Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Still no real answer to the question but you seem to be hinting that Ken Miller started changing techniques without looking at Brown's results - were they available in 2001?
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)
- Thread starter Red Baron Farms
- Start date
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
A undated PDF that does not mention Ken Miller's knowledge of Brown's results
eye-poppi) is not evidence of when Ken Miler knew about Brown's results.And now we have a new unsupported assertion!
Red Baron Farms (25 June 2014): Please show that the "Holistic management" phrase in that PDF is actually Savoy's Holistic Management (without the required trade mark sign!).
They both may use holistic management in lower case and nothing to do with HM.
ETA: Actually Ken Miler may be a HM convert and know all the HM secrets (like the brittleness scale) as this 2012 conference states.
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
A undated PDF that does not mention Ken Miller's knowledge of Brown's results
And now we have a new unsupported assertion!
Red Baron Farms (25 June 2014): Please show that the "Holistic management" phrase in that PDF is actually Savoy's Holistic Management (without the required trade mark sign!).
They both may use holistic management in lower case and nothing to do with HM.
ETA: Actually Ken Miler may be a HM convert and know all the HM secrets (like the brittleness scale) as this 2012 conference states.
Holistic Management®
There is the trade mark on the Burleigh County Soil Conservation District web site, just so you know I am not using an equivocation. But you have to understand. The trade mark is to prevent co-opting of the name by scam artists. Just like what happened with organic, just like what happened with short duration grazing, even the Briske study which claims to address Savory's system, but doesn't. Everything about HM is free for the asking. The trade mark isn't for making the process secret or for selling the system. That's why HMI is a non profit. The ® is purely to maintain quality control. To stop some jerk from claiming he is teaching HM, when he isn't, and giving HM a bad reputation. You know? That previously mentioned co-opting of the name holistic by homeopathic scam artists in the medical field? Savory didn't want that happening in HMPG. But for a farmer to use HM..that's free.
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,099
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Yeah. By 2009 (8 years later) still only 35% of the Farmers in the USA were using no till.
So 8 years later, when still only 35% of the farmers were even doing the standard no till, he was already using multispecies cover crops and integrated livestock grazing, which dramatically reduces chemical inputs. Way ahead of the curve.
But your ignorance of that fact is not surprising. You have consistently displayed ignorance of agricultural issues all through these forums.
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,099
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Who cares about a bit of text on their web site when the question is about the PDF that you linked to Red Baron Farms
However thanks for confirming that the "Holistic management" phrase in that PDF is nothing to do with Savoy's HM. It is holistic management.
P.S.
* Red Baron Farms (28th May 2014): Evidence for HM is actually very popular and widely used in NZ and Australia?.
* Red Baron Farms (9th June 2014): Evidence that "dry" grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed (and the reverse)?
* Red Baron Farms (10th June 2014): Evidence for the "The australian megafauna decreased, in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert, but in areas that were not brittle, change still happened, but didn't result in desertification" claim?
* Red Baron Farms (16 June 2014): Please supply evidence for the USDA NRCS or SARE "major" grants to HMI.
And that this is somehow special, e.g. they only give grants for valid or proven land management techniques. If they give grants for any research into land management then this is nothing to do with the validity or not of Savoy's HM
* Red Baron Farms (17th June 2014): Please cite the published paper containing Gabe Brown's results (or confirm that you made a mistake stating that there are published results)
[URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10084955#post10084955"]* Red Baron Farms (24 June 2014): Were all of the farmers in the conference or that panel invited because they performed better than standard BMP?
* Red Baron Farms (24 June 2014): Where is Gabe Brown's presentation on Savoy's HM at that conference?
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
It's the same group of farmers. Same county. Same land. Same management system. But the difference is whether a certified HM educator is teaching the management system as a whole, or if it is a case study of one small part of the effects of that management. Anyone can use, teach or study any part of HM's effects on a farm, but to teach the whole system for profit as a certified instructor, you need the trademark. This is an attempt in part to prevent what happened with holistic medicine, where scam artists co-opted the term to spread their woo, sullying the term "holistic". Since you are someone determined to sully the term holistic as it applies to land management as well, I can see how that trademark issue might be very frustrating to you. Get over it. It is a non issue.Who cares about a bit of text on their web site when the question is about the PDF that you linked to Red Baron Farms
However thanks for confirming that the "Holistic management" phrase in that PDF is nothing to do with Savoy's HM. It is holistic management.
All this is derailing the thread though. You have been taking it way out in left field and have lost focus. Let me help you back.
We both know CAFOs are a huge emissions source and destructive to the environment in other ways as well. Not just the CAFOs themselves, but the cropland used to support them. Even in many cases the overgrazed pastures where the stockers are raised. Eliminating them and replacing them with a animal husbandry model that sequesters carbon and improves the environment, even if it might or might not be enough to completely reverse AGW or restore all the desertified land in the world, is still a step in the right direction.
Personally I happen to agree that it isn't completely proven HM can completely reverse AGW or restore ecosystem services to all desertified land. I think it is likely, others say unlikely to benefit more than 10-30 %. It's still a benefit, unlike CAFOs which are actually helping to cause AGW.
This study shows the natural wild grassland/grazer biome does force climatic cooling. [1]
This study shows that on HM land, mimicking that lost wild biome can have a similar effect of increasing C in soils (reducing greenhouse gasses and restoring ecosystem services)[2]
Here is another study that confirms that effect and even confirms the effect is better than no grazing at all. [3]
This white paper shows the potential carbon cycle benefit if taken on a world wide scale might actually be larger than the studies that estimate only a 10-30% benefit. It's not proven, but it certainly shows the potential for action to rigorously confirm and quantify those benefits, which is the purpose of a white paper. [4]
This university extension guide explains how to use the effect to benefit other wildlife as well. [5]
This university extension guide explains how a farmer can use it at a profit, requiring no massive multi trillion dollar subsidies from society. [6]
This USDA case study shows how it can be integrated with crop production to turn those soils into a net carbon sink as well as increasing crop yields. [7]
This article by a well respected science writer shows that the scientific community, rather than regarding it as woo, actually is taking the concept very seriously. [8]
The current models of animal husbandry most commonly used around the world are part of the problem. However, that doesn't mean that the solution is to eliminate livestock from grazing land. There is another solution, and that is changing the way they are raised to something that instead of degrading the environment, restores it. HM is an important improvement towards that goal. Will it be enough? Frankly no one knows with certainty. But any system that improves yields of food, and improves the environment, and profits the farmer simultaneously does not deserve the scorn you are projecting here in this thread.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Outstanding questions for Red Baron Farms
* Red Baron Farms (28th May 2014): Evidence for HM is actually very popular and widely used in NZ and Australia?.
* Red Baron Farms (9th June 2014): Evidence that "dry" grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed (and the reverse)?
* Red Baron Farms (10th June 2014): Evidence for the "The australian megafauna decreased, in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert, but in areas that were not brittle, change still happened, but didn't result in desertification" claim?
* Red Baron Farms (16 June 2014): Please supply evidence for the USDA NRCS or SARE "major" grants to HMI.
And that this is somehow special, e.g. they only give grants for valid or proven land management techniques. If they give grants for any research into land management then this is nothing to do with the validity or not of Savoy's HM
* Red Baron Farms (17th June 2014): Please cite the published paper containing Gabe Brown's results (or confirm that you made a mistake stating that there are published results)
* Red Baron Farms (24 June 2014): Were all of the farmers in the conference or that panel invited because they performed better than standard BMP?
* Red Baron Farms (24 June 2014): Where is Gabe Brown's presentation on Savoy's HM at that conference?
And what has this to do with the PDF, Red Baron Farms?It's the same group of farmers...usual wall of text snipped....
* Red Baron Farms (28th May 2014): Evidence for HM is actually very popular and widely used in NZ and Australia?.
* Red Baron Farms (9th June 2014): Evidence that "dry" grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed (and the reverse)?
* Red Baron Farms (10th June 2014): Evidence for the "The australian megafauna decreased, in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert, but in areas that were not brittle, change still happened, but didn't result in desertification" claim?
* Red Baron Farms (16 June 2014): Please supply evidence for the USDA NRCS or SARE "major" grants to HMI.
And that this is somehow special, e.g. they only give grants for valid or proven land management techniques. If they give grants for any research into land management then this is nothing to do with the validity or not of Savoy's HM
* Red Baron Farms (17th June 2014): Please cite the published paper containing Gabe Brown's results (or confirm that you made a mistake stating that there are published results)
* Red Baron Farms (24 June 2014): Were all of the farmers in the conference or that panel invited because they performed better than standard BMP?
* Red Baron Farms (24 June 2014): Where is Gabe Brown's presentation on Savoy's HM at that conference?
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Wrong, Red Baron Farms: That study suggests that climatic cooling over millions of years
eek had a component from the conversion of dry woodlands to grasslands.Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling
The obvious issue for the paper is the concentration on grasslands when there were more important things happening that are known to have caused climate cooling. This is the forcing of the Cenozoic climate cooling:
Cenozoic Climate
The reduction of dry woodlands is likely to be an effect of these geological changes.
I know about Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Duh!
Now cite the body of hundreds of scientific papers showing that Savoy's HM works better than any other management system
!P.S. this is basic science, Red Baron Farms - we know that Savoy's HM works because it includes existing good land management (no till seems to have been around since the 1950's, rotational grazing is standard, etc.). Thus the question is whether it works better.
Comparing the effects of continuous and time-controlled grazing systems on soil characteristics in Southeast Queensland does not mention Savoy's HM. It is about time-controlled grazing systems.
A white paper from the rather ignorant about climate science Savoy (as shown by his TED talk) is not science about Savoy's HM.
A university extension guide is not science about Savoy's HM.
Another university extension guide is also not science about Savoy's HM!
A USDA case study not mentioning HM is not science about Savoy's HM!
A news article is not science about Savoy's HM.
The simple fact is that soil as a carbon storehouse is taken seriously by the scientific community so your citation of a news article stating that really needs a well Duh
!
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
There is where you fail, as I have repeatedly stated, it is HM land in the studies. In fact, in the case of the Teague study, one of the ranches (the one in the category that outperformed all others in the study) was Clint Josey's ranch. The same Clint Josey, Vice Chair Holistic Management International Board of Directors. Link Tried to explain that to you before, but you didn't even bother reading the damn study and checking the references. If you had you also would have found Robert Potts Link John Hackley link......I know about Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Duh!
Now cite the body of hundreds of scientific papers showing that Savoy's HM works better than any other management system
P.S. this is basic science, Red Baron Farms - we know that Savoy's HM works because it includes existing good land management (no till seems to have been around since the 1950's, rotational grazing is standard, etc.). Thus the question is whether it works better.
Comparing the effects of continuous and time-controlled grazing systems on soil characteristics in Southeast Queensland does not mention Savoy's HM. It is about time-controlled grazing systems.
Same fail you had in refusing the evidence from the Burleigh County Soil Conservation District and Gabe Brown link. Those USDA case studies are being done on Holistic managed land, and they show the benefit of Holistic Management, but they are not going to say Holistic Management® unless it is a certified educator offering consulting services or training.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
This is where you fail, Red Baron Farms.
That includes that it is about HM.I know about Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie. Duh!
Now cite the body of hundreds of scientific papers showing that Savoy's HM works better than any other management system
You failed in producing any evidence about the Burleigh County Soil Conservation District "holistic management" phrase in a PDF being Savoy's HM.
In fact you confirmed that it was not Savoy's HM because it is missing the trade mark:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Where you also fail , Red Baron Farms, is in ignoring the first part of my post where I point Out the science about Cenozoic climate cooling (basically caused over millions of years by continental movement).
And the rest of the post still needs addressing:
Wrong, Red Baron Farms: That study suggests that climatic cooling over millions of years
...
A white paper from the rather ignorant about climate science Savoy (as shown by his TED talk) is not science about Savoy's HM.
A university extension guide is not science about Savoy's HM.
Another university extension guide is also not science about Savoy's HM!
A USDA case study not mentioning HM is not science about Savoy's HM!
A news article is not science about Savoy's HM.
The simple fact is that soil as a carbon storehouse is taken seriously by the scientific community so your citation of a news article stating that really needs a well Duh
The ignorance of assuming that any mention of holistic management is Savoy's trademarked HM is obvious. I do not do it. You should not do it. The only sources that apply to Savoy's trademarked HM are those that include Savoy's trademarked HM
!
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Where is Savoy's trademarked HM cited as used on the property in question
I will turn this citation into a question, Red Baron Farms.
Time-controlled grazing systems seem common and are part of Savoy's trademarked HM but we are looking for studies of Savoy's trademarked HM not bits of it that are standard land management.
I will turn this citation into a question, Red Baron Farms.
Red Baron Farms (1 July 2014): Where in ]Comparing the effects of continuous and time-controlled grazing systems on soil characteristics in Southeast Queensland is Savoy's trademarked HM cited as used on the property in question?
Time-controlled grazing systems seem common and are part of Savoy's trademarked HM but we are looking for studies of Savoy's trademarked HM not bits of it that are standard land management.
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Again, apparently you still refuse to read the damn scientific studies I keep linking to you.
You can look for the TM all you want. It makes no difference. It is a non issue. Maybe a legal issue, but certainly not a scientific issue. The paper is quite clear about the study testing Savory's claims.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
No, Red Baron Farms - I refuse to spend 25 dollars to read a paper that may or may not contain what you assert it contains: PDF (278 KB) $25
That is because I do not trust your assertions: Outstanding questions for Red Baron Farms dating from 28 May 2014!
I still do not see any mention of the Savoy's trademarked HM being used on the property. The quote says that they have picked one component of HM (the grazing system). Your answer is that Savoy's trademarked HM is not being used on the property.
Thus the paper is not a test of Savoy's trademarked HM. The paper is clear about not testing Savoy's clams because it does not mention that it is testing his HM claims.
ETA: The Australian reference reminded me of a blog about Savoy's TED talks and all of his "mimic nature" stuff: Livestock and climate: Why Allan Savory is not a saviour
Their points include:
* it is definitely not mimicking nature since "current livestock populations dwarf natural populations that preceded them".
* "What Savory does not mention is that intensive (cell) grazing is only viable where water points are close and labour is cheap." The point about labor though can be addressed through electronic systems, e.g. automatic gates. But that may not be applicable to the large Australian ranches.
* "Also absent is mention of the failure of traditional intensive grazing in Russia, Siberia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, China and eastern Africa where large herds are constantly moved by traditional herders (as the Savory method does) – but sheer weight of livestock numbers has ravaged these landscapes in drought years, leading to more degradation."
* etc.
The last point is relevant to the relatively drought-prone Australia. What will happen with time-controlled grazing land if there is a prolonged drought?
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
OK cool. I will attempt to find you free versions of both scientific studies. I guessed that as a scientist you had a way around the paywall.
The Teague study from Texas: link
The Sanjari study from Queensland: link
Sorry I couldn't find a better copy of the queensland study, but at least the text is there. I am also sorry I criticized you for not reading a study when you couldn't. But you did say that there was no indications they were about Savory's system, and I did not realise you made that claim without being able to know what was even in the study beyond the abstracts.
As far as the issues brought up by the Australian researchers, and your last question.....the difference being a greater scientific understanding of what constitutes overgrazing combined with adaptive management. In particular the Teague study addresses what happens in a drought because that study was done during a drought. The people up in Burleigh county also experienced severe drought during those case studies. Part of the reason it caught on and spread so quickly is that HM handles drought much better than most other management systems. A farmer experiencing crop failures farming right beside another farmer getting above average yields in the same drought conditions will find out why. It's just human nature. That reason why is mostly due to the positive effects on the water and carbon cycles. But also due to the proactive monitoring and adaption to changing conditions. ie canary in a coal mine.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Who said that I was a scientist
?I was thinking about a prolonged, Australian-style (which I guess is more severe than a US one) drought when this time-controlled grazing has a large population on the land.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
This might help.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Science by YT video, Red Baron Farms? No thanks.
ETA: Especially when it is just a bit of irrelevant propaganda from Allan Savory
!Actual answers to questions would be better:
* Red Baron Farms (28th May 2014): Evidence for HM is actually very popular and widely used in NZ and Australia?.
* Red Baron Farms (9th June 2014): Evidence that "dry" grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed (and the reverse)?
* Red Baron Farms (10th June 2014): Evidence for the "The australian megafauna decreased, in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert, but in areas that were not brittle, change still happened, but didn't result in desertification" claim?
* Red Baron Farms (16 June 2014): Please supply evidence for the USDA NRCS or SARE "major" grants to HMI.
And that this is somehow special, e.g. they only give grants for valid or proven land management techniques. If they give grants for any research into land management then this is nothing to do with the validity or not of Savoy's HM
* Red Baron Farms (17th June 2014): Please cite the published paper containing Gabe Brown's results (or confirm that you made a mistake stating that there are published results)
* Red Baron Farms (24 June 2014): Were all of the farmers in the conference or that panel invited because they performed better than standard BMP?
* Red Baron Farms (24 June 2014): Where is Gabe Brown's presentation on Savoy's HM at that conference?
* Red Baron Farms (1 July 2014): Where in [URL="http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/SR07220.htm"]Comparing the effects of continuous and time-controlled grazing systems on soil characteristics in Southeast Queensland is Savoy's trademarked HM cited as used on the property in question?[/URL]
Last edited: