BP 101 – Washing Your Bottom W/O TP

I've been wondering the same thing, Jim. I kind of doubt such a study's been done, or it seems like it already would have been referenced here. I'd guess it would be a pretty tough (and expensive) set of experiments to set up–simulating multiple environments in such a way you could let it run for several months, especially if elevation is one of the variables.

There's two universities where I live, both with decent plant collections in greenhouses that simulate a variety of environments. Maybe there would be some interest.

…Or I could have actually searched for such a study before I started speculating.

Here's the first hit from Google:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJ7-4DTKM00-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=974958907&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8f12aee2c850231d1a70e2250d42317e

The study was conducted in Australia–link is to the abstract–article costs $31.50.

Here's the abstract:

An examination of the relative breakdown rates of unused toilet paper, facial tissues and tampons was undertaken in nine different environments typical of Tasmanian natural areas. Bags of the paper products (toilet paper, facial tissues, tampons) were buried for periods of 6, 12 and 24 months at depths of 5 and 15 cm. A nutrient solution simulating human body wastes was added to half of the samples, to test the hypothesis that the addition of nutrients would enhance the breakdown of paper products buried in the soil. Mean annual rainfall was the most important measured variable determining mean breakdown in the nutrient addition treatment between sites, with high rainfall sites (mean annual rainfall of greater than 650 mm) recording less decayed products than the drier sites (mean annual rainfall of 500–650 mm). Temperature and soil organic content were important influences on the breakdown of the unfertilised products. Toilet paper and tissues decayed more readily than tampons. Nutrient addition enhanced decay for all products across all sites. Depth of burial was not important in determining the degree to which products decayed. In alpine environments, burial under rocks at the surface did not increase the speed of decay of any product. The Western Alpine site, typical of alpine sites in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, showed very little decay over the two-year period, even for nutrient enhanced products. Management prescriptions should be amended to dissuade people from depositing human toilet waste in the extreme (montane to alpine) environments in western Tasmania. Tampons should continue to be carried out as currently prescribed.

Note that "high rainfall sites (mean annual rainfall of greater than 650 mm) recording *less* decayed products than the drier sites (mean annual rainfall of 500–650 mm)" which is exactly the opposite of what I would have guessed.

Every possible issue with the rate of decomposition of TP can be solved in one of two SIMPLE ways:
1. Go without
2. Pack it out

Easy! No elaborate science necessary!

Note that "high rainfall sites (mean annual rainfall of greater than 650 mm) recording *less* decayed products than the drier sites (mean annual rainfall of 500–650 mm)" which is exactly the opposite of what I would have guessed.

Yeah, I saw that. I was wondering if I had read that correctly. So, TP in dryer conditions decomposes faster than in wet areas? Boy is that ever counter intuitive.

Interesting what they said about montane environments. In an alpine environment, it makes sense to me that TP would decay slowly; there's just not that much organic activity going on. In a montane area, I would have thought TP would break down more readily.

All that leading me to something I was wondering the last time is was up high: Should people be required to pack out not only their TP but their fecal matter as well?

I'm sure that comment will make me really popular on a UL site. ;) Seriously though, up above 10,500' or so in the Sierra, the soil seems so lifeless. I doubt things would break down quickly. Add to that the typical rockiness of the Sierra high country — there just aren't that many places you can make your, uh, "deposit."

Anyway, interesting discussion and good to know there's some science behind the idea of packing out your TP (if you use it I mean).

HJ

BACKPACKINGTPLESS.COM
p@@p less. be more self righteous.

"So, TP in dryer conditions decomposes faster than in wet areas? Boy is that ever counter intuitive."

Jim,

It's not the water per se but, rather, that excessive water displaces the oxygen necessary for rapid aerobic decomposition. Anaerobic decomposition proceeds more slowly and the faecal matter/TP will persist in the environment for a longer period of time..

"Seriously though, up above 10,500' or so in the Sierra, the soil seems so lifeless. I doubt things would break down quickly."

There are bacteria, lots of them, everywhere, including the Sierra above 10,500'. I've been interested in how faecal matter and TP break down up in the Sierra for 30 odd years now, precisely because I was concerned about leaving traces.
There is an area in the Upper Kern Basin, elevation ~10,700', that I have visited at least once a year during that period and I have checked sites I used on previous visits. No trace of TP and only a small, dessicated pellet unrecognizable as faecal matter are the most that I have ever found. Part of the reason for this, I hypothesize, is that I burn as much of the TP as I can in the hole and then urinate on it, both to quench embers and to add additional nutrients to the mix. It seems to work. TP is mostly cellulose and lignins, which do not break down as rapidly as, say, leaves but, in the presence of adequate nitrogen(think urine and faeces) and oxygen, the resident bacteria will get the job done.

"Add to that the typical rockiness of the Sierra high country — there just aren't that many places you can make your, uh, "deposit."

The rockiness of the Sierra provides countless "safe deposit boxes" for your convenience. Just find a secluded place where the slope will not cause spring runoff to flow into a water source, lift a fairly large, partially embedded rock to one side, and voila!, you have a prefabricated cathole/safe deposit box. Simply make your deposit, burn the TP in the hole, pee on it, and replace the rock. Simple as that. Talus slopes are another matter. Best do your business before or after negotiating the talus. Clearly there are countless other options, but this is one that I have found to work well and it definitely leaves no trace that humans or animals are likely to detect. Within one year, there is no trace, period. I probably should urinate on this post to avoid igniting another TP flame war. :)

it seems to me that the biggest reason for the hard line anti-tp campaign is the assumption that the toilet paper one sees on the side of the trail was once properly buried and has now been "dug up by wildlife".
I question this assumption for some basic reasons:
-all the tp I see is mostly clean bright white blooms. This leads to the conclusion that it was put there by someone too lazy and apathetic to walk more than 2 feet from the trail let alone dig a hole. If it was buried it would be thoroughly soiled and therefore not the bright white tp blooms you see.
– I also question the assumption that wildlife has a habit of digging up poo. I could be wrong and Im sure it happens sometimes, but its doesn't sound like a normal thing for wildlife to do. I can see if you are using perfume and lotion infused tp that may draw the curiosity of wildlife but you shouldn't use that kind of tp in the back country anyways.

Craig,
I think going TP-less *is* clearly the simplest solution–not what I've done in the past, but thanks to the discussion on this and other threads, what I intend to do in the future.

However, it's pretty clear from the discussion that many (most?) lightweight/UL backpackers still do use TP, and the lightweight/UL community is still much smaller than the traditional backpacking community, which I would guess overwhelmingly uses TP. So, a lot of paper is going into the backcountry for the foreseeable future.

Right now, if a newbie asks 10 different people what to do with used TP, they'll get 10 different answers, backed up by anecdote, opinion and wildass guesses. Good research allows for consistent recommendations and policies, with rangers in sensitive areas being able to enforce a go without or pack it out policy backed up by good science. Given the choice between going without and packing around a baggie of used TP, I imagine a lot of people will discover the joys of being TP-less.

Without the research, all we have is a bunch of competing belief systems, none of which seem likely to change.

I was wondering if there is a similar topic on brushing your teeth? Is the most efficient method Dr B's and a saw'd down tooth brush or are people using pine cones?

I was wondering if there is a similar topic on brushing your teeth? Is the most efficient method Dr B's and a saw'd down tooth brush or are people using pine cones?

Rocks, dude rocks. Guaranteed to cut plaque. :)

The rockiness of the Sierra provides countless "safe deposit boxes" for your convenience. Just find a secluded place where the slope will not cause spring runoff to flow into a water source, lift a fairly large, partially embedded rock to one side, and voila!, you have a prefabricated cathole/safe deposit box. Simply make your deposit, burn the TP in the hole, pee on it, and replace the rock.

Well, yes, kinda. I was up at Columbine Lake at about 11,000' a couple of weeks ago. It's a lot of smooth, glaciated granite slabs. I found a rock such as you described, but there weren't a lot of them and fewer still that weren't in full view of the trail. Sometimes, it's not so simple, but I agree with your approach in general.

Your "research" in the upper Kern basin is really helpful. It's good to know that the poo poo is desicating like that even high up and that there is no trace of unburned paper. I was feeling a little guilty about not packing out my poo poo, so it's a relief to hear that it really does break down even at relatively high altitudes.

Now, of course, I expect you to climb Black Kaweah (13,665') once a year and gather data up a little higher. I'll be looking for your posts… ;)

"Now, of course, I expect you to climb Black Kaweah (13,665') once a year and gather data up a little higher. I'll be looking for your posts"

I've been up near the Black Kaweah 5 times now on trips into the Kaweah Basin, but the thought of climbing that pile of loose rock, or anything on the Kaweah Peaks Ridge, puckers my sphincter to the point that TP-less backpacking suddenly seems very feasible. It's be a great place to train people in cr#pless backpacking-carry it in, carry it out, in the ultimate odorproof bag. ;}

lol.

Yeah, when you look at the Kaweah Divide, it's pretty intimidating. Crazy crags.