Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

[Reality Check]

Carter et al refutes the refutes the assumptions behind Savory's HM with science

No Reality Check That is not true. That study has absolutely no evidence Savory is wrong.

No, Red Baron Farms, you still have no idea what the paper contains .
The paper documents the scientific evidence that the assumptions that Savory uses are wrong.

None of it is data taken from HM land.

Which unfortunately confirms a continued ignorance about the contents of Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems !
One more time, Red Baron Farms:
Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems refutes the assumptions behind Savory's HM with citations to the scientific literature.
Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems is no a comparison of HM managed land versus non-HM managed land !

 

[Reality Check]

2. Are Western North American Ecosystems Adapted to Herds of Large Hooved Animals?

FYI, Red Baron Farms, this is the first of the Savory assumptions to be addressed in Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems !
The scientific evidence that you have not refuted yet is:

• Citation 12: "The western limits of the range of the American bison" which states that the eastern densities never reached the high western densities. Support for no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.
• Citation 9: "Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals" supports the assertion of no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies.
  And pronghorn antelope are not ecologically comparable
• Citation 13: G. Wuerthner, “Are cows just domestic bison? Behavioral and habitat use differences between cattle and bison” is support for fewer bison west of the Rockies implying lesser (not significant) grazing pressure.
• Citation 14: F. G. Roe, The North American Buffalo: A Critical Study of the Species in Its Wild State, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Calif, USA, 1951
  A book possibly supporting fewer bison west of the Rockies.
• Citation 15: J. F. Howden, “Some possible effects of the Pleistocene on the distributions of North American Scarabaeidae (Coleoptera)”
  The lack of dung beetles west of the Rockies is evidence of a "Western North American Ecosystem" that is not adapted to "Herds of Large Hooved Animals" - there are no dung beetles to process their dung.

So we have two grasslands separated by the Rockies with passes connecting them containing "Herds of Large Hooved Animals" (bison and antelope). The grasslands west of the Rockies were not adapted for herds of large hooved animals for the simple reason that there were not enough of them. IMO The lack of dung beetles is the nail in the coffin in that Savory assumption.

Onto the next paragraph

The supposition that current western North American plant communities are adapted to livestock grazing because the region supported a diverse herbivore fauna during the Pleistocene epoch ignores that the plant communities have changed in the intervening time [16].

16. J. W. Burkhardt, Herbivory in the Intermountain West, vol. 58 of Station Bulletin, University of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station, Moscow, Idaho, USA, 1996.
Which does not seem to be online.

There was rapid evolutionary change following the Pleistocene glaciations in North America with “the establishment of open xeric grasslands in the west central part of the USA  less than 10,000 years ago” [17].

17. J. M. J. de Wet, “Grasses and the culture history of man,” Annals Missouri Botanical Garden, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 87–104, 1981. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

Many of the grasses of the Pleistocene have disappeared from the plains and western USA and the fauna of the Pleistocene was altered by the arrival of bison from Eurasia. These were destructive to long-leaved bunchgrasses found west of the Rockies, while the rhizomatous grasses found east of the Rockies in the prairies were more resistant to their grazing pressure. These rhizomatous grasses are the types found in the prairies of the central and western USA in conjunction with fossil remains of bison. In summary, the western USA of the Pleistocene is not the western USA of today. The climate was much wetter and cooler and the vegetation more mesic in the Pleistocene than today [8, 18].

8. R. S. Thompson and K. H. Anderson, “Biomes of western North America at 18,000, 6000 and 0 14C yr BP reconstructed from pollen and packrat midden data,” Journal of Biogeography, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 555–584, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
18.H. Wanner, J. Beer, J. Bütikofer et al., “Mid- to Late Holocene climate change: an overview,” Quaternary Science Reviews, vol. 27, no. 19-20, pp. 1791–1828, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

The drier periods following the Pleistocene as temperatures warmed have altered soil conditions and fire cycles and contributed to the changing flora [19, 20].

19. D. K. Grayson, “Mammalian responses to middle Holocene climatic change in the Great Basin of the western United States,” Journal of Biogeography, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 181–192, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
20. R. L. Beschta, D. L. Donahue, A. DellaSala et al., “Adapting to climate change on western public lands: addressing the ecological effects of domestic, wild, and feral ungulates,” Environmental Management, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 474–491, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar


Red Baron Farms: Do you agree that the scientific evidence is that grassland plant communities have changed during the Pleistocene epoch?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Red Baron Farms: Do you agree that the scientific evidence is that grassland plant communities have changed during the Pleistocene epoch?

Of course. The North American tallgrass prairie is gone. The majority of the shortgrass prairie is also gone. That's kinda the point actually.

 

[Reality Check]

Of course. The North American tallgrass prairie is gone. The majority of the shortgrass prairie is also gone. That's kinda the point actually.

Good, Red Baron Farms - then you agree with at least 1 paragraph of that paper which refutes some of Savory's assumptions .

But you missed a bit of the point - this paragraph is about the grassland plant communities changing throughout the Pleistocene epoch. It shows that a Savory supposition that "current western North American plant communities are adapted to livestock grazing because the region supported a diverse herbivore fauna during the Pleistocene epoch" (my emphasis added) is doubtful if not wrong.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Good, Red Baron Farms - then you agree with at least 1 paragraph of that paper which refutes some of Savory's assumptions .

But you missed a bit of the point - this paragraph is about the grassland plant communities changing throughout the Pleistocene epoch. It shows that a Savory supposition that "current western North American plant communities are adapted to livestock grazing because the region supported a diverse herbivore fauna during the Pleistocene epoch" (my emphasis added) is doubtful if not wrong.

And your mistake is twofold. One in believing that is part of HM and two that a deteriorated grassland can't be brought back. We all agree that grassland biomes are in constant change through time. A lot of that change is directly related to herbivore numbers and impact. Which in this case has been in decline ever since the Pleistocene. The controversial point is to change in a positive direction instead of the negative direction we see now by using livestock managed properly as a substitute to fill lost niches.

 

[casebro]

Cause/effect, chicken/egg, grass/buffalo. Wheels/bus.

In a battle of wits against an unarmed man, a blow to the jaw can not knock him out if there is no brain to concuss.

 

[Reality Check]

And your mistake is twofold...snipped irrelevant stuff....

And your mistake is one-fold, Red Baron Farms: Still not understanding the paper !
It is the paper (not me) that says

The supposition that current western North American plant communities are adapted to livestock grazing because the region supported a diverse herbivore fauna during the Pleistocene epoch ignores that the plant communities have changed in the intervening time [16].

That is the author's understanding of Savory's HM from his existing publications as stated in the introduction

These publications by Savory and his colleagues show that HM is based on the following assumptions: (1) plant communities and soils of the arid, semiarid, and grassland systems of the world evolved in the presence of large herds of animals regulated by their predators;

If Savory has a deep dark secret that this is not part of HM then Savory needs to publish a retraction of it !

And here is the rest of the paragraph - no "deteriorated grassland" in there !

There was rapid evolutionary change following the Pleistocene glaciations in North America with “the establishment of open xeric grasslands in the west central part of the USA  less than 10,000 years ago” [17]. Many of the grasses of the Pleistocene have disappeared from the plains and western USA and the fauna of the Pleistocene was altered by the arrival of bison from Eurasia. These were destructive to long-leaved bunchgrasses found west of the Rockies, while the rhizomatous grasses found east of the Rockies in the prairies were more resistant to their grazing pressure. These rhizomatous grasses are the types found in the prairies of the central and western USA in conjunction with fossil remains of bison. In summary, the western USA of the Pleistocene is not the western USA of today. The climate was much wetter and cooler and the vegetation more mesic in the Pleistocene than today [8, 18]. The drier periods following the Pleistocene as temperatures warmed have altered soil conditions and fire cycles and contributed to the changing flora [19, 20].

 

[Reality Check]

Red Baron Farms: citations for herbivore numbers have been in decline ...

We all agree that grassland biomes are in constant change through time. A lot of that change is directly related to herbivore numbers and impact. Which in this case has been in decline ever since the Pleistocene.

We all agree that grassland biomes are in constant change through time which makes an general assertion that grasslands are adapted to large herds of herbivores wrong. For some times and regions this will be correct. For other times and regions this will be wrong.
An unsupported assertion about a "lot of change" needs some citations to the supporting science, Red Baron Farms.

20 April 2015 Red Baron Farms: How much is "a lot" ?

20 April 2015 Red Baron Farms: Please cite the literature that states that herbivore numbers have been in decline since the Pleistocene, i.e. over the last 11,700 years
We can certainly say that we have had a significant effect over the last few hundred years. But over the last 11,700 years?

 

[Reality Check]

New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'

 

[Red Baron Farms]

New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'

The rebuttal starts with a non sequitur

"They are at risk of completely drying out because of increasing temperatures and more at risk to the detrimental effect of mismanaged grazing (Lal, 2004)."

Is true. However, it does not follow that

"This makes it unreasonable to apply Holistic Management to such dry areas, where the intense grazing would no doubt leave soils further damaged."

And the actual evidence is exactly the opposite.
Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho

You will notice the soil moisture for holistic managed land has increased over the mismanaged land, and even more critically it is even higher than the ungrazed control.

The rebuttal goes downhill from there.

 

[Reality Check]

The error of citing a paper that does not show mismanaged land gaining moisture

New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'

A flawed attempt to address this science based rebuttal at OK I went there. It is pretty flawed. by Red Baron Farms.

A hint of quote mining. The first quote in its full context.

Carbon losses over time
Applying a new grazing technique on grasslands which have been mismanaged may indeed have positive results in terms of soil carbon storage during the first few years. But the main problem is that storage slows after the initial change, and over a long period of time (such as 50 years), the storage potential of the soil is maximised as it approaches an equilibrium (Nordborg, 2016). This effect is more observable in dry regions of the planet. This is because dry regions have lost much of their soil content, therefore having low carbon storage potential. They are at risk of completely drying out because of increasing temperatures and more at risk to the detrimental effect of mismanaged grazing (Lal, 2004).This makes it unreasonable to apply Holistic Management to such dry areas, where the intense grazing would no doubt leave soils further damaged. In fact, one of the principals of Holistic Management - focusing on using the intense hoof action of cattle – has been claimed by the Savory Institute to increase the absorption of water by soils. However, several studies in fact stated that the opposite effect was seen. When comparing land that was not grazed with land that had been managed using a short rotational grazing system (which is very similar to Holistic Management in its ideas), water infiltration was significantly reduced, and the hoof action did not improve incorporation of litter into soil (Dormaar et al. 1989, Holechek et al. 2000).

This is common sense. If you stop mismanaging land then it will improve! But the science is that there are limits to soil carbon storage.

Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho (PDF) is paper that shows that "simulated holistic planned grazing" gave a higher percent volumetric-water content than two other treatments ("rest-rotation (RESTROT), and total rest (TREST)") over a period of 2 years. There is no mismanaged land in this paper !

Vegetation and Soil Responses to Short-Duration Grazing on Fescue Grasslands (PDF) showed that 5 years of high grazing reduced soil moisture.

Short-duration grazing: the facts in 1999 (PDF)

Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change (Lal, 2004)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

nonsense snipped

Nordburg is flawed yes. The rebuttal does indeed use something stated in Nordburg. However, this is a completely flawed analysis by Nordburg, We can easily find that flaw by looking here:

4.3 How much carbon
can be stored in pastures?
A simple calculation, based on very optimistic assumptions, is presented. This calculation estimates
the carbon storage potential in pastures and is used
to evaluate the claim that holistic grazing can reverse climate change. Assume that (the reasonableness
of these assumptions are discussed further below):
1. holistic grazing is introduced on 1 billion ha
worldwide, in line with the goal of the Savory
Institute;
2. plant growth measured as net primary production (NPP) above and below ground is 3.8 tonnes of C per ha and year before holistic grazing
is introduced (see Appendix 4);
3. plant growth in the form of NPP is doubled as
a result of holistic grazing;
4. 10% of the NPP is sequestered in the soil year
1, and
5. the soil carbon sequestration rate declines linearly from 10% of the NPP year 1, to 2% during
the first 50 years, and from 2% of the NPP to
0% during the next 50 years. (Nordborg 2012)

This is a result of using a biomass soil carbon model like the Roth C

The Roth C is fine, except it has nothing to do with the Liquid Carbon Pathway (LCP)

One is biomass and catabolic and the other is root exudates feeding AMF and anabolic.

The flaw in Nordborg is discussed better here:
Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised

However just so you can understand where the flaw is consider this

Image courtesy wikimedia commons

The Roth C (and other similar soil carbon models) pertains to the O-horizon and biomass under decay primarily by saprophytic fungi (SF).

However, it was improper for Nordborg to use this particular soil carbon model for the LCP which is not biomass at all but rather root exudates feeding glomalin producing Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF).

Rather than the catabolic processes of decay which release copious amounts of CO2 back into the atmosphere, The LCP Takes 30-40% of the NPP and feeds it to AMF in an anabolic soil building process. Further, when the glomalin finally does decay (it has a 1/2 life of 7-42 years) approximately 78% becomes humic polymers tightly bound to the soil mineral substrate.

AMF is not SF. They are both types of fungi but they process carbon differently. The same soil carbon model that works for one can not work for the other. This is the flaw that is carried onto this new rebuttal.

 

[Reality Check]

...Nordburg nonsense snipped....

There is no "Nordburg" in my post.
There is no "Nordburg" as an author of the papers in my posts.
There is no '"Nordburg" in New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change' (basic rebuttal)
There is no '"Nordburg" in New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change' (advanced rebuttal).

ETA: Found it:
Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. SLU/EPOK – Centre for Organic Food & Farming & Chalmers. Available at: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/244566/local_244566.pdf.

My post was: 19 March 2019: The error of citing a paper that does not show mismanaged land gaining moisture content.

P.S.
20 April 2015 Red Baron Farms: How much is "a lot" ?
20 April 2015 Red Baron Farms: Please cite the literature that states that herbivore numbers have been in decline since the Pleistocene, i.e. over the last 11,700 years

 

[Red Baron Farms]

There is no "Nordburg" in my post.
There is no "Nordburg" as an author of the papers in my posts.
There is no '"Nordburg" in New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change' (basic rebuttal)
There is no '"Nordburg" in New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change' (advanced rebuttal).

My post was: 19 March 2019: The error of citing a paper that does not show mismanaged land gaining moisture content.

No there is no Nordborg in your post, you used The skeptical science source who used the same flaw from Nordborg. You can find it easier in the advanced rebuttal rather than the basic rebuttal.

Also you said "The error of citing a paper that does not show mismanaged land gaining moisture content."
Exactly. Mismanaged land does not gain moisture over holistic managed land. This is the original non sequitur in the rebuttal you cited... Glad we both agree now.

 

[Reality Check]

A fatally flawed "Nordburg is flawed" assertion (no Roth C)

Nordburg is flawed yes....

19 March 2019: A fatally flawed "Nordburg is flawed" assertion when the Roth C model is not used in the Nordburg paper!

Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. (PDF)

4.3 How much carbon can be stored in pastures?
A simple calculation, based on very optimistic assumptions, is presented. This calculation estimates the carbon storage potential in pastures and is used to evaluate the claim that holistic grazing can reverse climate change.

Nordberg does not use the Roth C model.
Nordberg uses very optimistic assumptions based on Savory Institute and published values. The Roth C model may be somewhere in the papers cited in section 4.3 but that is not his assertion nor does he show that the model is used.

19 March 2019: The error of citing a paper that does not show mismanaged land gaining moisture content.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

19 March 2019: A fatally flawed "Nordburg is flawed" assertion when the Roth C model is not used in the Nordburg paper!

Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. (PDF)

Nordberg does not use the Roth C model.
Nordberg uses very optimistic assumptions based on Savory Institute and published values. The Roth C model may be somewhere in the papers cited in section 4.3 but that is not his assertion nor does he show that the model is used.

19 March 2019: The error of citing a paper that does not show mismanaged land gaining moisture content.

No RC wrong again. Where do you think this optimistic 10% that declines with time and saturation comes from?

The LCP works exactly the opposite.

It actually increases over time. It starts out at 30%-40% NPP, but what happens is that NPP increases and thus so does the LCP. Because this is all happening in the A and B horizons instead of the O-horizon, a much greater % becomes humic polymers tightly bound to the soil substrate rather than returning to the atmosphere as CO2.

a picture from a published Hungarian journal shows it better actually.

Image courtesy http://bit.ly/2rjnMLr

 

[Reality Check]

No RC wrong again. Where do you think this optimistic 10% that declines with time and saturation comes from?

19 March 2019: A fatally flawed "Nordburg is flawed" assertion when the Roth C model is not used in the Nordburg paper!
19 March 2019: The error of citing a paper that does not show mismanaged land gaining moisture content.

You are the one with the Roth C model assertion.
19 March 2019: Where do you think this optimistic 10% that declines with time and saturation comes from?

As I wrote: "The Roth C model may be somewhere in the papers cited in section 4.3 but that is not his assertion nor does he [Red Baron Farms] show that the model is used."

 

[Reality Check]

The flaw in Nordborg is discussed better here:
Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised

This close to an opinion piece by Dr. Christine Jones in the now defunct Australian Farm Journal. The liquid carbon pathway exists. It is not included in the Roth C model. in some unspecified instances, it is the primary mechanism for soil building.
Jones does not show that neglecting the liquid carbon pathway has any effect on the results of the Roth C model. That needs an actual comparison between models with and without the LCP. It is reasonable that adding LCP to the model will have an effect but is it 0.1% extra moisture, 1%, 10%, or 100%?

The paper was published in 2008. It should be cited by other soil scientists over the last 11 years. Google Scholar says that it has only 14 citations mostly by Jones and no journals.

RothC - A model for the turnover of carbon in soil (PDF) from 2014 has no LCP - almost as if other soil scientists have reasons to neglect it.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

This close to an opinion piece by Dr. Christine Jones in the now defunct Australian Farm Journal. The liquid carbon pathway exists. It is not included in the Roth C model. in some unspecified instances, it is the primary mechanism for soil building.
Jones does not show that neglecting the liquid carbon pathway has any effect on the results of the Roth C model. That needs an actual comparison between models with and without the LCP. It is reasonable that adding LCP to the model will have an effect but is it 0.1% extra moisture, 1%, 10%, or 100%?

The paper was published in 2008. It should be cited by other soil scientists over the last 11 years. Google Scholar says that it has only 14 citations mostly by Jones and no journals.


RothC - A model for the turnover of carbon in soil (PDF) from 2014 has no LCP - almost as if other soil scientists have reasons to neglect it.

All of these show soil carbon sequestration rates Nordborg, M., 2016 claims is impossible. All well within the 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr Jones measured on several farms over 10 years.

Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change

Jorge A. Delgado, Peter M. Groffman, Mark A. Nearing, Tom Goddard, Don Reicosky, Rattan Lal, Newell R. Kitchen, Charles W. Rice, Dan Towery, and Paul Salon doi:10.2489/jswc.66.4.118A

Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis

Eduardo Aguilera, Luis Lassaletta, Andreas Gattinger, Benjamín S.Gimeno doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.02.003

Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming

Andreas Gattinger, Adrian Muller, Matthias Haeni, Colin Skinner, Andreas Fliessbach, Nina Buchmann, Paul Mäder, Matthias Stolze, Pete Smith, Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, and Urs Niggli doi/10.1073/pnas.1209429109

Managing Soils and Ecosystems for Mitigating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions and Advancing Global Food Security

Rattan Lal doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.8

The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America

W.R. Teague, S. Apfelbaum, R. Lal, U.P. Kreuter, J. Rowntree, C.A. Davies, R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, and P. Byc doi:10.2489/jswc.71.2.156

Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie

W.R.Teague, S.L.Dowhower, S.A.Baker, N.Haile, P.B.DeLaune, D.M.Conover doi:/10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.009

They all also have examples of much smaller sequestration rates too.

The reason for this wide difference is which biological pathway is being measured. They are completely different. It is easy to see which take advantage of and optimize the LCP and which rely on biomass decay.

I never said the Roth C and other similar soil models were bad. They work just fine at measuring biomass decay in the O Horizon. Even sometimes a bit optimistic actually.

But they are completely useless at estimating the carbon sequestered by HPG or any other agricultural system using the LCP as the primary carbon source for sequestration.

 

[Reality Check]

A lie that Nordborg, M., 2016 claims "soil carbon sequestration" is impossible

All of these show soil carbon sequestration rates Nordborg, M., 2016 claims is impossible....

20 March 2018: An irrelevant lie that Nordborg, M., 2016 claims "soil carbon sequestration" is impossible.

That soil sequesters carbon is basic soil science.
Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. (PDF) was published by Nordborg of the EPOK - Centre of Organic Food & Framing at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. There is a "4.2 Soil Carbon Sequestration" section that is 7 pages long. This section partially supports Savory’s claim that grazing can increase soil carbon sequestration.

Improved management, e.g. grazing, canincrease soil carbon storage potential
It is well-established that improved management practices can be beneficial for the soil’s capacity to store carbon, especially in land that has previously
been, or is, mismanaged and thus depleted of soil carbon (IPCC, 2007; Jones, 2010).

This irrelevant lie ignores that Jones does not show that neglecting the liquid carbon pathway has any effect on the results of the Roth C model.
That is obvious to anyone who understands science and her article. Merely pointing out that the LCP is not used in the Roth C model does not make the model invalid. For example, climate models do not include the flapping of butterfly wings and match the real world ! More seriously, the simpler climate models of the 1970's gave roughly matching results to their data and modern models with more "pathways".