Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

[Reality Check]

Cite the literature that shows that LCP is the source for HPG

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.

20 March 2019: Cite the scientific literature that shows that LCP is "the primary carbon source for sequestration" for HPG.

My suspicion is that it is the type of soil that determines the relative amounts of LCP and biomass sequestration. A dune in a desert has very low biomass but might have high liquid carbon. The soil in a forest will have high biomass but may have modest liquid carbon.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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.




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".

You misquoted me out of context them claim it is a lie? The mistake Nordbord makes is in rate, and in which pathway is responsible for carbon sequestration, not in that it exists at all. Nordborn simply is using the old top down decay of biomass in the O-horizon model of soil carbon rather than the newly discovered LCP that wasn't even discovered until very recently.

You wonder why I keep having to explain the basics to you over and over? Because over and over you keep misunderstanding the basics. Then no matter how good a reference, you simply have no idea what it means. I cant even remember how many times I sent you the link to Jones Liquid Carbon Pathway unrecognized, and yet by some miracle of incomprehension you still find the LCP unrecognizable!

I have explained it to you. I have linked others explanations to you. You still keep missing it. You are not even close to understanding how to spot in the literature if they are recognizing it or not. Hint: Nordborg isn't and you can tell by the much lower sequestration rate that tapers down to zero over 50 years. This is a signature of the O-horizon as it saturates the decaying biomass pool. It has nothing to do with the LCP at all. So when we see that we know Norborg missed this pathway completely.

The LCP increases over time until it gradually levels off near a peak rate due to increased fertility and NPP. Completely different signature.

Of course the Roth C is not invalid, it simply models a different biological pathway for carbon into the soil.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

20 March 2019: Cite the scientific literature that shows that LCP is "the primary carbon source for sequestration" for HPG.

My suspicion is that it is the type of soil that determines the relative amounts of LCP and biomass sequestration. A dune in a desert has very low biomass but might have high liquid carbon. The soil in a forest will have high biomass but may have modest liquid carbon.

Well you are kind of right. The primary source for soil carbon in the forest floor is actually biomass decay in the O-horizon.

Two reasons for that, one the leaf litter mat is much thicker on the forest floor, and the forest fungi are much more weighted to saprophytic and ectomycorrhizal.

But you are wrong about a desert dune. There is nearly no AMF symbiosis at all of any sort on a dune as it requires a living plant root to live. There may be AMF spores, but no liquid carbon flow at all without a living plant.

 

[Reality Check]

Well ....

20 March 2019: Cite the scientific literature that shows that LCP is "the primary carbon source for sequestration" for HPG.

 

[Reality Check]

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

You misquoted me out of context them claim it is a lie? ...:

You are right - I missed the "rates" so it is
20 March 2018: A lie that the Nordborg, M., 2016 soil carbon sequestration rate is impossible from a list of papers.

Section 4.3 of Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. has

Based on these (combined) very optimistic assumptions (see below), 0.76 tonnes of C is sequestered per ha year 1 (= 3.8 tonnes of C / ha / year × 2 × 10%).

You have a list of papers that you claim make that value impossible. That is a lie.

For example, the first paper is Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change . This paper has a table including a net carbon sequestration impact (NCSI) column with

+, ++, and +++ indicate that the mean CO2 sequestration is 0 to 2; > 2 to 4; and > 4 t ha–1 y–1, respectively.

That does not make "0.76 tonnes of C / ha / year" impossible.

 

[Reality Check]

This paper possibly does not make Nordborg's rate impossible

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

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

A paper needing payment. But Strategies for GHG mitigation in Mediterranean cropping systems. A review (PDF) cites the above paper and has some of the same authors.

In all cases, significant effects on C sequestration have been observed in long term experiments, averaging 0.43 Mg C ha-1 yr-1.

Nordborg's very optimistic estimated rate not for Mediterranean cropping systems is 0.76 tonnes of C is sequestered per ha year. This is above 0.43 Mg C ha-1 yr-1.

 

[Reality Check]

This paper does not make Nordborg's rate impossible

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.

Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming

We found significant differences and higher values for organically farmed soils of 0.18 ± 0.06% points (mean ± 95% confidence interval) for SOC concentrations, 3.50 ± 1.08 Mg C ha−1 for stocks, and 0.45 ± 0.21 Mg C ha−1 y−1 for sequestration rates compared with nonorganic management.

Nordborg's very optimistic estimated rate not for organic farming is 0.76 tonnes of C is sequestered per ha year. This is above 0.45 ± 0.21 Mg C ha−1 y−1.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You are right - I missed the "rates" so it is
20 March 2018: A lie that the Nordborg, M., 2016 soil carbon sequestration rate is impossible from a list of papers.

Section 4.3 of Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. has


You have a list of papers that you claim make that value impossible. That is a lie.

For example, the first paper is Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change . This paper has a table including a net carbon sequestration impact (NCSI) column with

That does not make "0.76 tonnes of C / ha / year" impossible.

That's not what I said RC. You know it. The rate Nordborg uses is based on the catabolic saprophytic pathway rather than the anabolic LCP. If anything for the pathway described the rate is too high. But once again, this rate is much smaller than the LCP.

The papers I sent you all have various results, some including the LCP and some not. The point is to show supporting evidence that the rates given by Jones are not impossible like Nordborg claims, but also to show the difference in rates between one pathway and the other are profoundly different.

 

[Reality Check]

This paper does not make Nordborg's rate impossible

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

Rattan Lal doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.8

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

This paper has general information including soil carbon sequestration. No soil carbon sequestration rates in the paper itself.

Nordborg's very optimistic estimated rate is 0.76 tonnes of C sequestered per ha year remains possible.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Nordborg's very optimistic estimated rate not for Mediterranean cropping systems is 0.76 tonnes of C is sequestered per ha year. This is above 0.43 Mg C ha-1 yr-1.

Yes again, Nordborg's estimates for the saprophytic pathway are exceedingly optimistic and too high.

Nordborg thinks this refutes Holistic grazing. Because if Norborg is using too high a rate, and still less than Savory, Nordborg concludes this must indeed be evidence Savory's HPG cant work.

There are 2 problems with this.

HPG does work. There are measured rates even much higher than the average Jones uses, which are much higher than Nordborg uses.

So obviously Nordborg's hypothesis can't describe some of the empirical evidence. Yet in other cases it is actually too generous. This is evidence it is Nordborg who is actually wrong, not Savory. Especially not Jones, who actually spent the time and effort to explain why the discrepancy.

I have been trying to explain to you why Nordborg is wrong for days now, but it is like trying to convince a cat to take a bath. You simply are refusing to accept the evidence.

 

[Reality Check]

This paper does not make Nordborg's rate impossible

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

The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America has no applicable soil carbon sequestration rates. There are SOC sequestration rates with CO2 equivalent rates and a "3 tC ha–1 y–1" from a Teague paper.

Nordborg's very optimistic estimated rate of 0.76 tonnes of C sequestered per ha year remains possible.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America has no applicable soil carbon sequestration rates. There are SOC sequestration rates with CO2 equivalent rates and a "3 tC ha–1 y–1" from a Teague paper.

Nordborg's very optimistic estimated rate of 0.76 tonnes of C sequestered per ha year remains possible.

LOLS are you drunk? Seriously RC. I have stated over and over Nordborg's number are too low for the LCP and even Nordborg admits the rate is pretty generous using the older soil carbon models.

Nowhere have I ever said Nordborg's rate was impossible. LOLZ It's actually just a fraction of what's possible.

As for the Teague paper, here is the copy paste and the math to convert.

"These sources report the sequestration of extra C from
regenerative management of between –2 and –4 t C ha–1 y–1 (–0.89 and –1.78 tn C ac–1 yr–1) compared to current management alternatives so we calculate GHG emission mitigation by regenerative, conservation grazing and cropping at –3 t C ha–1 y–1 (–1.2 tn C ac–1 yr–1; figures 1 and 2)"

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. Byck JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION MARCH/APRIL 2016 —VOL. 71, NO. 2"

To convert that to CO2e we multiply by 44/12* or 3.67 so just to clean this formatting and scale up a bit for comparison we get 11 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr on average.

That is dead center of what was reported by Dr Jones or 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr on average.

"Under appropriate conditions, 30-40% of the carbon fixed in green leaves can be transferred to soil and
rapidly humified, resulting in rates of soil carbon sequestration in the order of 5-20 tonnes of CO2 per
hectare per year.

Liquid Carbon Pathway Unrecognized By Christine Jones, Australian Farm Journal
Edition 338, 3/07/2008"

*44/12 is the molecular weight of CO2 divided by the molecular weight of carbon.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes again, Nordborg's estimates for the saprophytic pathway are exceedingly optimistic and too high.....

You still do not understand the simple point that Nordborg' is making with that estimate.

Section 4.3 is the question "How much carbon can be stored in pastures?"
Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method.

1. Take very optimistic assumptions based on the scientific literature.
2. Estimate the soil carbon sequestration rate using those very optimistic assumptions.
3. The result is a maximum rate under those very optimistic assumptions.
4. That maximum rate tells us the maximum about of carbon that can be stored in pastures.

The answer to the question is 0.76 tonnes of C is sequestered per ha year
Apply holistic grazing to 1 billion ha to get less than 10% of current annual emissions. This debunks Alan Savory's claim that holistic grazing can reverse global warming.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You still do not understand the simple point that Nordborg' is making with that estimate.

Section 4.3 is the question "How much carbon can be stored in pastures?"
Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method.

1. Take very optimistic assumptions based on the scientific literature.
2. Estimate the soil carbon sequestration rate using those very optimistic assumptions.
3. The result is a maximum rate under those very optimistic assumptions.
4. That maximum rate tells us the maximum about of carbon that can be stored in pastures.

The answer to the question is 0.76 tonnes of C is sequestered per ha year
Apply holistic grazing to 1 billion ha to get less than 10% of current annual emissions. This debunks Alan Savory's claim that holistic grazing can reverse global warming.

That's like taking very optimistic assumptions on the maximum speed of a Stanley Steamer car and claiming it is the top speed of a Lamborghini.

Again, the LCP is overlooked. that's what Jones repeatedly claims. Nordborg's rebuttal is failing to descibe reality because it is old science describing an antiquated paradigm.

 

[Reality Check]

An insult that I do not comprehend the LCP

...I cant even remember how many times I sent you the link to Jones Liquid Carbon Pathway unrecognized, and yet by some miracle of incomprehension you still find the LCP unrecognizable

An insult that I do not comprehend the LCP when I have read and understood that paper.

This close to an opinion piece by Dr. Christine Jones in the now defunct Australian Farm Journal.

• Dr. Christine Jones paper does not make the Roth C model invalid or even flawed because she does not actually show that the LCP has makes the model invalid or flawed.
  Neglecting insignificant effects is what scientific models do. Soil scientists since (I assume) Roth have neglected LCP. They will have reasons for this.
• That paper has been ignored for 11 years (mostly 14 citations, mostly by her).
  A good paper is cited by other scientists. A lack of citation is a hint of problems with the paper. In this case, the lack of citation is probably caused by the journal closing.
  Other soil scientists have not abandoned the Roth C model. Other soil scientists have seem to not have updated the Roth C model.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

An insult that I do not comprehend the LCP when I have read and understood that paper.

This close to an opinion piece by Dr. Christine Jones in the now defunct Australian Farm Journal.

• Dr. Christine Jones paper does not make the Roth C model invalid or even flawed because she does not actually show that the LCP has makes the model invalid or flawed.
  Neglecting insignificant effects is what scientific models do. Soil scientists since (I assume) Roth have neglected LCP. They will have reasons for this.
• That paper has been ignored for 11 years (mostly 14 citations, mostly by her).
  A good paper is cited by other scientists. A lack of citation is a hint of problems with the paper. In this case, the lack of citation is probably caused by the journal closing.
  Other soil scientists have not abandoned the Roth C model. Other soil scientists have seem to not have updated the Roth C model.

And other scientists have no explanation for why HPG works either. But you are using circular reasoning.

Instead you need to explain where that carbon came from if you have decided that Jones is wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

And ....

And nothing to do with An insult that I do not comprehend the LCP when I have read and understood that paper.

Or the fact that you have given no evidence that the Roth C model cannot be applied as maybe one of the cited papers in Nordberg does.
This close to an opinion piece by Dr. Christine Jones in the now defunct Australian Farm Journal. does not show that the Roth C model cannot be applied.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

And nothing to do with An insult that I do not comprehend the LCP when I have read and understood that paper.

Or the fact that you have given no evidence that the Roth C model cannot be applied as maybe one of the cited papers in Nordberg does.
This close to an opinion piece by Dr. Christine Jones in the now defunct Australian Farm Journal. does not show that the Roth C model cannot be applied.

OMG again with the willfull ignorance. The Roth C is valid and CAN be applied where appropriate, it just doesn't describe MEASURED results that Jones found in her 10 year case studies. These are not opinions about projected possibilities, they are describing real world Empirical evidence that the old soil carbon models can't explain.

If you think Jones is wrong, then feel free to submit your own new hypothesis to explain these measured rates of sequestration far in excess of what the older soil carbon models can describe..

 

[Reality Check]

That's ....

Nothing to do with my post so You still do not understand the simple point that Nordborg' is making with that estimate

Again, the LCP is overlooked. that's what Jones repeatedly claims.

What you have supplied is evidence that 1 and only 1 soil scientist in the world claims that the liquid carbon pathway is overlooked. That 1 soil scientist repeats a claim does not mean that the claim is correct.

I do not think that soil scientists are ignorant about soil ! They will know that the carbon content of soil comes from biomass and soluble carbon. They will have reasons for the Roth C model using biomass.

 

[Reality Check]

Can the Roth C model cannot be applied to grasslands

OMG again with the willfull ignorance. The Roth C is valid and CAN be applied where appropriate, it just doesn't describe MEASURED results that Jones found in her 10 year case studies..

A possible "MEASURED results that Jones found in her 10 year case studies" lie since you have cited no such studies.
No studies in the ignored Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised. In fact no MEASURED results! A "Under appropriate conditions, 30-40% of the carbon fixed in green leaves can be transferred to soil and
rapidly humified, resulting in rates of soil carbon sequestration in the order of 5-20 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year" pops out of nowhere.

You are claiming that Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. cannot use Roth C and going on about LCP.
But you now state" Roth C is valid and CAN be applied where appropriate".
Nordborg applies the Roth C model to grasslands so:
20 March 2019: Cite the scientific literature that states the Roth C model cannot be applied to grasslands.