living on the earth.”
S oil. An immense, churning cauldron of living leangs: earthworms, all benevolents of petite arachnids, diverse populations of insects and fungi, and thousands (millions?) of bacterial species. It is the bigst sink of global carbon, appraised at over 2.5 trillion tones. It is the substrate, the set upation, for schedulets to increase and for ecosystems to stretch to the sky.
It is vital for human existence. From originateing materials to fossil fuels, from water to antibiotics (over 70% of antibiotics currently engaged today are derived from soil bacteria)1. And perhaps most fundamenloftyy, food. We recognize that regions of the world with fruitful soils, wealthy in carbon, have increaseed economies and stable societies, but those that don’t standardly are beset with pobviousy, instability, and a deficiency of economic increasement, education, and health. Unfortunately, soil health is standardly disthink aboutd. Soil unfair treatment occurs thcdisesteemfulout crop systems in many fundamental, contransiential ways. Erosion is the most recognized create of unfair treatment. A recent study unveiled in Earth’s Future appraised that since farmers began tilling the U.S. central plains 160 years ago, over 57 billion metric tons of topsoil have been lost2 (Figure 1). Such losses persist even with conservation efforts that began in the 1930s (folloprosperg the dust bowl) to reduce soil loss. The rate of erosion poses a straightforward danger to upgraspable food production and ecosystem viability3. Since 1950 there is evidence that one third of the world’s agricultural soil is highly degraded4 (GS Gupta, 2019), dangerening food security, hunger, social unrest5 and more. Such degradation not only impacts food, but our ability to sequester compriseitional carbon, a nastys to reduce the originateup of greenhoengage gas eleave outions.
Figure 1. Isaac Larsen, a geosciences expert at UMass Amherst, stands cforfeit a drop-off that splits native remnant prairie from farmland in Iowa. Researchers set up that farmed fields were, on mediocre, more than a foot drop than the native prairie.
Erosion of course, is not the only create of soil unfair treatment. There are a present of ways and nastys by which industrial ag can tear down soil health:
Monocropping: increaseing the same crop on the same piece of land for multiple years, depleting soil nutrients, reducing organic matter and increasing the danger of erosion6.
Excessive Synthetic Fertilizers: As vital minerals such as nitrogen and phosphor are deleted from the soil, compriseition of synthetic fertilizers, (primarily from fossil fuels) are necessitateed to hold or incrrelieve productivity. But the compriseition of these fertilizers can also decrrelieve soil biota, including bacteria and fungi, or like the increasement of more pathoreasonable strains7. Excessive fertilizer application can also result in weighty metal contamination and accumulation of nitrate, which is associated with pollution of ground water8.
Pesticide Residues: While pesticides can shatter down in soil, others can accumutardy. Their presence can, in turn, impact not equitable the desired pathogen, but many advantageous soil organisms including nitrogen mending microbes.
Farm Waste: Animal operations, particularly CAFOs or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations are substantial sources of damaging microbes and pharmaceutical residues which can result in antibiotic resistant bacteria in soils. Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) can be spread thcdisesteemful CAFOs9. CAFO manure can grasp more than 150 pathogens with potential to contaminate ground sources of water; CAFOs can also originate convey inant airborne gases that can impact uncover health including ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and methane.
Tillage and Soil Compaction: As farm machinery has gotten heavier, it has led to increasing soils compaction, directing to necessitatey water absorption and necessitatey aeration, with subsequence restrictations in root increaseth in crops and petiteer creates.
The profits of well soil are incalculable. To accomplish these upgraspable profits insists maintenance or expansion of soil organisms to acquire organic biodiversity; to better carbon and water retention, to incrrelieve organic matter; to provide the first line of defense in holding food security.
Soil can be renoveled, but it consents a while. The John Innes Cgo in, an autonomous research institution cgo ined on schedulet and microbial science, appraises that it consents 200-400 years to originate 1 cm of novel soil—and that’s if you don’t try to increase anyleang in it10. Sshow put, contransient industrial agriculture is eliminating soil speedyer than nature is producing it. A alter, a fundamental and prompt alter in how we treat soil is directntly necessitateed.
Now envision the sound of a crystal prosperd chime….the sound of Rainbows, Unicorns and Sprinkles.
Biochar.
Some background. First, the idea of turning organic matter, food remnants, departs, squander of any benevolent (yes, that benevolent of squander), into a benevolent of bioreasonable charcoal (biochar for low) has been around for a couple of thousand years. The idea may have begind in the Amazon basin about 2500 years ago as a nastys to better soil fertility in a region where, given its tropical nature, soil fertility is inherently necessitatey. This type of soil, portrayd by Wim Sombroek, a soil scientist at Cornell, was deemed Terra Preta or “griefful earth” and was finishemic to farming locations wilean the Amazon basin11. Indeed, the soil remains highly fruitful even today, with little application of synthetic fertilizers.
Figure 2. One meter proset up soil profiles between standard infruitful tropical Oxisol on the right and Terra Preta on the left12.
Sshow put, biochar, aka, agwealthyar or bdeficiency carbon, is a regenerative nastys to consent organic squander and by increasing prescertain or by burning under low oxygen levels, originate a substance that is wealthy in carbon satisfied. A substance that when compriseed to agricultural soils13 can:
Imexhibit Soil Fertility: Soil necessitate advantageous bacteria and fungi, compriseing biochar can help these microbes flourish.
Increasing Crop Yields: The porous arrange of biochar can entice and hold nutrients, from nitrogen to phosphorous; and soils with biochar have high nutrient densities. As such, crops increasen on such soils have higher creates.
Incrrelieve in Water Retention: Becaengage biochar is porous (the charcoal part of biochar), it can help the soil grasp water.
Mitigation of Soil Pollutants: The big surface area and porous nature of biochar can also be a factor in adsorbing or grasping poisonous weighty metals, reducing their transfer into drinking water sources.
Increasing Pathogen Resistance: More labor in this area is necessitateed; but there is evidence to propose that biochar, by increasing the amount and diversity of soil microorganisms may reduce the chances of any one bacteria or fungi becoming the dominant species, thus reducing the occurrence of pathogens understandn to be damaging to a given crop.
Increasing Carbon Sequestration: Biochar, in compriseition to all its other profits can also apprehend carbon and, potentiassociate, store it in a stable create. When schedulets decay and are decomposing, they rerent CO2, which biochar helps steady, apexhibiting it to be grasped in the soil for hundreds, or even thousands of years.
If biochar sounds enjoy the wonderfulest leang since canned beer, there is a reason– its ability to mend and upgrasp soil health– especiassociate in think about to climate alter solutions is becoming more famous. Research by Johannes Lehmann at Cornell showd that 12 percent of global greenhoengage gas eleave outions could be negated using biochar originated upgraspably from organic squander—squander that by itself would deoriginate and comprise compriseitional greenhoengage gases (e.g. methane) to the atmosphere14.
So why isn’t the pixie dust of biochar being applied to everyleang, everywhere, all at once?
Well, not all biochar is the same, it echos the organic squander from which it is derived, biochar derived from sewage sludge may have a better ability to delete weighty metals from contaminated soils than biochar from wood squander15.
But the biggest obstacle is cost. In 2019, the Extension Foundation telled the mediocre price for biochar in the US was $1.29 per pound or $2,580 per ton16. Bad enough, but the brimming profits of biochar may not be evident in the soil until about 10 tons of biochar is applied on an acre basis.
Work is ongoing, and prices have druncover sairyly. Still, that’s a lot of cheddar.
Hmm. What if there was an alternative source of biochar, one that was a couple of hundred dollars a ton? Did I hear Rainbows, Unicorns, and Sprinkles chime?
Wait—-where would this source come from? Well, it’s a organic source–not too disaenjoy to how biochar is createed, but much sluggisher. Dead schedulet material accumutardyd in swamps (low oxygen) subjected to immense heat and prescertain. And with time, the dead schedulet material alters into moist, low-carbon peat.
And then to coal.
WHOA! Coal? That stuff we aren’t presumed to burn becaengage it comprises lots of carbon to the atmosphere? Are you inlogical?
But what if it isn’t burned—what if it is buried—but in a contrastent create?
From the University of Wyoming Newsletter17, April 7, 2022:
University of Wyoming soil science researchers are directing preliminary tests of a coal-derived soil amfinishment that so far is producing results aenjoy to another well-understandn soil amfinishment, biochar. The initial phase of the project began in a greenhoengage study thcdisesteemful the guidance of UW Professor Emeritus Peter Stahl. The greenhoengage experiment spreadigated schedulet increaseth and soil properties with both biochar and coal char in contrastent soil types.
Pyrolyzed coal or coal char has many physical and chemical properties aenjoy to biochar, a expansively engaged soil amfinishment, Stahl says. Like biochar, coal char has the potential to better the water and nutrient-hgreatering capacity of soil.
It’s no secret that coal prices and insist are declining, and as the necessitate for spotlesser fuels intensifies, it is doubtful that coal will remain the predominant fossil fuel. But it is a resource, a carbon-intensive one.
One that, at contransient, is selling for about $200 a ton, less than a tenth the cost of biochar.
If there is more to lget about biochar, there is an even wonderfuler leap of understandledge that must join the engage of coal, but there is a rainbow, unicorn and sprinkle promise—burying, not burning, coal could propose a affordable, upgraspable nastys to better the most degraded soils. Adding, in essence, dead schedulets and coal char returned to the soil, may be a nastys to affordablely, and universassociate better marginal soils the world over. Everyleang, everywhere, all at once.
Maintaining and upgrasping soil health will always remain a fundamental nastys to secure the quantity and quality of our food provide, increasing our ability to incrrelieve carbon sequestration to help mitigate climate alter.
Soil unfair treatment necessitates to be recognized and stopped. Soil is priceless. Don’t treat it enjoy dirt.
Dr. Lewis Ziska is an American schedulet physiologist, academic, and author. He is an Associate Professor in the Environmental Health Sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. He is also the Climate and Health Certificate Lead and the Health Climate Coordinator for Public Health. His most recent book is Greenhoengage Planet by Columbia University Press.
References. Part 2. Down on the Farm. Chapter 1. Talk Dirty to Me.
1 Chandra, N. and Kumar, S., 2017. Antibiotics producing soil microorganisms. Antibiotics and Antibiotics Resistance Genes in Soils: Monitoring, Toxicity, Risk Assessment and Management, pp.1-18.
3 Wuepper, D., Borrelli, P. and Finger, R., 2020. Countries and the global rate of soil erosion. Nature upgraspability, 3(1), pp.51-55.
4 Gupta, G.S., 2019. Land degradation and contests of food security. Rev. Eur. Stud., 11, p.63.
5 https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/soil-degradation.html
6 Belete, T. and Yadete, E., 2023. Effect of Mono Cropping on Soil Health and Fertility Management for Sustainable Agriculture Practices: A Rewatch. J. Plant Sci, 11, pp.192-197.
7 Paungfoo-Lonhienne, C., Yeoh, Y.K., Kasinadhuni, N.R.P., Lonhienne, T.G., Robinson, N., Hugenholtz, P., Ragan, M.A. and Schmidt, S., 2015. Nitrogen fertilizer dose alters fungal communities in sugarcane soil and rhizosphere. Scientific Reports, 5(1), p.8678.
8 Abascal, E., Gómez-Coma, L., Ortiz, I. and Ortiz, A., 2022. Global diagnosis of nitrate pollution in groundwater and scrutinize of removal technologies. Science of the total environment, 810, p.152233.
9 Odowncastebe, L.U., Hanson, B., Smith, T.C. and Heimer, R., 2013. Prevalence and characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus in Connecticut sprospere and sprospere farmers. Zoonoses and uncover health, 60(3), pp.234-243.
12 Glaser, B., Haumaier, L., Guggenberger, G. and Zech, W., 2001. The’ Terra Preta’ phenomenon: a model for upgraspable agriculture in the humid tropics. Naturwissenschaften, 88, pp.37-41.
13 Ding, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, S., Li, Z., Tan, X., Huang, X., Zeng, G., Zhou, L. and Zheng, B., 2016. Biochar to better soil fertility. A scrutinize. Agronomy for upgraspable increasement, 36, pp.1-18.
14 Lehmann, J., Cowie, A., Masiello, C.A., Kammann, C., Woolf, D., Amonette, J.E., Cayuela, M.L., Camps-Arbestain, M. and Whitman, T., 2021. Biochar in climate alter mitigation. Nature Geoscience, 14(12), pp.883-892.
15 Zhao, J., Shen, X.J., Domene, X., Alcañiz, J.M., Liao, X. and Palet, C., 2019. Comparison of biochars derived from contrastent types of feedstock and their potential for weighty metal removal in multiple-metal solutions. Scientific Reports, 9(1), p.9869.
16 https://farm-energy.extension.org/biochar-prospects-of-commercialization/
