Assessment of the Cost of Soil Erosion to Crop Production in Canada
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•167 views
Mr Nasem Badreldin, University of Manitoba, Canada. Global Symposium on Soil Erosion (GSER19), 15 - 17 May 2019 at FAO HQ.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Assessment of the Cost of Soil Erosion to Crop Production in Canada
Similar to Assessment of the Cost of Soil Erosion to Crop Production in Canada (20)
More from ExternalEvents
More from ExternalEvents (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Assessment of the Cost of Soil Erosion to Crop Production in Canada
- 1. Assessment of the Cost of Soil Erosion to Crop Production in Canada Nasem Badreldin1,2, David Lobb1 1University of Manitoba, 2University of Guelph 1
- 2. By the early 1980s, there were great concerns raised about the costs of soil degradation in Canada. Don F. Rennie’s 1985 paper: “Soil and Water Issues and Options in Canada” Murray H. Miller’s 1986 paper "Soil Degradation in Eastern Canada: Its Extent and Impact” PAST ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 3. * present values ~2X PAST ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 4. In response, conservation tillage practices were promoted, and conservation tillage was widely adopted. PAST ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 5. With respect to public awareness, to government support through policies and programs, and to industry action, there has been a steady decline in interest in soil conservation. A pervasive belief that “we know all there is to know about soil erosion and soil conservation”. And, that “the job is done and we need to move on”. A sense of fatigue has set in. PAST ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 6. After almost 40 years, there was a need to revisit these figures, to improve them and to update them to assess status and progress. Science and technology have greatly advanced. There is a more complete and accurate understanding of soil degradation processes. There are better models for assessment and prediction. There are more comprehensive and accurate databases – which serve as better model inputs/outputs for assessment and prediction. PAST ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 7. CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST Economic Impacts of Soil Erosion: Focus on the direct impacts of soil loss on crop production and market value.
- 8. Economic Impacts of Soil Erosion: Focus on the direct impacts of soil loss on crop production and market value. Not the indirect impacts. Not the off-site impacts. CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 9. Assessment and Prediction Models: Built on Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Agri-Environmental Indicators program Soil Erosion Risk Models ASSESSMENT OF SOIL EROSION 2000 20102005 2016
- 10. Distribution of Soil Loss Rates for 1971 and 2011: Soil Erosion Soil Erosion Risk Classes 1971 2011 ASSESSMENT OF SOIL EROSION
- 11. Provincial Overview of Soil Erosion Between 1971 and 2011: Wind, Water and Tillage Erosion, combined as Soil Erosion Negligible Very Low Low Moderate High Very High M to VH 1971 2011 1971 2011 1971 2011 1971 2011 1971 2011 1971 2011 1971 2011 BC 17.1 54.6 22.9 32.4 48.3 9.0 8.6 1.9 0.4 0.5 2.6 1.6 11.7 4.0 AB 20.9 65.8 32.5 20.3 13.3 10.3 20.2 3.2 7.0 0.3 6.0 0.0 33.3 3.6 SK 0.0 60.1 19.5 22.7 44.2 15.9 17.2 1.2 15.3 0.0 3.7 0.0 36.2 1.2 MB 4.2 15.5 37.6 55.7 23.2 19.2 29.5 9.3 5.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 35.1 9.6 ON 5.5 10.0 16.4 17.8 10.4 14.5 25.0 29.0 18.6 15.4 24.0 13.4 67.7 57.8 QC 56.8 53.1 16.9 22.5 11.4 11.5 10.6 9.7 2.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 14.9 12.9 NB 20.6 27.4 21.1 16.0 32.9 33.7 7.9 9.6 7.0 6.5 10.4 6.9 25.3 22.9 NS 7.2 9.9 15.3 38.9 36.5 33.6 38.3 15.6 1.6 1.6 1.2 0.4 41.1 17.6 PE 11.5 11.9 7.5 7.9 4.1 3.9 65.7 76.3 11.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.9 76.3 NF 2.7 16.6 11.6 14.5 13.8 6.2 5.9 39.9 25.7 22.8 40.4 0.0 71.9 62.7 Can 9.4 50.5 24.9 25.6 28.9 14.4 20.0 6.3 11.3 1.7 5.5 1.4 36.8 9.5 ASSESSMENT OF SOIL EROSION
- 12. Soil Loss and Yield Loss Relationship: 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0102030405060708090100 Amount of original topsoil remaining (%SOC) Cropyield(%) 2xDTS 1xDTS * non-linear response CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 13. 1971 2011 Units Low- Eroding Cropland (N-L) High- Eroding Cropland (M-VH) Total Low- Eroding Cropland (N-L) High- Eroding Cropland (M-VH) Total Cropland Area ha 25,149,351 14,663,025 39,812,376 35,211,104 3,676,329 38,887,434 % 63.2 36.8 100 90.5 9.5 100 Soil Loss Rate t ha-1 yr-1 5.9 24.0 3.5 22.7 Relative Crop Yield % 99.5 83 95 40 Crop Yield Loss % 0.5 17 5 60 Annual Soil Loss and Crop Yield Loss in 1971 and 2011 * no net improvement * CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 14. Cumulative loss up to 1971 in the order of $20-30B … and Lost Value 1971 2011 Units Low- Eroding Cropland (N-L) High- Eroding Cropland (M-VH) Total Low- Eroding Cropland (N-L) High- Eroding Cropland (M-VH) Total Cropland Area ha 25,149,351 14,663,025 39,812,376 35,211,104 3,676,329 38,887,434 % 63.2 36.8 100 90.5 9.5 100 Soil Loss Rate t ha-1 yr-1 5.9 24.0 3.5 22.7 Relative Crop Yield % 99.5 83 95 40 Crop Yield Loss % 0.5 17 5 60 Degraded Value $2016 13,570,289,11 6 27,326,006,31 6 Non-Degraded Value $2016 14,525,640,87 3 30,429,706,92 1 Lost Value $2016 $0.96 B yr-1 $3.1B yr-1 CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 15. Cumulative loss up to 1971 in the order of $20-30B Cumulative loss from 1971 to 2011 in the order of $40-60B … and Lost Value 1971 2011 Units Low- Eroding Cropland (N-L) High- Eroding Cropland (M-VH) Total Low- Eroding Cropland (N-L) High- Eroding Cropland (M-VH) Total Cropland Area ha 25,149,351 14,663,025 39,812,376 35,211,104 3,676,329 38,887,434 % 63.2 36.8 100 90.5 9.5 100 Soil Loss Rate t ha-1 yr-1 5.9 24.0 3.5 22.7 Relative Crop Yield % 99.5 83 95 40 Crop Yield Loss % 0.5 17 5 60 Degraded Value $2016 13,570,289,11 6 27,326,006,31 6 Non-Degraded Value $2016 14,525,640,87 3 30,429,706,92 1 Lost Value $2016 $0.96 B yr-1 $3.1B yr-1 2x CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 16. Why has the cost of soil erosion continued to increase since the 1970s and 1980s, rather than decrease??? • Although the area of moderately to severely eroded land has decreased in general, a considerable amount of area has not. CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 17. Why has the cost of soil erosion continued to increase since the 1970s and 1980s, rather than decrease??? • Areas where soil erosion is now controlled through soil conservation practices still suffer from historical losses of soil. CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 18. Why has the cost of soil erosion continued to increase since the 1970s and 1980s, rather than decrease??? • Cumulative soil losses have pushed yield losses into a state of steep decline. CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 19. Why has the cost of soil erosion continued to increase since the 1970s and 1980s, rather than decrease??? • Restoring soil productivity on moderately to severely eroded areas is an extremely slow process. CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 20. Why has the cost of soil erosion continued to increase since the 1970s, rather than decrease??? • The value of crop production has increased. Farmers are growing higher yielding, higher value crops on land that is eroded. CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 21. CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST CropYield(t/ha) Seeded Area, Production and Yield for Wheat in Canada, 1961-2016 SeededArea(Mha)&Production(Mt)
- 22. CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST SeededArea(Mha)&Production(Mt) Seeded Area, Production and Yield for Soybeans in Canada, 1961-2016 CropYield(t/ha)
- 23. Why has the cost of soil erosion continued to increase since the 1970s, rather than decrease??? • The value of crop production has increased. Farmers are growing higher yielding, higher value crops on land that is eroded. CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 24. Take home message: Soil erosion continues to cost Canadian agriculture and the Canadian economy substantially —the cost has gone up, a lot! Although soil conservation efforts have reduced the amount of cropland that is moderately to severely eroded—more needs to be done! CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
- 25. Take home message: Soil erosion continues to cost Canadian agriculture and the Canadian economy substantially —the cost has gone up, a lot! Although soil conservation efforts have reduced the amount of cropland that is moderately to severely eroded—more needs to be done! STEP ONE: MINIMIZE SOIL LOSS STEP TWO: RESTORE AND STABALIZE SOIL CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF COST
Editor's Notes
- By the early 1980s, there were great concerns raised about costs of soil degradation in Canada Senate of Canada Standing Committee on Agriculture’s 1984 report: “Soil at Risk: Canada's Eroding Future”. Science Council of Canada’s 1986 report: “A Growing Concern: Soil Degradation in Canada”.
- Soil erosion was considered to be the most serious form of soil degradation. The annual cost of soil erosion was to be $0.53B ($1.1B in 2016 $). These values were alarming at the time. This alarm was a major impetus for the development and enhancement of soil conservation technologies and practices, and for increased awareness and adoption of soil conservation technologies and practices throughout the agriculture industry and across Canada.
- In particular, conservation tillage practices were promoted, conservation tillage was widely adopted.
- A lot has changed since then… With respect to public awareness, to government support through policies, programs and research, and to industry action, there has been a steady decline in interest in soil conservation. There is a pervasive belief amongst all of these stakeholders that “we know all there is to know about soil erosion and soil conservation”; and, that “the job is done and we need to move on”. A sense of fatigue has set in.
- After almost 40 years, there was a need to revisit these economic estimates, to improve them and to update them to assess the status of our soil resources and our progress in conserving soil. So, a couple of years ago, we initiated a study with the collaboration of AAFC.
- The focus of this assessment is the direct impacts of soil loss on crop productivity (yields) and market value.
- It does not capture the indirect impacts, such as increased input use of fertilizer and pesticides, resulting from increased soil-landscape variability. It does not include any additional equipment and operation costs resulting from the use of degraded soils and variable soils. It does not capture impacts on the quality of crops. These costs could be substantial, but they are difficult to assess and are presumed to be less than the direct impact of soil loss on crop yields. It does not capture the off-site impacts, such as the siltation of ditches and waterways, or the added eutrophication of surface waters and its impact on industrial and recreation uses of these waters. It is presumed that these costs are at least as great as the direct impact of soil loss on crop yields.
- This assessment is built on the ongoing work of AAFC on Agri-Environmental Indicators which began in 1993 The findings of this research have been reported by the Government of Canada in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2016. These reports provide assessments of soil quality an soil health spanning 1981 to 2011, and soon to extend to 2016.
- The assessment of soil erosion is the combined effects of wind, water and tillage erosion. Soil losses on the eroding portion of the landform – upper and mid slope segments.
- Focusing on the three lumped “unsustainable” classes… The shift in the Moderate to Very High Classes, from 37% to 10%
- To carryout the economic analysis it is necessary to translate the loss of productive topsoil into a loss of crop production. The economic analysis is very sensitive to this information -- it is a critical element of such analysis. Crop productivity expressed relative to potential crop yield on non-eroded site. Loss of Crop Yield driven by the loss of original organic-rich topsoil, indicated by the decline in depth of the topsoil (DT, equivalent to the original topsoil depth in terms of SOC) and SOC. Topsoil is lost through soil erosion, and diluted through incorporation of subsoil by tillage. * It is assumed that there are only modest gains through OC inputs from crops and crop residue – very little potential for gain OC on moderately to severely eroded soils.
- Shifts in High Eroding Cropland Areas and Crop Yields. Great improvements in soil conservation as indicated by a decrease in the area of crops on moderately to severely eroding land between 1971 and 2011, and an increase in the area on land subject to low to negligible levels of soil erosion. These soil erosion levels are average annual rates. They do not reflect the cumulative amount of soil loss on a piece of land. Cumulative soil loss over many years prior to 1971 and through to 2011 is reflected in the SOC levels of the soil and ultimately the Crop Yield and Crop Yield Loss.
- The Degraded Value of crop production is the reported market value of the crops grown in that year, expressed in 2016 dollars ($2016). The Non-Degraded Value is estimated value assuming that field-average yields could be met throughout the cropped area. By using field-average values, it sort of accounts for the fact that crop yields on non-eroded upper slope positions are naturally lower and non-eroded lower slope positions are naturally higher due to soil moisture variations that naturally occur in hilly soil-landscapes. The Lost Value in crop production due to cumulative soil losses in 1971 is estimated to be just under $1B (7%) ($2016). The estimated cumulative Lost Value for the preceding 30 to 60 years, assuming a soil loss rate equivalent to 30x the 1971 rate, is $20-30B. * The Lost Value in 1971 and 1981 is similar to Rennie’s $1.1B in the early 1980s. This estimate is as equally good, or bad as Rennie’s.
- The value in crop production increased markedly from 1971 to 2011; consequently, the greater Crop Yield Loss on the smaller High-Eroding Cropland area, translates into a much greater Lost Value. The annual Lost Value has increased to $3B (10%) in 2011 ($2016), with an estimated cumulative Lost Value of $40-60B between 1971 and 2011. The annual Lost Value is expected to be similar in 2016 and the cumulative value continuing to grow. These numbers are rough, but they are the best we have. They are considered to be very conservative. And they do not include any indirect costs either on site or off-site.
- Although the area of moderately to severely eroded land has decreased in general, a considerable amount of area has not. About 10% continues to be subjected to moderate to severe rates of soil loss.
- Areas where soil erosion is now controlled through soil conservation practices still suffer from historical losses of soil. In assessing cost, it is absolutely necessary to consider cumulative soil loss. This is rarely, if ever done in soil conservation planning. Although the area subjected to moderate to severe rates of soil loss has decreased from about 40% to about 10%, all of that 40% still suffers from historical soil losses.
- Cumulative soil losses have pushed yield losses into a state of steep decline -- the relationship between crop yield loss and soil loss is non-linear. Yield losses on moderately to severely eroded land have slipped down the curve from 17% to 60% due to historical soil losses.
- Restoring soil productivity on moderately to severely eroded areas is an extremely slow process. Some crops gain SOC, others lose it. Extraordinary measures are required to substantially build SOC levels in the soil profile.
- The value of crop production has increased over the past 30 or 40 years. It appears that farmers are growing higher yielding and higher value crops on land that is eroded.
- Farmers are growing higher yielding crops on eroded land. Doubling crop yield, doubles the cost of a 10% yield loss.
- Farmers are growing higher value crops on land that is eroded. With higher value crops, the cost of a 10% yield loss is higher. All of the above conditions conspire to produce what is assessed as a greatly increased cost of soil loss to crop production.
- It is important to remember When profit margins are slim in crop production, that 10% yield loss could represent most of the potential profit.
- Soil erosion continues to cost Canadian agriculture and the Canadian economy substantially —the cost has gone up! Although soil conservation efforts have reduced the amount of cropland that is moderately to severely eroded —more needs to be done!
- Conservation tillage, no-till and zero-till in particular, are absolutely necessary to slow and stop soil erosion and conserve the soil…. ….but, this is only the first step. This must be followed by practices that restore and stabilize the health and productivity of the soil. STEP ONE: MINIMIZE SOIL EROSION (LOSS) STEP TWO: RESTORE AND STABALIZE SOIL – The rate of soil restoration must exceed the rate of soil loss!