Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

[Red Baron Farms]

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.

That's actually a perfect example of a place where reductionism fails and holism is needed. Taking a narrow reductionist view what you just wrote is true mostly. And an expert in crusts will be happy to show research and evidence of that. The part where it fails is in claiming there is no possible alternative or that the biosystem automatically dies. Better stated is that it will change. That change could be positive or negative depending on a whole host of variables including fields of science that the person studying crusts would not be aware of.

Crusts do provide some armor to the surface. But there are other ways more beneficial to the ecosystem, like having the water locked in living organisms. A cell wall of a biological life form will lock a significant amount of moisture. If that organism is near the surface, then the net effect is that moisture is also near the surface. The capacity of dry land to hold water near the surface then is largely dependent on the living biomass found there. So making a blanket statement like that, as if crusts are the only possible way to protect the land, is actually false. The armor can be in living organism. It can also be in protective mulch and biomass undergoing biological decay. It is true the land does need a protective cover or the biosystem dies, but that cover doesn't always have to be the crust.

A crust is very limited in the biology it can support. Other types of protective layers that are carbon based can support much more. The reason for this is that humus can hold the equivalent of 80–90% of its weight in moisture, and therefore increases the soil's capacity to withstand drought conditions. Also the living biology that evolved in desert has developed ways to hold water and withstand drought conditions as well. Combine the two and instead of being additive they have a multiplying effect, because it is that biology that creates the humus. The process of biological decay that makes the humus cycles nutrients that feed the biology, creating more biomass. That is also why it all ties back to climate science. Because that increased biomass is carbon based and humus is carbon based, and CO2 in the atmosphere is a primary driver of AGW. Photosynthesis is a way to remove it from the atmosphere. But it will oxidize and return to the atmosphere unless it is somehow locked in the soil and the biology living in the soil.

It may sound circular, because it is. It is cyclical in nature. Grazing incorrectly will increase the oxidation side of the cycle, grazing correctly will increase the sequestration side. It is all about timing. Break the crust at the wrong time and it is harmful, creating sand dunes and dust storms and oxidizing any carbon that was present. Break it and replace it with a biological armor instead, and it is healing.

People want evidence. OK here is evidence from the Karoo region of South Africa. Single digit annual rainfall, desert conditions. Side by side comparison.
HM in Karoo

 

[rwguinn]

What you are describing is a revision of the environment to introduce essentially invaders. The primary task of the US public management sector (BLM, USFS etc) is to manage for the native species, not to optimize for non-native and invasive species.
Desert plants do quite well on their own with water management, which includes desert crust, among other things. Non-native grasses and large herbivores make that management much more difficult

 

[Red Baron Farms]

What you are describing is a revision of the environment to introduce essentially invaders. The primary task of the US public management sector (BLM, USFS etc) is to manage for the native species, not to optimize for non-native and invasive species.
Desert plants do quite well on their own with water management, which includes desert crust, among other things. Non-native grasses and large herbivores make that management much more difficult

The primary reason invasives are a problem is because poor management has killed off the natives, leaving the niches open and easily invaded. But where native desert grasses and forbs are present and the healthy ecosystem functioning, invasives have a much more difficult time taking over.

ETA: The really cool thing is that native wildlife that feeds on those native grasses and forbs begin to return. So you have the possibility seeing a return of wildlife too, now that they have food to eat. That happened in Texas. In fact, some things had been extinct in Texas for so long that people had actually even forgotten they were native to Texas! Like Elk for example. The Government was actually trying to exterminate the invasive Texas elk! Completely forgot that Elk are native to Texas! Same basic conditions. Single digit rainfall, desert land. And for evidence....

Returning native elk on holistic managed West Texas Ranch

Here is another on the Holistic managed Circle Ranch.

Texas Elk

 

[The Shrike]

Like Elk for example. The Government was actually trying to exterminate the invasive Texas elk! Completely forgot that Elk are native to Texas! Same basic conditions. Single digit rainfall, desert land. And for evidence....

How on earth do a couple of photos of elk constitute "evidence" for your ridiculous claim above?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

How on earth do a couple of photos of elk constitute "evidence" for your ridiculous claim above?

Well it's evidence of elk returning on Texas holistic managed land! You want evidence of something else? You want evidence that the Texas legislature in 1997 declared Elk a non-game (exotic) animal? Or perhaps you want evidence Texas Parks and Wildlife Department tried to shoot out all Elk on property they managed? (A practice they stopped when the protests from ranchers brought to light the policy was wrong) What do you mean? I just posted pictures of Elk on Holistic managed land in Texas as evidence the Elk began to return there. What's ridiculous about the claim Elk are in Texas again? Or maybe you need evidence of Elk being native to Texas?

 

[The Shrike]

Talk about moving goal posts!

What's ridiculous about the claim Elk are in Texas again?

Here was your original statement. Do the bolded parts mean the same thing to you?

Like Elk for example. The Government was actually trying to exterminate the invasive Texas elk! Completely forgot that Elk are native to Texas!

Good heavens, you could be a bigfooter with a move like that, not to mention your unqualified "The Government". Rhetoric like that befits people wearing tin foil hats.

Now let's break down the most likely scenario assuming these facts you claimed are true:

1) The Texas Legislature voted to list elk in Texas as exotic game in 1997.
2) The TPWD had a plan to eradicate elk on their land.

Your explanation is that wildlife biologists "forgot" that elk were native to Texas. Seriously? That's your explanation? How about something more plausible, like this:

Elk were/are widely ranched in Texas, and biologists were concerned about genetic mixing between the intensively bred "high fence" ranched elk and the free-ranging animals (themselves descended from Rocky Mountain elk [Cervus canadensis nelsoni] brought in to replace the former native and now extinct subspecies C. c. merriami.)

 

[rwguinn]

Don't be silly. Gubmint biologists and scientists always forgit stuff that's documented in the literature because they hate holistic stuff and don't want it to succeed.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Talk about moving goal posts!



Here was your original statement. Do the bolded parts mean the same thing to you?



Good heavens, you could be a bigfooter with a move like that, not to mention your unqualified "The Government". Rhetoric like that befits people wearing tin foil hats.

Now let's break down the most likely scenario assuming these facts you claimed are true:

1) The Texas Legislature voted to list elk in Texas as exotic game in 1997.
2) The TPWD had a plan to eradicate elk on their land.

Your explanation is that wildlife biologists "forgot" that elk were native to Texas. Seriously? That's your explanation? How about something more plausible, like this:

Elk were/are widely ranched in Texas, and biologists were concerned about genetic mixing between the intensively bred "high fence" ranched elk and the free-ranging animals (themselves descended from Rocky Mountain elk [Cervus canadensis nelsoni] brought in to replace the former native and now extinct subspecies C. c. merriami.)

They are concerned about mixing the genetics, so the solution is to extirpate the free ranging herds? Really?
So it is your contention that they knew Elk were native to Texas all along, but declared it an invasive species and attempted to exterminate it from public ranges because it wasn't genetically pure? That way the only Elk left in Texas would be intensively bred "high fence" ranched elk?

Nice theory, but to buy that theory I would have to believe they lied on purpose to include the Elk with the Aoudad extermination project. That they actually knew Elk used to be common in all parts of Texas and not just the tiny (now extinct) Merriami population in the mountains in the corner of the state. That they would lie to purposely use government resources to exterminate a known native species seems a very outlandish conspiracy theory to me. I just can't believe it.

Incompetence in Government is pretty easy to find, but a conspiracy at that level? Hard to believe.

 

[The Shrike]

First, thanks for not owning up to your unscrupulous discussion tactics in which I caught you red-handed. When people stay in character it's easier for us mental midgets to make sense of the world.

Next, you are confused about the elk in Texas. If we take as true your statement that the TPWD had an eradication program for elk on their lands, then I am suggesting that the program was most likely targeted at herds comprised of individuals escaped or released from high-fenced ranches. The point would be to keep native elk from mixing with what would essentially be domesticated stock. If, as you also contend, that this plan was endorsed by the state legislature, then it was public knowledge and there is no conspiracy. Capice?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Shrike,
I have no problem with your posts. Even when we disagree, I don't think you are trolling. I was angry about certain other people who were using ridicule and sarcasm as a tactic instead of critical thinking.
The whole point of the little side bar from Texas was that when land management improves, even land management based on livestock, wildlife also benefits. Sometimes the benefits are so large that unexpected things happen that haven't been seen in living memory.
In Africa on Savory's land he donated as an educational project, streams and rivers started flowing year round that had always dried up every dry season. That brought back biosystems and wildlife that hadn't ever been seen, like wetland reeds and resident Egyptian Geese, species of fish and birds that eat fish. A cascade of effects the would have been impossible to imagine at the beginning of the project. In Texas it helped bring back free ranging Elk and bighorn sheep that had been absent for years. I predict that in Nevada it could have similar benefit to the ecosystems, like restoring a Joshua Tree Savanna that hasn't been seen except in tiny remnants in living memory. Sure Joshua trees are still there and the desert grasses and forbs are still scattered around. But the functioning system taken as a whole? Been gone so long, people are beginning to even question it ever existed at all. But restore that with good management and I predict a huge increase in Tortoise, desert bighorn and mule deer populations, maybe even a return of Pronghorns in numbers? Return of Beaver? Certain birds? Hard to predict exactly which wildlife would benefit the most. But wildlife does need to eat, even desert wildlife. So land management with livestock that increases the forage available will benefit wildlife too.

 

[rwguinn]

Hunting in Texas is big business, since there is so little public land. Landowners charge big bucks, to the point where elk meat would cost the equivalent of around$50per pound if bought outright.
The legislation RBF talks about was brought about by the high-fence ranchers to keep their lucrative business going. Exotic species can be hunted year round, game animals cannot. The breeders and game ranchers won, under the umbrella of bighorn and elk competing for water in the desert Guadalupe area. Since the Bighorns were meing managed for comeback after the major die-offs due to unregulated hunting and succumbing to diseases brought in by domestic sheep and other domestic herd animals.It has nothing to do with grazing, holistic or otherwise. It has to do with money.
The game ranchers did not want DFG managing their herds, and telling them when they could allow hinting.
It was purely a money talks situation.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Hunting in Texas is big business, since there is so little public land. Landowners charge big bucks, to the point where elk meat would cost the equivalent of around$50per pound if bought outright.
The legislation RBF talks about was brought about by the high-fence ranchers to keep their lucrative business going. Exotic species can be hunted year round, game animals cannot. The breeders and game ranchers won, under the umbrella of bighorn and elk competing for water in the desert Guadalupe area. Since the Bighorns were being managed for comeback after the major die-offs due to unregulated hunting and succumbing to diseases brought in by domestic sheep and other domestic herd animals.It has nothing to do with grazing, holistic or otherwise. It has to do with money.
The game ranchers did not want DFG managing their herds, and telling them when they could allow hinting.
It was purely a money talks situation.

Actually, that's a conspiracy theory I find quite plausible, every part of it makes complete sense. Poorly managed livestock can spread disease to wildlife and I do remember reading years ago that certain "free range" sheep were infecting Big Horns. It also makes sense that high fence game ranches would want to sell Elk Hunting Packages without restriction. It's even plausible that somehow they could influence some DFG personnel into helping by convincing them that competition between Elk and Bighorns would slow Big Horn recovery. That type of incorrect reductionist thinking became quite prevalent in the 90's in many government management agencies. So no free ranging elk because the DFG helped exterminate them would mean hunters only option would be the high fence ranches. That shoving money at the issue could sway legislature goes without saying. That legislature wouldn't know that Elk actually are native, while the people pushing the legislature cynically did know, is possible. Everything you just said is probably true. Thanks for the post.

 

[rwguinn]

There is no attempt at "extermination" of free range elk. There just is no closed season on them. The ranchers and guides make a killing. I did mention that there. Is very little public land in Texas? So where does holistic grazing come into play?

 

[The Shrike]

The legislation RBF talks about was brought about by the high-fence ranchers to keep their lucrative business going.

Ha ha - I had it backwards! Every time I worry that I might be getting too cynical all I have to do is look to Texas and it's obvious that I'm not cynical enough.

 

[EHocking]

...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...

I can see why you think compaction by grazing animals is beneficial.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I can see why you think compaction by grazing animals is beneficial.

Actually, we're still waiting for a link for that claim. It was conveniently ignored.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I can see why you think compaction by grazing animals is beneficial.

It can be beneficial and it can be harmful. It depends. When it is done right the benefit is primarily in seed germination.

But again, you can't make blanket statements that animal impact is always good or always bad. You have to know what you are doing.

 

[Reality Check]

This is a good time to teach you how to use critical thinking skills to pick apart a biased propaganda blog.

No one seems to have addressed these "critical thinking skills" that you used so here goes, Red Baron Farms .
Firstly calling any blog "a biased propaganda blog" without evidence is evidence of a lack of critical thinking skills.

True statement:

(To put that claim in perspective, note that the Earth’s oceans and plants currently absorb only half of the 7 billion metric tons of carbon that human activities release into the atmosphere each year.)

Oceans and plants also absorb carbon from other sources that is released into atmosphere. The estimated total absorption by vegetation alone of all of the carbon in the atmosphere (human and other sources) is ~ 123 PgC/yr.

The point is that it is the 7 billion metric tons of carbon that human activities release into the atmosphere each year that is driving global warming. So we have to double the absorption by plants (and maybe oceans) to that value to stop global warming.

No, Not necessarily more meat animals.

So some people at the TED talk praise Savory’s speech and you think that quotes from them are comments from the blog author?

Savory’s speech quickly attracted praise ...
The takeaway was clear: If you’re interested in saving the planet, sharpen your steak knives.

It seems logical that more grassland = more grazing animals = more meat. After all farmers are unlikely to raise cattle for charity!

Completely false.

I would say partially true - the author is talking about Savory’s claims which should include claims before that "holism" label was added.

Oh, you mean...snipped irrelevant text....

No it means that

It’s no wonder that one ecologist—who was otherwise sympathetic toward Savory—flatly stated after the TED talk, “Savory’s method won’t scale.”

as in this other blog entry
Alan Savory, Freeman Dyson and Soil Sequestration

Extreme example of ignorance.

Extreme example of fact:

Cows live up to 20 years of age, but in most grass-fed systems, they are removed when they reach slaughter weight at 15 months. Cheating the nutrient cycle at the heart of land regeneration by removing the manure-makers and grass hedgers when only 10 percent of their ecological “value” has been exploited undermines the entire idea of efficiency that Savory spent his TED talk promoting.

Cows are removed from grasslands when they have generated only 10 percent of their ecological “value”.
But a bad conclusion because they are replaced by more cows!

No. Not grassland.

No. Not grassland- the subject of the quote is deserts, Red Baron Farms !
This is a continuation from

Further weakening Savory’s argument for the wholesale application of holistic management to the world’s deserts is his distorted view of desert ecology. ...

Basically Savory did not distinguish between degraded land and thriving desert ecologies in his speech.

Correct.

This is Savory blaming the failures to reproduce his methods not on any "development phase" but on management:

In 1990, Savory admitted that attempts to reproduce his methods had led to “15 years of frustrating and eratic [sic] results.” But he refused to accept the possibility that his hypothesis was flawed. Instead, Savory said those erratic results “were not attributable to the basic concept being wrong but were always due to management.”

If a method is valid then results from it will support it - even when it is not fully developed.
This is not Edison's light bulb that either worked or did not work.
This is more like solar panels that always worked but at started with low efficiency.

And there is the clincher.

And there is the sentence:

There’s no such thing as a beef-eating environmentalist.

The wide scale destruction of forests in South America to raise cattle means that an dedicated environmentalist would not eat beef.
If Savor's idea includes world wide destruction of desert ecologies then it is just as bad for the environment.

Abandoning critical thinking skills to attack the author on some imagined basis is not good. It would be better to point out who he is:

James E. McWilliams is the author of Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly and a professor of history at Texas State University.

A historian is not the best person to blog about a TED talk on agriculture!

 

[Reality Check]

More about that talk: TED Talk Teaches Us to Disparage the Desert

Allan Savory takes it further than that: He wants to eradicate deserts just because they exist.

The points the author brings up are:
* "The notion that bare, unvegetated soil in the American desert is an evil to be avoided flies in the face of everything we know about desert soil science."
* "The idea that grasses must be eaten by livestock to perform a valuable ecological function is similarly absurd."
* "Savory's contention that the "algal crust" he shows developing on arid land soil is "the cancer of desertification" is unscientific in the extreme."

 

[EHocking]

Actually, we're still waiting for a link for that claim. It was conveniently ignored.

It can be beneficial and it can be harmful. It depends. When it is done right the benefit is primarily in seed germination.

But again, you can't make blanket statements that animal impact is always good or always bad. You have to know what you are doing.

Actually, I was just poking fun at the spelling mistake in your post . . .