Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

[Red Baron Farms]

No one seems to have addressed these "critical thinking skills" that you used so here goes, Red Baron Farms

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.

Some of your critical thinking on it is pretty good! Thanks for that. The section I cut out above though is demonstrably off. If the absorption is 123PgC/yr which yields a net of ~ 3.5-4 (about 1/2 the 7 human activities emit) It does not necessarily follow that it would take double the absorption (246PgC/yr) to yield a net of ~7. And in fact in this case, it absolutely doesn't. If you green desertified land, yes that will increase the total absorption somewhat. To what degree is unknown but certainly far less than double. The exact amount is trivial though compared to what is happening. It is not the total absorption that changes as much as it is the rate of sequestration. In other words, what % of the carbon is removed from the short term carbon cycle and sequestered into the soil in a long term carbon cycle. If that rate stays the same, yes you would have to double the total vegetation of the planet (pretty difficult). But if you change the rate of sequestration enough you wouldn't necessarily need to increase the total vegetation at all.

HM and most other related "carbon farming" techniques do increase the total vegetation, but more importantly when discussing their potential as mitigation tools, they change the rate that vegetation sequesters carbon in the soil. In other words they change the % of that 123PgC/yr absorbed carbon that ends up as humus.

In highly simplified approximate form what we have now is:
123PgC/yr x .28 = 3.5PgC/yr

Which is less than the 7PgC/yr we humans emit.

And what we would be shooting for is:
(123PgC/yr + XPg/yr) x (.28 + Y) = ZPgC/yr

Where X is increased vegetative absorption due to more vegetative growth, Y is increased vegetative sequestration due to an increased % of absorbed C being turned to humus, and Z total is greater than the carbon we humans emit.

The main reason HM works is because it increases humus in the soil which allows more vegetative growth. Increased vegetative growth increases humus, which also allow more vegetative growth...etc... It is a positive feedback curve. So HM affects both variables not just one. The proposal is to turn the negative feedback curve we have now called desertification, into a positive feedback curve which is called regenerative agriculture. HMPG is not the only regenerative agriculture, but it is a big one potentially. Obviously it becomes much easier if emissions are also reduced. Then our target value for Z is smaller and requires less changes in the X and Y variables HM affects.

 

[GlennB]

The main reason HM works is because it increases humus in the soil which allows more vegetative growth. Increased vegetative growth increases humus, which also allow more vegetative growth...etc... It is a positive feedback curve.

Is there no limit to the vegetative production of an area of soil then? The plants just go on getting denser and denser? That makes no sense to me.

Your 'positive feedback' curve would mean the soil not only gets deeper forever, but gets deeper at an ever increasing rate.

There's something wrong here.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Is there no limit to the vegetative production of an area of soil then? The plants just go on getting denser and denser? That makes no sense to me.

Your 'positive feedback' curve would mean the soil not only gets deeper forever, but gets deeper at an ever increasing rate.

There's something wrong here.

Of course there is a limit. The feedback curve does have a point of diminishing returns. Limiting factors include sunlight, water, seasonal temperatures etc... Humus in the soil and all the biology in the soil does make the limited rainfall more effective and holds onto it longer, but it can't magically create unlimited rainfall. It will still be dry brittle land.

 

[GlennB]

Of course there is a limit. The feedback curve does have a point of diminishing returns. Limiting factors include sunlight, water, seasonal temperatures etc... Humus in the soil and all the biology in the soil does make the limited rainfall more effective and holds onto it longer, but it can't magically create unlimited rainfall. It will still be dry brittle land.

Right. So having reached the limit of carbon sequestration in the soil we're back to square one but have bought ourselves some time. We face the same problems, but at a later date.

In short, HM is not a solution any more than excellent home insulation is a solution or energy-efficient electrical devices are a solution.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Right. So having reached the limit of carbon sequestration in the soil we're back to square one but have bought ourselves some time. We face the same problems, but at a later date.

In short, HM is not a solution any more than excellent home insulation is a solution or energy-efficient electrical devices are a solution.

Clever switch from rate to a hard limit. It's a cycle Glenn. That cycle never stops unless life on Earth stops. The change in rate has a point of diminishing returns, but the carbon sequestered can be held for thousands of years and that cycle can continue into deep geological time if conditions are right. Remember, Fossil Fuels are not unlimited either. They are simply part of the long carbon cycle.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I think your stumbling block is this

My stumbling block, actually more of a barrier, is that I don't see how these purported facts were arrived at.
It looks a lot as if you were just shaking just-so stories out of your sleeve.

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.

That last sentence sounds like it is impossible to have too many cattle on a piece of land. Surely that's not what you mean.
What I want to know is how the optimal and maximal number is estimated.

"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.

Breaking the crust implies breaking tortoise burrows. I don't see why any hypothesized soil change should be a benefit to tortoise burrowing.

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.

Do you have any examples of HM being used in such conditions/to create such conditions?

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.

Well, one would rarely want to destroy invasive species for profit. More likely it would be a environmental NGO or, as in this case, a government project to protect biodiversity.
I find it hard to believe that forcing cattle to overgraze particular spots would be cheaper than herbicide. Granted, you save the money for the herbicide and gain some forage but then there's the cost for fencing and labor...
Also, I have doubts if it would work that well. The invasives are after all adapted to grazing, the natives not. Which, AFAIU, is the ultimate reason why grazing benefits them under conventional management.

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.

How do you know that these additional restrictions you call for were not also put in place?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

My stumbling block, actually more of a barrier, is that I don't see how these purported facts were arrived at.
It looks a lot as if you were just shaking just-so stories out of your sleeve.

I realize it is counter-intuitive.

That last sentence sounds like it is impossible to have too many cattle on a piece of land. Surely that's not what you mean.
What I want to know is how the optimal and maximal number is estimated.

You start with ~ 55% forage removal. But remove it in a way that is regenerative instead of degenerative. As the land regenerates, there is more vegetation that needs removed and nutrients recycled. This takes more animals to do it. And so the cycle is a positive feedback cycle. But it does reach a point of diminishing returns. It doesn't keep increasing forever.

Breaking the crust implies breaking tortoise burrows. I don't see why any hypothesized soil change should be a benefit to tortoise burrowing.

The crust we are talking about here is a quite thin layer on top. It has nothing to do with tortoise burrows. When I said the soil structure helps the tortoise, I was referring to the rhizosphere, not the crust. Glomalin holds soil aggregates together. It is produced by mycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhizal fungi live in the rhizosphere and require a living host plant. Native grasses that evolved in conditions like that are the best host plant for the most mycorrhizal fungi -> which produces the most Glomalin -> which holds the soil aggregates together -> which improves the soil structure for the tortoise burrows.

Do you have any examples of HM being used in such conditions/to create such conditions?

As far as I know it hasn't been used in precisely those conditions, but it has been successfully used in even worse conditions. Convincing evidence

Well, one would rarely want to destroy invasive species for profit. More likely it would be a environmental NGO or, as in this case, a government project to protect biodiversity.
I find it hard to believe that forcing cattle to overgraze particular spots would be cheaper than herbicide. Granted, you save the money for the herbicide and gain some forage but then there's the cost for fencing and labor...
Also, I have doubts if it would work that well. The invasives are after all adapted to grazing, the natives not. Which, AFAIU, is the ultimate reason why grazing benefits them under conventional management.

Yes it always costs to remove the invasives. The question is whether the sale of beef is enough to cover that cost and make a profit. Generally yes. It's not guaranteed a yes, margins are thin, but it can be profitable and can be even more effective as well. Holistic Managed Grazing at Soda Lake

How do you know that these additional restrictions you call for were not also put in place?

Not really understanding the question here. I know they were removing ranchers from the land in the mistaken hope that would benefit the ecology and the tortoise. I know most the ranchers went quietly because they understood you can't fight the government, and right or wrong they will order it and enforce those orders. I know that in the 20 years since most the ranchers left, things are worse, not better.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I think I've read enough lines to guess at what's between them. Let's try something: I will describe a land management technique, based on what I *think* all this holistic stuff is getting at. So as not to strawman, I'll divorce my thoughts from actual HLM by calling this technique "tight herding." None of the professed benefits or drawbacks of HLM should apply. I'd like to get the opinions of everyone but RBF as to the feasibility of this technique, then RBF's opinions as to how close it is to HLM, and if it differs, where.

Okay, tight herding.

The motivation for the tight herding management technique comes from the observation that a very dense group of grazing animals tends to accidentally mimic many of the processes that industrial farming intentionally applies. Principally, the livestock's hooves break up the soil's crust, opening up the topsoil much like plowing, pushing seeds and manure deep into the earth much like planting and fertilizing, and cropping literally everything down to the stubble much like many field preparation methods. In contrast, a herd given ample room to spread out will do just that, and will not apply enough pressure to break the soil's crust, stomp manure deep into the ground, will leave less-edible plants to grow, etc, and would generally just skim off what little growth the land managed on its own.

Conceptually then, if a herd of grazing animals were kept tightly packed and moved around more rapidly, letting the land recover fully before being revisited, they would have a net beneficial effect on the land comparable to industrial farming, for a fraction of the extra effort and cost.

That "letting the land rest" bit is the difference between a workable strategy and catastrophic overgrazing. If you revisit the same spot too soon, the livestock will eat the immature plants, leaving nothing to sprout up again. This can be exploited, however, by intentionally overgrazing trouble spots with weeds, invaders or other unwanted species.

Speaking of unwanted species, this technique also assume the land will be primarily used for grazing, as grazable grasses are among the most amenable to being entirely destroyed and replanted. Due to the extended fallow time, it is also most beneficial for grassland ecosystems, expanding their borders somewhat beyond those which would ordinarily support them. You can use this bonus leeway to do a number of neat things like introduce multiple grass species, making for a more diverse diet for your animals or supporting the ecosystem of a local species. Of course, if you instead desire local foliage which isn't grazable grasses or can't survive in a grassland ecosystem, well, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to raise large herbivores on that land.

Okay, everyone but RBF, you all first: aside from the rhetoric about magicking any arbitrary biome into existence while dabbing at the tears of Gaia, what am I leaving out of this picture?

 

[Dinwar]

There's some logic to the concept--quite obviously, large herds of large herbivores were possible in the past. And it's not like fecundity took a nose dive, so we can conclude that large numbers of said large herbivores (including the very young) can be safely culled by humans (meaning veal is still on the menu under this scenario--I bring this up to illustrate that it's not going to be all rainbows and unicorns). The question is, how do we re-create that in a way that allows humans ot harvest the herbivores?

There are a number of problems, however, with holistic grazing as presented in this thread.

First, grazing isn't the only herbivore feeding behavior. There's also rooting, browsing, and a few others. All of these have ecological implications, none of which are addressed.

Second, the herbivores adapted to the environment as much as the environment adapted to the presence of the herbivores. This is a pretty big issue--some plants are deadly to some herbivores, meaning that if you put the wrong animal in the wrong environment it won't matter what herding techniques you use, the animals will die.

Third, the environment adapted to the presence of herbivores as much as the herbivores adapted to their environment. There are species of yucca in Africa, for example, that must pass through the digestive track of specific organisms in order to reproduce (this led to some interesting debates regarding Mojave paleoecology). If you don't have that specific herbivore it doesn't matter what you do, that plant will die--with all the ecological implications that brings.

Fourth, there's the issue of hooves. Hooves churn the ground far more efficiently than organisms without hooves. Horses do a lot more damage to the ground surface htan camels do. This has some pretty serious implications for land management, including hydrology, botany, and the herbivores themselves.

Fifth, we don't know what the relative numbers of each type of herbivore, or each type of predator, were. Could be that for every bison you need five pigs, or that you need to cull half the young before one year of age--or it could be that you can only kill one calf before one year of age, but two thirds of the males between one and five years of age.

The concept isn't a bad one; basically, it's an attempt to re-create Pleistocene ecology with humans as the predators instead of lions (in the North American plains, anyway). However, current research is insufficient to the task of actually producing the results. We might be able to reproduce some of it, but we can't reproduce all of it; not yet.

One last problem: hydrology. I've studied some springs in California, and have a pretty good handle on shifts in hydrology in the Mojave. The issue is, there's not enough water right now (it's been worse, in the mid-Holocene, but it's been better, too, in living memory). We don't know how to factor that into the equation yet.

 

[lomiller]

HM and most other related "carbon farming" techniques do increase the total vegetation, but more importantly when discussing their potential as mitigation tools, they change the rate that vegetation sequesters carbon in the soil.

The rate at which carbon sequesters isn’t as important as how long it’s sequestered. Sooner or later all increases in CO2 uptake show up as increases in CO2 being released as that organic matter breaks down.


If you want to make meaningful changes in CO2 sequestration you don’t want grasslands at all, you want to re-grow the forests that once lived there because forests hold more CO2 that grasslands. Even re-growing all the forests in Europe and NA would only offset a small amount of the fossil Carbon being burned each year.

 

[Dinwar]

The rate at which carbon sequesters isn’t as important as how long it’s sequestered. Sooner or later all increases in CO2 uptake show up as increases in CO2 being released as that organic matter breaks down.

Recent paleosol discoveries tend to indicate otherwise.

 

[lomiller]

Clever switch from rate to a hard limit. It's a cycle Glenn.

Yes, it’s a cycle and that’s the problem. The real issue is as GlennB said, how much Carbon do you ultimately end up with in the soil at steady state.
What you want isn’t better grasslands management, that doesn’t even bring you back to the carbon levels of natural grasslands. What you want are forests. Even forests, however, would only offset the potion of climate change that is resulting from deforestation, which is itself only a small part of the problem.

 

[Dinwar]

What you want isn’t better grasslands management, that doesn’t even bring you back to the carbon levels of natural grasslands. What you want are forests.

LAND is only part of the problem. If you want to stick carbon into biomass, the best place to do it is the ocean. Phytoplancton do orders of magnitude more carbon sequestration than any land plant, and things like forams and corals have the added bonus of converting carbon from the biosphere to the lithosphere (at varying rates, to be sure, and with varying rates of re-uptake into the biosphere). It's pure narcisism that drives people to look for terrestrial changes to this problem--most of the planet is covered with ocean, so it's the obvious choice for where do act to have the largest impact on things. It's just that we're not as experienced with ocean management as with land management.

Perhaps a wholistic management of bluefins? "Eat more sushi--it helps reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere!"

 

[lomiller]

The rate at which carbon sequesters isn’t as important as how long it’s sequestered.

Recent paleosol discoveries tend to indicate otherwise.

What does the name paleo-soil tell you about how long it’s been sequestered

I presume you are referring to a recent discovery of a new type of fossil soil formed at the end of the last ice age when soil (mostly back carbon) was buried some 50m or more deep. This is pretty clearly a special circumstance that doesn’t have a lot to do with this topic.

It’s essentially a natural form of buried charcoal. Burying charcoal deep below the surface is something brought up occasionally as a climate change mitigation strategy and each time it’s discarded as impractical due to the volume of charcoal you would need to burry.

 

[Dinwar]

What does the name paleo-soil tell you about how long it’s been sequestered

Ah, crap--I misread your post. Sorry about that.

This is pretty clearly a special circumstance that doesn’t have a lot to do with this topic.

Actually, it does. Humans are pretty good at establishing special circumstances--once we know what conditions are necessary, we can create them. Ease and economics are important factors, of course, but if we wanted to I've no doubt we could re-create the necessary conditions for large-scale, deep carbon sequestration.

But as I said, land is a very minor component of this discussion. The oceans play a much larger role in the carbon cycle than most people realize, and should be the focus of any plan to sequester carbon.

 

[Reality Check]

Some of your critical thinking on it is pretty good! ...snipped a wall of text....

Thanks.
But a lot of wishful thinking bout HM doing that doubling the absorption by plants to that value to stop global warming does not hide the fact that you did not present any evidence that it can.
For that matter you have not presented any evidence that HM exists as an actual distinct pasture management technique .
As far as I can Savory is stating the obvious (take all possible factors in account when planning, be flexible, etc.) which is exactly what the non-holistic methodology farmers here in New Zealand do.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Thanks.
But a lot of wishful thinking bout HM doing that doubling the absorption by plants to that value to stop global warming does not hide the fact that you did not present any evidence that it can.
For that matter you have not presented any evidence that HM exists as an actual distinct pasture management technique .
As far as I can Savory is stating the obvious (take all possible factors in account when planning, be flexible, etc.) which is exactly what the non-holistic methodology farmers here in New Zealand do.

You mean like this guy? link
HM is actually very popular and widely used in NZ and Australia. It caught on especially fast in Australia.

ETA PS I am not going to comment on actual issues brought up at the moment because of post 128. Letting everyone comment first.

 

[Reality Check]

HM is actually very popular and widely used in NZ and Australia.

Not according to Holistic Management International: 6 Certified Educators, 5 Practitioners in NZ and Australia !
Of course there will be people who practice HM and are not recorded at HMI but that does not help your unsupported assertion, Red Baron Farms.
Just how many HM farmers are there in NZ and what % is that of all of the farmers in New Zealand (and what % is "widely" )?

Of course you may mean that there are 2 HM farmers in NZ. One at the bottom of the South Island, one at the top of the North Island and so HM is "widely" practiced .

ETA: The major agricultural education center in NZ is Massey University. If you search for "holistic management Massey University" then you see results like holistic farm business (note the lower case h!)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Not according to Holistic Management International: 6 Certified Educators, 5 Practitioners in NZ and Australia !
Of course there will be people who practice HM and are not recorded at HMI but that does not help your unsupported assertion, Red Baron Farms.
Just how many HM farmers are there in NZ and what % is that of all of the farmers in New Zealand (and what % is "widely" )?

Of course you may mean that there are 2 HM farmers in NZ. One at the bottom of the South Island, one at the top of the North Island and so HM is "widely" practiced .

ETA: The major agricultural education center in NZ is Massey University. If you search for "holistic management Massey University" then you see results like holistic farm business (note the lower case h!)

I think you already know yourself the flaw in your post. Working directly with HMI as an educator or a cooperating farm is not the same as people that learned from those educators and practitioners, and have tried it, but didn't sign up for tours etc... But it is a side bar I am actually not interested in arguing about. If you wish to claim victory go for it. I am more interested in the concept of good management of the land than any dogmatic reliance on HM or HMI exclusively.

 

[Reality Check]

I think you already know yourself the flaw in your post. ....

What has this got to do with the you asserting something without any supporting evidence, Red Baron Farms?

Not according to Holistic Management International: 6 Certified Educators, 5 Practitioners in NZ and Australia !
Of course there will be people who practice HM and are not recorded at HMI but that does not help your unsupported assertion, Red Baron Farms.
Just how many HM farmers are there in NZ and what % is that of all of the farmers in New Zealand (and what % is "widely" )?

If I "win" then can we take all of the other unsupported assertions by you as "losses", Red Baron Farms ?

Of course there are good (and bad) land management plans. So what?