Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So when you said...

As far as I know, the results are not published in a scientific journal.

...you were...mistaken? Confused? Wrong?

One is published in a scientific Journal, and one will be published, and one probably never will be.

One wonders why? Didn't match the outcome they were looking for?

But all the evidence was collected by trained professionals.

You keep saying this. "Trained professionals" in what? Perhaps an appeal to authority?

So even in the case of unpublished anecdotal evidence, it is very strong evidence.

I have very strong evidence that a Martian is living in my closet. So I guess we can conclude that Martians are real!!!

There are literally hundreds of weaker anecdotal evidences that can be found that HM works consistently, (Like the large number of ranchers using HM receiving awards) but I chose these because they are strong evidences.

Oh, I didn't realize ranchers had won awards!!! That should be all the evidence anyone needs!!!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

So when you said...

As far as I know, the results are not published in a scientific journal.

...you were...mistaken? Confused? Wrong?

No but obviously you are, even after a detailed explanation.



One wonders why? Didn't match the outcome they were looking for?
No, exceeded expectations in every respect, and Terry doesn't need a scientific study to confirm that. He did it himself. I suppose the Wright Brothers never flew a plane either, because their powered and controlled first flight never happened either. After all it wasn't published in a science journal yet. By your logic it must have been magic until "peer reviewed"



You keep saying this. "Trained professionals" in what? Perhaps an appeal to authority?
Perhaps if you actually read the links you would know!



I have very strong evidence that a Martian is living in my closet. So I guess we can conclude that Martians are real!!!





Oh, I didn't realize ranchers had won awards!!! That should be all the evidence anyone needs!!!
Of course you didn't realise it. There is very little on the subject you realise.

Would it be too much to ask for you to actually take the time to educate yourself on the subject before attacking it? Or is that against troll rules?

ETA: You seem to have a fixation on the term anecdotal. In science anecdotal actually has a different meaning than in logic.

In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:

"information that is not based on facts or careful study"[9]
"reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"[10]
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[11]
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

By these definitions the evidence is certainly NOT anecdotal. The information is based on facts and careful study. The observers are trained professionals. The observations are not "casual" or mere "indications". They have been documented scientifically.

The one grey area is peer review. Only one of the three examples I gave has been published in a science journal and peer reviewed. So if you wish to call the first Texas example anecdotal, you are dead wrong. If you wish to call the second ND example anecdotal you can...but as a case study it is VERY strong anecdotal evidence and invites further study, not dismissal. And same goes for the third in Arizona.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Would it be too much to ask for you to actually take the time to educate yourself on the subject before attacking it? Or is that against troll rules?

Could you re-edit your post so it makes sense? You're quoting yourself. It's incomprehensible.

Short version: tl;dr

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Short version: tl;dr

OK fair enough. You, for whatever reason, don't have the time or simply don't want to investigate the evidence. It's too long. That's fair. We all have our topics of interest and study. But what I don't get is what compels you to attack something that you have such limited knowledge. Is that critical thinking? I personally don't think so at all.

I know the first thing I did when I found out about HM, I went straight to Briske and read the study most commonly used to criticise Savory. I checked the references. It's a review, so it took a lot of time. But I started finding seriously flawed studies in that review if they are to be used to refute Savory. Lots of VERY small plots, even potted grass plants in one case. I couldn't find any reason to believe they had anything at all to do with HM. Then I found Teagues paper. First thing I noticed was that he was also a scientist in the 2008 Briske paper. So that really intrigued me. I therefor looked VERY closely at what he had to say. Here was a published paper NOT by Savory, that confirmed many of his claims. Importantly the land was actually under HM with proper controls against other management systems. No potted plants anywhere. So on the basis of that I decided to really dig deeper and educate myself. It was hard because at that point I had to dig up everything myself. The wikipage had only two references and both of them by Savory and his wife. So I saved my research and wrote a wikipage with proper referencing. And yes, I even included criticism that I personally didn't agree. I did this so anyone trying to research it themselves wouldn't have to spend months digging up the information. The references are there, about 45 both published hard evidence and anecdotal. All you have to do is go through them one by one, use critical thinking, and draw your own conclusion, instead of relying on others to do your thinking for you.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

OK fair enough. You, for whatever reason, don't have the time or simply don't want to investigate the evidence. It's too long. That's fair. We all have our topics of interest and study. But what I don't get is what compels you to attack something that you have such limited knowledge.

I don't have much knowledge of homeopathy either. Nor do I want to. I know enough to know it's nonsense, just like "holistic" grazing.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I don't have much knowledge of homeopathy either. Nor do I want to. I know enough to know it's nonsense, just like "holistic" grazing.

Aha! Confirmation bias based on a connotation of an equivocation. That's not critical thinking either.

 

[elbe]

I don't have much knowledge of homeopathy either. Nor do I want to. I know enough to know it's nonsense, just like "holistic" grazing.

That's not entirely fair, HM may, in fact, work better than some other methods, but RBF has not been a good defender of it. Arguing in circles and writing off all criticism as "propaganda" does not a well reasoned argument make.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

That's not entirely fair, HM may, in fact, work better than some other methods, but RBF has not been a good defender of it. Arguing in circles and writing off all criticism as "propaganda" does not a well reasoned argument make.

I haven't written off all criticism as propaganda. Only propaganda blogs.

There is some criticism that is scientific. Not much. Easily refuted. But I haven't called it propaganda.

There is also a level of uncertainty. This is because while HM has shown consistent results, it hasn't been tested on enough various different situations to qualify as useable universally on desertified land. So far it works where it has been tried, under the conditions it has been tried, but it hasn't even come close to having been tried under the full spectrum of "desertified land".

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Aha! Confirmation bias based on a connotation of an equivocation. That's not critical thinking either.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That's not entirely fair, HM may, in fact, work better than some other methods, but RBF has not been a good defender of it. Arguing in circles and writing off all criticism as "propaganda" does not a well reasoned argument make.

Exactly.

Over the years we've have various woo-woo's come here to promote all manners of nonsense. Whether it's because it's nonsense, or they're just not good at defending their nonsense is irrelevant. To date, no one has fallen for any of it, but that doesn't keep them from coming. I expect that trend to continue.

 

[Reality Check]

That's not entirely fair, HM may, in fact, work better than some other methods, but RBF has not been a good defender of it. Arguing in circles and writing off all criticism as "propaganda" does not a well reasoned argument make.

I agree with you, elbe.

My expectation is that Savoy's HM should be at least as good as existing land management techniques for the simple reason that it looks as if existing land management techniques are a core part of HM.
Rotational grazing - good (a bit surprising to me that US ranchers seem to just grasping this concept).
Soil management - good.
Vegetation management - good.
Water management - good.
Insect management - good.
etc.
From my limited knowledge of farming this is all standard land management here in NZ. So I have no problems with any claim that HM can improve land quality. In fact my comment about those claims would be: well Duh!

The problem comes with claims that HM is better than existing land management techniques. That Savoys additions create measurable improvements. The science is mixed on this.

I do have a problem with the label of "holistic" - this has been badly contaminated by "holistic health" (which can mix woo like homeopathy with some actual medicine).

 

[Reality Check]

I haven't written off all criticism as propaganda. Only propaganda blogs.

This seems a bit contradictory, Red Baron Farms: If blogs criticizing HM are propaganda then you also should treat blogs supporting HM as propaganda. That makes all of those anecdotes you like propaganda.

And why are you taking about something called "desertified land"? Was Gabe Brown's ranch "desertified land"? Were all of the trials done using "desertified land"?

 

[elbe]

What I find most questionable in the labelling of them as "proganda blogs" is that I don't recall there ever being any support for the claim, just an assertion that they were propaganda.

And I'll be honest, unless they have an army of men marching down a staircase shooting civilians it's just not propaganda in my mind.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

From my limited knowledge of farming this is all standard land management here in NZ.

It also is in the US.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.inexactchange.org/blog/2013/03/11/cows-against-climate-change/

You’ll find the scientific method never discovers anything. Observant, creative people make discoveries. But the scientific method protects us from cranks like me.

Savory apparently sees the scientific method as an obstacle to progress, rather than a tool for achieving it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

http://www.inexactchange.org/blog/2013/03/11/cows-against-climate-change/



Savory apparently sees the scientific method as an obstacle to progress, rather than a tool for achieving it.

You haven't figured out that was a joke? Even the propaganda blog you quoted from understood that!

the intended irony of this statement has not escaped me

But you both missed the point. Creative hardworking people develop breakthroughs. And the scientific method confirms whether it works or not. It generally doesn't work the other way around. That doesn't mean there was no science before it was developed. Most Savory's work rested on the shoulders of a scientist by the name of André Voisin. And Savory himself used the scientific method in his own experimental trials as he developed it, to confirm whether the things he was trying were working or not. Science has a role, but science never replaces human creativity. It is simply a tool.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I would be selling my perpetual motion machine if it wasn't for those meddling scientists!!!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I would be selling my perpetual motion machine if it wasn't for those meddling scientists!!!

No different that what you are trying to sell here. You still have yet to offer any rebuttal to "Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie"

Funny how you ignore science in favor of propaganda blogs. Face it. I'll not be swayed by your woo.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

This seems a bit contradictory, Red Baron Farms: If blogs criticizing HM are propaganda then you also should treat blogs supporting HM as propaganda. That makes all of those anecdotes you like propaganda.

And why are you taking about something called "desertified land"? Was Gabe Brown's ranch "desertified land"? Were all of the trials done using "desertified land"?

Pretty much all agricultural land in the Western US has gone under some degree of desertification/degradation. It's a huge problem. In fact even the land I am leasing this year for my trial is starting incredibly poor. Most people wouldn't even call it arable.

From my limited knowledge of farming this is all standard land management here in NZ. So I have no problems with any claim that HM can improve land quality. In fact my comment about those claims would be: well Duh!

I did mention that. But took all sorts of flack for making unsubstantiated claims.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Funny how you ignore science in favor of propaganda blogs. Face it. I'll not be swayed by your woo.