Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

[crescent]

.... to modify it for the Desert Tortoise you would do a similar adjustment that was seen for the grassland birds in Wisconsin, but instead of those nesting times, you would instead be using the activity and reproduction times associated with the desert tortoise to modify your timing. They are only active 5% of the time, spending 95% of the time in their burrows in a state similar to hibernation. So that gives you plenty of time to adjust. But that 5% is quite critical.

That 5% of above ground activity is spread out over much more than 5% of the year. They are active from mid-March (roughly) through mid-November (roughly), with peak activity levels from mid-April through mid-June and again from mid-September through mid-October. They are crepuscular, so they are underground all night, then emerge around dawn for a few hours, then back underground until early evening when they come out again for a few hours before heading back underground for the night. So, even during peak activity season, a tortoise might still be underground 2/3 to 3/4 of the time.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

As a general rule of thumb you would start with ~ 55% of forage removal as a base for determining availability. However, that would be one of those things you monitor and adjust. Certain things you may need to take more to prevent fire and/or because they are invasives you want to suppress, and certain other species you may want to take less. But that's your starting point and it won't be optimal. But from there your monitoring and adjustments of the plan will tend to bring you closer to optimal. Nothing's perfect, but it will be improving.

It seems that HM is considerably more labor intensive than other schemes. I'd be worried the extra cost would eat up the promised gains. How would you address such fears?

Because more forage produced by better management means more available for both wildlife and grazing.

So you keep saying but that doesn't answer the question. Reportedly, the range was being over-grazed. Even if the amount of forage is increased, why would it be necessarily enough for more than 150 heads of cattle?

HM won't magically create more rain. What it will do however is more effectively use that water. It will still remain dry arid conditions (except the riparian areas will become more wet and water will flow longer), but with more forage for the tortoise, and more protective cover to help prevent predation of the young and better soil structure for their burrows.

How was established that compacting the soil will be beneficial? Intuitively it would seem like compacted soil would make burrowing more difficult. Presumably you know of experiments showing that this is not true?
With what you say about plant cover, it sounds like you say that the landscape will become more grassland-like. Now, given that the tortoises do not spread into grassland, it seems odd that this would be beneficial.

Most importantly, since research suggest that livestock has a direct negative impact on the tortoises, how can we be sure that effects you claim will overcompensate for that?

They don't. That requires man's intervention to force them to overgraze invasives and undesirable woody growth susceptible to fires, while not overgrazing the restored desirable native species returning. There are several principles that can be used, like for example; the "second bite" principle, and timing the impact to promote reseeding of desirables while timing impact to interrupt reseeding of invasives.

Basically using cattle instead of herbicide. Makes a lot of sense.
It seems, though, like this would require very close monitoring of the cattle. Is that even economically feasible?

Not adaptive. Too restrictive. Could be more, but I'd have to study that more, and quite frankly not interested. I have spent way more time on this than I should have already. I have my own research too after all.

My understanding was that the restrictions would be imposed dynamically, each year based upon the range condition. To me, it sounded very much like what you proposed. Except of course, that it would be a yearly thing rather than the continuous real-time monitoring you propose.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That 5% of above ground activity is spread out over much more than 5% of the year. They are active from mid-March (roughly) through mid-November (roughly), with peak activity levels from mid-April through mid-June and again from mid-September through mid-October. They are crepuscular, so they are underground all night, then emerge around dawn for a few hours, then back underground until early evening when they come out again for a few hours before heading back underground for the night. So, even during peak activity season, a tortoise might still be underground 2/3 to 3/4 of the time.

Exactly and that's where holism is required. In spite of claims otherwise, that's why it is called holistic management. You would need to include specialists on the Tortoise. Also need specialists in soil science. Specialists in range management is a given. (Of course in our culture you need lawyers and accountants and other non-science specialists too.) Many different specialties apply. Typically a Phd scientist on say a tortoise would be somewhat limited in the knowledge of soil science. They may know what soils are most beneficial to the tortoise, but unlikely they have little idea how to change the soil structure to that ideal. Similarly even the soil scientist may not know how to change that soil structure with livestock. There are several fields that require specialized knowledge. It's impossible for one rancher to be expert in all those fields. Agricultural sciences, ecological sciences, even climatologists, each are highly specialized and knowledgeable, but it is a complex biological system, everything is connected. Even though the scientific and non-scientific fields are studied in a reductionist manner, the practical application of that knowledge needs holistic science...and in this case....holistic management.

 

[tsig]

Exactly and that's where holism is required. In spite of claims otherwise, that's why it is called holistic management. You would need to include specialists on the Tortoise. Also need specialists in soil science. Specialists in range management is a given. (Of course in our culture you need lawyers and accountants and other non-science specialists too.) Many different specialties apply. Typically a Phd scientist on say a tortoise would be somewhat limited in the knowledge of soil science. They may know what soils are most beneficial to the tortoise, but unlikely they have little idea how to change the soil structure to that ideal. Similarly even the soil scientist may not know how to change that soil structure with livestock. There are several fields that require specialized knowledge. It's impossible for one rancher to be expert in all those fields. Agricultural sciences, ecological sciences, even climatologists, each are highly specialized and knowledgeable, but it is a complex biological system, everything is connected. Even though the scientific and non-scientific fields are studied in a reductionist manner, the practical application of that knowledge needs holistic science...and in this case....holistic management.

I see how this works, we get all these specialists together to work out a plan and while they're busy arguing the last tortoise dies, problem solved.

ETA: Holistic management looks like movable goalposts are a feature not a bug.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

It seems that HM is considerably more labor intensive than other schemes. I'd be worried the extra cost would eat up the promised gains. How would you address such fears?

It can be more labor intensive, absolutely. Anybody thinking they can get into ranching (or any agriculture for that matter) and do it right, and not work their butt off is very naive. Labor costs most certainly are a factor in any management plan. HMPG is no exception.

So you keep saying but that doesn't answer the question. Reportedly, the range was being over-grazed. Even if the amount of forage is increased, why would it be necessarily enough for more than 150 heads of cattle?

I think your stumbling block is this: Overgrazing doesn't increase the forage the animals eat. It actually reduces it. If it is being over-grazed then the flora is being stressed and not growing, thus not producing as much forage, thus supporting fewer cattle. So if highly stressed over-grazed land can support say 300 cattle, then that same land grazed properly can support at least 400-500, maybe more. Even 1 cow can over-graze where 100 wouldn't. It is a factor of time and timing not numbers of cattle. Think of it this way. plant a seed. In a week or so it sprouts with a single leaf. Graze it then and it produces what? A microscopic tiny amount of forage? And then because it is grazed so young it dies, never to regenerate? But maybe that seed if allowed to grow a few months might produce 5 pounds of forage. Graze it then and you could take 2-3 pounds of that growth without harming the plant, as long as after grazing the plant is allowed to recover, and the grazing left behind manure and urine to fertilize the new growth. So it is all about times and timing, not numbers of cattle. But numbers do affect some things. More numbers of cattle leave more manure. So if you time it right and are able to get more cattle, then more manure, and more vigorous regrowth. Time it wrong and you kill the plants and dead plants don't feed anything, cows nor wildlife. No forage means no animals, means no manure, means slow recovery. So you can take your feedback curve in a positive direction and increasing grazing, or you can take your feedback curve in a negative direction with reduced grazing. Whenever you see a "solution" to over-grazing being reducing the numbers of cattle, then you know they are on that negative feedback curve and don't understand how to generate the positive feedback curve.

How was established that compacting the soil will be beneficial? Intuitively it would seem like compacted soil would make burrowing more difficult. Presumably you know of experiments showing that this is not true?

"Compaction" is too general a term here. Deep compaction is not good. But compression around the seeds can help dormant seeds to sprout (when water and nitrogen is present too). Animal impact can break the crust, compress the seed sprouting zone, and still not compress the deep zone all simultaneously. But it needs to be timed right and the cattle need removed after. What I was referring to in the first comment was the beneficial effects of soil structure seen in the rhizosphere.

With what you say about plant cover, it sounds like you say that the landscape will become more grassland-like. Now, given that the tortoises do not spread into grassland, it seems odd that this would be beneficial.

I wasn't talking about the sod producing grasslands found in areas with more moisture. I was talking about non-sod forming desert bunch grasses and forbs. Tortoise do great in that type of ecosystem. It is nearly ideal.

Most importantly, since research suggest that livestock has a direct negative impact on the tortoises, how can we be sure that effects you claim will overcompensate for that?

Actually the research is inconclusive, if the truth be told. But I'll admit that in some cases grazing can be detrimental. Other cases a positive affect. So that's where proactive monitoring is critical, a major part of every holistic managed grazing plan. Without the monitoring and adaptive parts, it will likely fail sooner or later.

Basically using cattle instead of herbicide. Makes a lot of sense.
It seems, though, like this would require very close monitoring of the cattle. Is that even economically feasible?

Herbicide isn't free either. Cattle can be sold at a profit. The line between profit and loss is narrow though. That obviously needs carefully considered when making the plan. It can be done and it has been done, but not always easy. It might take some creative thinking and human ingenuity to pull it off. There are actually business models where animals are rented to both public and private concerns to provide biological invasives control. That might be one way to approach it. It also might be possible to generate enough profit just from the sale of beef. Maybe some combination of the above. And yes, VERY close monitoring is required.

My understanding was that the restrictions would be imposed dynamically, each year based upon the range condition. To me, it sounded very much like what you proposed. Except of course, that it would be a yearly thing rather than the continuous real-time monitoring you propose.

Yes, that's correct. And of course the restrictions were arbitrary and ill advised, unless made in some context of exactly what type of grazing would be done. The restrictions are very likely spot on perfect in the context of continuous grazing, but wouldn't even be realistic in HMPG.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

ETA: Holistic management looks like movable goalposts are a feature not a bug.

The goals are fixed, the path to the goals is what moves. And yes, that is a feature.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

But on a US scale or a world wide scale, any scale large enough to actually have any effect on AGW. Certainly not. Not even close. In the US we are still loosing soil at 10 times the rate it can be replenished and carbon levels in the soil are at all time lows. What was once vast areas of land with SOC levels 10% or more 3 feet or more deep is now 3 inches at 1% or less in many cases. It really is a crisis.

Evidence?

 

[Biscuit]

The goals are fixed, the path to the goals is what moves. And yes, that is a feature.

WOW. So it isn't a plan at all, its a hail mary. Do whatever you have to and when it doesn't work blame the personalities involved but keep claiming that HM is the best plan that isn't a plan.

This of course is what make HM untestable and infinitely "claimable." (is claimable a word? If not I am coining it.)

 

[GlennB]

WOW. So it isn't a plan at all, its a hail mary. Do whatever you have to and when it doesn't work blame the personalities involved but keep claiming that HM is the best plan that isn't a plan.

This of course is what make HM untestable and infinitely "claimable." (is claimable a word? If not I am coining it.)

Yep.

Alternatively put - "If you don't get it right it's because you got it wrong", with no indication of a system for getting it right.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

WOW. So it isn't a plan at all, its a hail mary. Do whatever you have to and when it doesn't work blame the personalities involved but keep claiming that HM is the best plan that isn't a plan.

This of course is what make HM untestable and infinitely "claimable." (is claimable a word? If not I am coining it.)

Yep.

Alternatively put - "If you don't get it right it's because you got it wrong", with no indication of a system for getting it right.

Which leads us back to the original observation that "holistic" = nonsense.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What kind of mental midget does it take to claim a plan that adapts to constantly changing variables is not a plan? Or that if those changing variables are based on differing fields of science and a systems thinking approach to understand its function is taken instead of just the sum of its individual parts, it isn't holism? Do you guys have even the slightest critical thinking capability at all? Do you even know what critical thinking is at all? Surely you guys are just trolling me to get some reaction? Right? You couldn't possibly be that clueless and be posting on a science forum? Right? Or not? Because if you guys are just playing some kind of idiotic trolling game just tell me please. I can bow out as gracefully as the next guy and leave you to troll the woo based homeopathy guys instead.

 

[tsig]

What kind of mental midget does it take to claim a plan that adapts to constantly changing variables is not a plan? Or that if those changing variables are based on differing fields of science and a systems thinking approach to understand its function is taken instead of just the sum of its individual parts, it isn't holism? Do you guys have even the slightest critical thinking capability at all? Do you even know what critical thinking is at all? Surely you guys are just trolling me to get some reaction? Right? You couldn't possibly be that clueless and be posting on a science forum? Right? Or not? Because if you guys are just playing some kind of idiotic trolling game just tell me please. I can bow out as gracefully as the next guy and leave you to troll the woo based homeopathy guys instead.

When you have the facts pound the facts, when you don't have the facts pound the other posters.

 

[Biscuit]

What's with the personal attacks?

A scientifically sound process can be reproduced by following the set principles of the process. Want to change water from a solid to a liquid? Excite the atoms by applying heat! Want to reverse the process? Slow those atoms down! This can be done by anyone. The results are always the same. If holistic management is the name for "doing whatever needs to be done to grow grass depending on any and all variables" then it isn't a process or plan at all. It is just a catch all name for using land.

Step 1 - say you are doing holistic land management
Step 2 - do what ever you want
Step 3 - if successful then HM works. Otherwise you failed HM not the other way around.

Calling people mental midgets because you can't define your claim isn't going to change the facts that are plain for all to read.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What's with the personal attacks?

A scientifically sound process can be reproduced by following the set principles of the process. Want to change water from a solid to a liquid? Excite the atoms by applying heat! Want to reverse the process? Slow those atoms down! This can be done by anyone. The results are always the same. If holistic management is the name for "doing whatever needs to be done to grow grass depending on any and all variables" then it isn't a process or plan at all. It is just a catch all name for using land.

Step 1 - say you are doing holistic land management
Step 2 - do what ever you want
Step 3 - if successful then HM works. Otherwise you failed HM not the other way around.

Calling people mental midgets because you can't define your claim isn't going to change the facts that are plain for all to read.

Who are you quoting? Yourself? A strawman someone else made? And where did you find this 3 step planning process? Make it up yourself? Copied that strawman off someone else?

You can either think the mental midget applies to you or not as you see fit. I guess that would depend on if you are making this up yourself or getting it from elsewhere. But I can assure you no where in the holistic management process can you find those 3 steps. As far as me defining it? I have. Maybe you are not smart enough to understand, but that's on you. Even the most primitive of cultures and illiterates have had no problem consistently figuring it out, and gotten consistently positive results in the field from using it. If you can't...well...if the shoe fits ...

 

[catsmate]

When rainfall is measured in ones of inches per year, there is no useful retention near the surface possible, which is why desert plants are so spread out, with very wide (or very deep) root systems, with water retention biological processes, and why crust is so important. Destroy or disrupt that crust, and the biosystem dies. Grazing has a tendency to do just that.

A beautifully simple summary.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It looks like many here took their guitars and started to improvise.

 

[rwguinn]

It looks like many here took their guitars and started to improvise.

???

 

[Biscuit]

Who are you quoting? Yourself? A strawman someone else made? And where did you find this 3 step planning process? Make it up yourself? Copied that strawman off someone else?

You can either think the mental midget applies to you or not as you see fit. I guess that would depend on if you are making this up yourself or getting it from elsewhere. But I can assure you no where in the holistic management process can you find those 3 steps. As far as me defining it? I have. Maybe you are not smart enough to understand, but that's on you. Even the most primitive of cultures and illiterates have had no problem consistently figuring it out, and gotten consistently positive results in the field from using it. If you can't...well...if the shoe fits ...

No where in HM can you find any steps. That's the problem. I was being sarcastic with my 3 step process.

If you weren't calling me and everyone who disagrees with you mental midgets then the intent of your posts is as vague as HM is in its process. At this point you are just being rude and I have no idea why. If your claim had weight you could rest on that but obviously acting like dick and insulting peoples intelligence is your only argument. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Right biscuit. I get that you were purposely being sarcastic. That you are not actually as dumb as your post makes it seem. That was purposeful. I understood that all along. I would react better though if you would just be honest instead of purposely and sarcastically posting obtuse remarks. It makes it incredibly difficult to have a meaningful discussion when you and others start doing that. I would understand if for some reason HM caused some harm. But it doesn't cause harm. It is a way to improve land, ecosystems, and the lives of people in the community, not harm them.
GnaGnaMan asked some good questions and I did my best to walk him through it. It doesn't even matter if GnaGnaMan is convinced. At least it is being discussed in an intelligent manner and he is questioning in a manner consistent with critical thinking.
Your posts are not. Even though that was on purpose and you actually meant to post that way, it still doesn't change the fact that what you said is NOT intelligent and does not add anything at all to the subject. It was just a way to ridicule something you don't understand, instead of making an honest attempt to understand it like GnaGnaMan has.

 

[The Shrike]

"If your claim had weight you could rest on that but obviously acting like dick and insulting peoples intelligence is your only argument. Welcome to my ignore list. "


^That's just about where I am now after reading the last few posts.

Holistic Management = whatever management works to achieve your objectives. If what you're doing doesn't work, then it isn't HM. If that doesn't make sense to you then you're not intelligent.