Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

[Red Baron Farms]

Red Baron Farms:
You keep on going an about the USDA educating people about Savoy's HM because they have a few web pages mentioning him.
But it is as valid to say that the USDA educates people about the deficits in Savoy's HM because there is at least one web page criticizing it, e.g.
Conservation Benefits of Rangeland Practices: Assessment, Recommendations, and Knowledge Gaps (2011)

(in Chapter 2. Assessment of Prescribed Fire as a Conservation Practice (PDF; 2.5 MB)

I am aware of Briske and Holechek and the controversy between the prescribed fire advocates and the HDSD advocates, yes. It is an ongoing heated debate and controversy.
The need to use prescribed fire as a range management tool is very destructive long term. Running the vegetation through a herbivore instead has many benefits to the carbon and nutrient cycles, particularly benefitting the soil biology. But yes. If you can't manage to get the vegetation run through an animal and decaying biologically, you have to burn it instead. Because just leaving it standing will kill the grass, the range vegetation will begin to change to woody growth and it will begin to desertify in seasonal rainfall low humidity areas. Not all fire is bad. Certainly it can occasionally be used whenever grazing was inadequate to get the job done. Savory does use fire too, but at dramatically lower frequency. But prescribed fire on a regular basis because there are not enough animals on the land to eat the vegetation or trample it to the ground for a protective mulch and biological decay is part of the problem. I'll also point out that while in the past there was great difficulty in scientifically confirming the grazing benefits to the land, Teague has managed to confirm it scientifically. It's a tricky thing though. Because over grazing is also destructive to the land. Even more than prescribed fire. So just increasing the stocking rate as an alternative to prescribed fire can and often does make it even worse. Maintaining that ecological balance is the key that Savory has been working on all these years. How to consistently maintain the benefits to the land from grazing, without overgrazing as the yearly rainfall changes, is what the controversy centers around. Understanding that overgrazing is a function of time as opposed to stocking rate is probably the biggest change in the paradigm needed to be understood in maintaining that balance. HM is the breakthrough that allows a manager to use HDSD grazing instead of prescribed fire consistently.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Here is a good vid on some of the development the Aussies are doing in regenerative agriculture.

The recommended solutions are often more fertiliser, herbicide and insecticide. Which is basically the moron principle. If a certain amount of fertiliser won't fix it, put more on. That's what we get advised to do, and it hasn't worked. -Colin Seis

and another source of what Colin Seis and others are developing that I have posted before.
Why Pasture Cropping Is Such A Big Deal

 

[Reality Check]

I am aware of Briske and Holechek and ...prescribed fire advocates derail snipped...

Wrong chapter, Red Baron Farms:
Conservation Benefits of Rangeland Practices: Assessment, Recommendations, and Knowledge Gaps

Chapter 1. An Evidence-Based Assessment of Prescribed Grazing Practices (PDF; 5.7 MB)

And you missed a point: Claiming that USDA is educating people about how HM works because of a web page supporting HM (and a couple of conferences) is wrong when there is another USDA web page debunking HM!

 

[Reality Check]

Why Pasture Cropping Is Such A Big Deal

Nice but irrelevant video and link that are not about scientific evidence for HM, Red Baron Farms!

P.S. Actual answers to these questions are still outstanding, Red Baron Farms:
* 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.

* 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 (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]

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Nice but irrelevant video and link that are not about HM, Red Baron Farms!

First of all, This thread is about land management practises, not just HM only. Second of all, HM and the earlier form developed by Savory, commonly called Time Controlled Grazing, are part of pasture cropping and both are mentioned in the sources I posted. You are the one fixated on the trademarked HM only. Not me. I told you that you needed to drop that irrelevant fixation with the trademark already several times.

PS Prescribed grazing is not part of the system Savory developed. That is adaptive, not prescribed. The Teague paper explains it. Already addressed. Secondly, you continue to miss the brittleness factor as a useful tool in describing how land will react to the removal of the herbivore herds. Not all land reacts the same. But in highly brittle areas, it will kill the grass because it interrupts the cycle of biological decay (which the herbivores are an important part). All that has been explained to you before with sourced examples and even pictures!

ETA As far as Australia goes, there is this:
Early Australians to Blame for Mass Extinctions, Study Finds

In a commentary accompanying the report in Science, Christopher Johnson, a biologist at James Cook University in Australia, raises the possibility that over-hunting by humans may have caused the extinction of the large browsers, triggering a shift in the landscape from abundant grasses to desert scrub.

But followed by this which is the key to understanding what likely happened:

But the authors maintain that neither over-hunting nor human-introduced diseases could have caused such dramatic changes at the base of the food chain.

That's the key link Savory figured out. Remove the herbivores with over hunting, and you won't necessarily cause their extinction. But you can reduce populations enough to cause a trophic cascade that goes all the way down to the base of the food chain. ("triggering a shift in the landscape from abundant grasses to desert scrub.") Once the Base of the food chain is affected by desertification, the remnant herds then are susceptible to complete extinction due to habitat loss.

 

[bobwtfomg]

nice bit of science journalism on Savory's ideas http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-world-the-latest-implausible-farming-miracle

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

nice bit of science journalism on Savory's ideas http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-world-the-latest-implausible-farming-miracle

Aside from the science, which is a great summation of all the work and non-work each side has (guess which has which), the interview he has with him is hilarious.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Aside from the science, which is a great summation of all the work and non-work each side has (guess which has which), the interview he has with him is hilarious.

There is only one published peer reviewed scientific study that either side has on land managed using HM and it is in favor of HM.

Success was due to managing grazing adaptively for desired results. [1]

There are absolutely zero published studies on land managed by HM that show it doesn't work. None. If you know of any that I am unaware of, by all means post it. I'll be happy to read.

Now Briske has done extensive criticism of Savory in an attempt to discredit him. Mostly by digging up piles and piles of old studies that have nothing to do with HMPG. Briske himself admits:

The scientific evidence refuting the ecological benefits of rotational grazing is robust, but also narrowly focused, because it derives from experiments that intentionally excluded these human variables.[2]

So you see? Management is about human decision making processes and plans, and the second you remove that variable, of course HM fails. Every intensive management systems fails under conditions like that. Because you are purposely removing the management. How can you intensively manage anything at all, if you remove the manager, his monitoring, and his decisionmaking capabilities to adapt to constantly changing environmental conditions?

That so called science writer's attempt at humor? Just making himself out to be an ass IMHO. Especially his criticisms of Chris Gill who manages the Circle Ranch and has done a fantastic job of habitat restoration for wildlife. [3]

 

[Beelzebuddy]

There is only one published peer reviewed scientific study that either side has on land managed using HM and it is in favor of HM.

But golly, I thought you weren't discussing just HM. Maybe you need to drop the irrelevant fixation with the trademark?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

But golly, I thought you weren't discussing just HM. Maybe you need to drop the irrelevant fixation with the trademark?

I am not fixated on it. That was simply the topic of the silly so called "science writer".

Here is another that certainly has read Savory's work, and André Voisin before him and is quite influenced by their work, but actually doesn't use HM exactly.



Although I have talked to Joel, and he claims he is adding more and more from the "holistic management guys" all the time, as he improves and grows his operation. Last I heard he was up to and additional ~1,000 acres of leased land from his original 100 acres of pasture, and is experimenting with both permaculture techniques and Holistic management techniques on a lot of the land he manages. They are all very very closely related as they pull from the same biophysical models found in natural ecosystems.

And another guy I have talked to using and teaching a very similar concept is Dan Undersander, Research Forage Agronomist, University of Wisconsin. I point blank asked him specifically about the resemblance to HM. He claims also that much of what he teaches came from Savory's publications (and he recommends Savory's work for further reading), but not precisely HM per se.
Grassland Birds: Fostering Habitat using Rotational Grazing

And here is one I found a few weeks back that purely by accident stumbled onto certain of the concepts purely 100% by accident. He ran a failing commercial confined Dairy, one of the top producers in the state. But Dairy farming is tough and he was near bankruptcy in spite of being a top producer. Then one day his cows broke out of their barn, and everything changed. He actually took a completely different approach unrelated at all to anything anyone else was doing. Completely novel, developed himself without any input of information from Savory or Voisin at all. But anyone who knows and understands the biophysical principles of HMPG can easily spot why it worked so well for him.

 

[tsig]

nice bit of science journalism on Savory's ideas http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-world-the-latest-implausible-farming-miracle

The money quote:

Holistic management does not permit replication. Because of this fact we can only validate the ‘science’ used and monitor or document ‘results achieved’. Note: This point is critical to understanding the great difficulty reductionist scientists are experiencing trying to comprehend holistic planned grazing – because no two plans are ever the same even on the same property two years running, planned grazing cannot be replicated which reductionist scientists do to try to understand the ‘science.’

Red flags:

"science" in quotes

Reductionist scientists

 

[Reality Check]

...Secondly, you continue to miss the brittleness factor

No, Red Baron Farms: I am charitably ignoring Savory's subjective, untested and so scientifically useless brittleness factor.
If you want o embarrass Savory then keep on bringing up his brittleness factor

...
ETA As far as Australia goes, there is this:
Early Australians to Blame for Mass Extinctions, Study Finds

And "What is clear is that the fires changed the landscape from a mosaic of forests and grasses to the fire-adapted shrubs and spinifix (a grass) found today" has to do with my question how, B]Red Baron Farms[/B]?
(the commentary on the paper is a speculation that the authors do not think is correct).

* 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.

* 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 (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]

 

[Reality Check]

There is only one published peer reviewed scientific study that either side has on land managed using HM and it is in favor of HM.

That is:
Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie
which is a bad result for HM - extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Even normal claims need good evidence. One paper is not good evidence. One paper in over 40 years of HM is evidence that people are ignoring HM.

ETA: According to Alan Savory this "reductionist" paper cannot support HM because no scientific analysis on replication can support HM !
..., Holistic management does not permit replication (PDF)

There are many published studies on land managed by parts of HM that show those parts have minimal benefits or do not work.

In 2011 Briske et al did extensive criticism of Savory based on the existing science then:
Origin, Persistence, and Resolution of the Rotational Grazing Debate: Integrating Human Dimensions Into Rangeland Research (PDF)
which in turn has been criticized!

The latest from Briske et al is is the 2014 Commentary: A critical assessment of the policy endorsement for holistic management

...The vast majority of experimental evidence does not support claims of enhanced ecological benefits in IRG compared to other grazing strategies, including the capacity to increase storage of soil organic carbon.

 

[Reality Check]

Especially his criticisms of Chris Gill who manages the Circle Ranch ...

Who cares about what ranch this Chris Gill manages, Red Baron Farms .
That is nothing to do with the criticisms of Chris Gill.
Eat more meat and save the world: the latest implausible farming miracle

Unfortunately Savory gives no reference for this assessment. In the academic literature, I’ve been unable to find a paper on the subject by anyone called Gill. Elsewhere, all I have been able to locate is a three-page magazine article by Gill, reproduced on Savory’s websites. It contains no references, no data and no links to any experimental or empirical research. If this is “the only independent assessment of all available critics and their citations” that Savory will accept as valid, I think it might tell you something about the substance of his claims.

These are facts:

• Savory gives no reference for this assessment
• The author cannot find any paper on the subject by anyone called Gill
• The author did find a three-page magazine article by Gill.
• That article was reproduced on Savory’s websites
• That article contains no references, no data and no links to any experimental or empirical research

That anyone would think that a magazine article supports their claims reflects badly on the claims.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The money quote:

Holistic management does not permit replication. Because of this fact we can only validate the ‘science’ used and monitor or document ‘results achieved’. Note: This point is critical to understanding the great difficulty reductionist scientists are experiencing trying to comprehend holistic planned grazing – because no two plans are ever the same even on the same property two years running, planned grazing cannot be replicated which reductionist scientists do to try to understand the ‘science.’

Red flags:

"science" in quotes

Reductionist scientists

Agreed that is awkward. Ironically Briske says the same thing, only in a much better more precise way. That's where I do give Briske credit. At least he understands the limitations of the bulk of the scientific studies currently published on the issue and is able to describe those limitations without resorting to broad generalist terminology like Holistic or Reductionist. (I already quoted part of it but for better context here it is somewhat expanded.) I find it quite amusing when people who have no clue what they are talking about try and use Briske's studies to attack Savory's ideas about a holistic context being needed, when Briske himself has stated essentially the same thing.

...we contend that they can be reconciled by evaluation within the context of complex adaptive systems in which human variables such as goal setting, experiential knowledge, and decision making are given equal importance to biophysical variables. The scientific evidence refuting the ecological benefits of rotational grazing is robust, but also narrowly focused, because it derives from experiments that intentionally excluded these human variables.

 

[Reality Check]

...when Briske himself has stated essentially the same thing.

That is not "essentially the same thing", Red Baron Farms - that is a statement that the "scientific evidence refuting the ecological benefits of rotational grazing is robust" but that studies including the effects of human variables are lacking. If these studies existed then they would be included in the analysis. It is a statement about the scope of available studies.

What Savory is saying is that HM can never be replicated because each trial is unique. This is analogous to the homeopathy claim that because every treatment is customized for an individual, no clinical trials on homeopathy can be done.
Savory is just wrong. You can compare cases using HM against cases not using HM and it does not matter that each HM case is differently implemented.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You can compare cases using HM against cases not using HM and it does not matter that each HM case is differently implemented.

I agree you can. In fact it has and I posted that Teague study multiple times. But like Briske states himself, it just hasn't been done yet. (And back then it hadn't been done.... the Teague study wasn't published yet.)

Keep in Mind Teague was a part of Briske's team. They both knew full well the limitations of the studies, and that is a motivator to do a study that includes "human variables such as goal setting, experiential knowledge, and decision making" because in the "context of complex adaptive systems" it is important and without that "holistic" context, the "robust" science is meaningless. So rather than make ridiculous claims that HMPG doesn't work, he actually did a comparative study on land managed using HMPG and what was the result? Success. Measurable improvement over the two other main management systems used in the USA (and also an improvement over rested land with no grazing at all) specifically in soil health including carbon sequestration. (and BTW also in profits for the ranchers)

 

[Reality Check]

IBut like Briske states himself, it just hasn't been done yet....

Again - what Briske states himself is that studies including human variables have not been done. That does not support Savory's ignorance about how science works and that no studies on HM are possible.
Briske states himself: The scientific evidence refuting the ecological benefits of rotational grazing is robust, ...
The addition of "holistic" does not mean anything about the scientific evidence refuting the ecological benefits of rotational grazing being robust. That evidence remains robust even if they painted the tractors red or the rancher thought good thoughts !

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Again - what Briske states himself is that studies including human variables have not been done. That does not support Savory's ignorance about how science works and that those studies could be done.

Your mistake is taking Savory's statements out of context. They are both discussing the same thing. I agree Briske says it much better, and have already acknowledged Savory's unfortunate wording. What more do you want? Blood? Or do you actually strive to have a greater understanding of the subject? Because focusing on Savory's bloopers in an off the cuff unprepared phone interview as reported by a quite biased science writer is not in any way more than simply trolling.

 

[Reality Check]

Your mistake is taking Savory's statements out of context..

Your mistake is in not reading Savory's rather ignorant statement in its context.
Savory's statement is about the impossibility of ever replicating HM results no mater how many studies are done.

Briske et al (not Briske alone )
Origin, Persistence, and Resolution of the Rotational Grazing Debate: Integrating Human Dimensions Into Rangeland Research

These interpretations appear contradictory, but we contend that they
can be reconciled by evaluation within the context of complex adaptive systems in which human variables such as goal setting, experiential knowledge, and decision making are given equal importance to biophysical variables. The scientific evidence refuting the ecological benefits of rotational grazing is robust, but also narrowly focused, because it derives from experiments that intentionally excluded these human variables.

is a statement of the facts: the experiments that refuted rotational grazing did not include human factors.

Briske et al are suggesting that the contradiction between the perception of rotational grazing as successful by managers and the scientific evidence of rotational grazing as a failure is due to human factors.
My example: If managers were educated in the scientific experimental method then they would be more likely to agree with the scientific evidence.

ETA:

ETA: According to Alan Savory this "reductionist" paper cannot support HM because no scientific analysis on replication can support HM !
..., Holistic management does not permit replication (PDF)

Because each and every managed situation involving land (people, land, money) is totally unique, and also unique every year just as one cannot step into the same river twice because it is flowing, Holistic Management does not permit replication. Because of this fact we can only validate the “science” used and monitor or document “results achieved”.

This is just ignorant. Science does like to replicate experiments using the same methods but that is only the verification of the original experiment. The next step is to replicate the experimental results using any and all methods.
For example, look at the cold fusion fiasco: Someone says that fusion can be achieved in conditions X using apparatus Y at room temperature then the first step is to do the same experiment to see if you get the same results. After that you vary the apparatus to make sure that the results are not something to do with the apparatus.