Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

[Red Baron Farms]

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


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.

Of course Jones isn't the only one. The Teague results fall dead center in Jones range. Obviously Savory would be another.

Sarah Wright and Kristine A. Nichols would be 2 more. Elaine Ingram another.

The whole USDA SARE (science section of the USDA) working on soil would be hundreds more.

A good % of the USDA NRCS too.

We are in the thousands by now. In fact Haney from the UDSA even had to develop a whole new soil test called the Haney test in his honor to describe the new paradigm that opened up when investigating the LCP.

As it turns out carbon sequestration is just a minor consequence of the LCP symbiosis. The primary function is to transport nutrients.

AMF pays for this carbon my supplying the plant the nutrients it needs to support growth. Thus when this is functioning correctly no fertilizers are needed. That's even a bigger deal than all the carbon in the soil. It also explains why the LCP shuts down in standard agricultural methods.

 

[Reality Check]

A "Jones isn't the only one" fantasy about Savory and others

Of course Jones isn't the only one.....

A "Jones isn't the only one" fantasy about Savory and others.

It is what a scientist publishes that tells people their stance on science. It is soil scientists publishing papers that say that LCP needs to be included in the Roth C model that tells people their stance on LCP in the Roth C model.

You also debunk Jones by saying hundreds of people recognize LCP!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

A "Jones isn't the only one" fantasy about Savory and others.

It is what a scientist publishes that tells people their stance on science. It is soil scientists publishing papers that say that LCP needs to be included in the Roth C model that tells people their stance on LCP in the Roth C model.

You also debunk Jones by saying hundreds of people recognize LCP!

You are silly. Just making stupid strawmen. Scientific models like the Roth C are only useful when they describe observed phenomenon. It doesn't work on the LCP because it describes a carbon pathway that we knew about for a long time prior to the liquid carbon pathway which is new knowledge.

Plenty of scientists have published on the LCP, but it is still in its infancy. It is still being broken down into its component parts to figure out how it works exactly. Whole new fields of soil science were created when Sarah Wright made her breakthrough. There is at least 50 to 100 years of science to do before anyone can make a scientific model of the liquid carbon pathway as accurate as the Roth C model is for the saprophytic pathway.

 

[Reality Check]

You are silly.....

Real world facts are not silly, Red Baron Farms. Scientists publish their positions on science (primarily) in scientific journals. You establishing that soil scientists do recognize LCP makes Jones assertion that they do not wrong.

Scientific models are useful when they match the real world. You have presented no evidence that the Roth C model does not match the real world.
20 March 2019: Cite the scientific literature that states the Roth C model cannot be applied to grasslands as Nordborg presumably does.

What about the so far imaginary "MEASURED results that Jones found in her 10 year case studies" that the model cannot explain?

Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. has an optimistic estimate of soil carbon sequestration that makes Savory’s reversal of global warming assertion wrong.

Despite optimistic assumptions, 0.76 billion tonnes of C correspond to less than 10% of current annual emissions, ...

You have presented no evidence that this estimate is wrong.
The papers you list in All of these show soil carbon sequestration rates Nordborg, M., 2016 claims is impossible....[/ do not say Nordborg's rate is impossible. They have soil carbon sequestration rates that are lower than Nordborg's estimate. The first paper has some specific, other agricultural practices that produce higher rates.

Merely mentioning LCP does not magically make Nordborg's estimate or any other calculations wrong. Merely mentioning LCP does not make the Roth C model wrong or inappropriate or whatever you think.

 

[The Shrike]

Still with this? Oy.

Time for the old classic: "What would it take to convince you that your position is incorrect?"

 

[Reality Check]

Red Baron Farms provided this evidence against Allan Savory's reversal of global warming claim: Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future

Most of the paper is about Cenozoic cooling listing various explanations including the authors own "COOLING BY GRASSLAND COEVOLUTION?".
"FUTURE COOLING EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL GRASSLANDS?" has 1 estimate related to global warming - it may be possible to "sequester at least 100 Tg per year, which is roughly 15% of current Australian greenhouse gas emissions (Sanderman et al. 2010)." 15% is not > 100% !

 

[Reality Check]

Red Baron Farms provided this evidence against Allan Savory's reversal of global warming claim: The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America

This is a research editorial (basically a review) that does not say that ruminants or changes in agricultural practice can reverse global warming. The authors describe the role of ruminants in GHG production, e.g. rumen fermentation producing CH4. They give 5 hypothetical North American net greenhouse emission scenarios. The best scenario is a reduction of ~0.72 Gt C/y (Figure 1) or ~1.2 Gt C/y (Figure 2). That is less than 10% of the total human caused emissions as at 2014 (their table 1). 10% is not greater than 100% !

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Red Baron Farms provided this evidence against Allan Savory's reversal of global warming claim: Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future

Most of the paper is about Cenozoic cooling listing various explanations including the authors own "COOLING BY GRASSLAND COEVOLUTION?".
"FUTURE COOLING EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL GRASSLANDS?" has 1 estimate related to global warming - it may be possible to "sequester at least 100 Tg per year, which is roughly 15% of current Australian greenhouse gas emissions (Sanderman et al. 2010)." 15% is not > 100% !

Red Baron Farms provided this evidence against Allan Savory's reversal of global warming claim: The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America

This is a research editorial (basically a review) that does not say that ruminants or changes in agricultural practice can reverse global warming. The authors describe the role of ruminants in GHG production, e.g. rumen fermentation producing CH4. They give 5 hypothetical North American net greenhouse emission scenarios. The best scenario is a reduction of ~0.72 Gt C/y (Figure 1) or ~1.2 Gt C/y (Figure 2). That is less than 10% of the total human caused emissions as at 2014 (their table 1). 10% is not greater than 100% !

Correct. They are not. And what is your point? No one, not even Savory, ever said soil sequestration by any means would be 100%. Never ever said it! I never said it. No one reputable ever said it. Teague never said it. Jones never said it. Retallack never said it.

When you make up comments like this, it is called a strawman. You simply misrepresent your opponents position then prove that misrepresented position false. It the worst kind of deception. Some would even call it an outright lie. Either way it is meaningless. You are just babbling in the wind with nothing coherent to say.

Come back and post something when your mind sharpens up a bit.

Oh and by the way, land managers using Savory's system can do a bit by restoring desertified land, and ranchers can do a bit by better grazing management of their pastures, and farmers can do a bit by advanced no till mutispecies and cover crops, and converting cornfields back into prairies, and rice farmers can do their bit by using SRI, loggers can do their bit by replanting after timbering, and we can all help by reducing fossil fuel use and converting to renewables and nuclear. No single one is the solution. But combined they are plenty. More than enough.

 

[Reality Check]

Correct. They are not. And what is your point? No one, not even Savory, ever said soil sequestration by any means would be 100%.....

You need to understand Savory's myth: New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change' (my emphasis added).

The Myth Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change
“Holistic management as a planned grazing strategy is able to reverse desertification and sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide into soil, reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to pre-industrial levels in a period of forty years.” (Allan Savory, 2014)

Just to stop global warming, Savory is claiming an ability to sequester 100% of our CO2 emissions using Holistic Management. The scientific sources in the article have evidence that will not happen. Your scientific sources have evidence that will not happen. My scientific sources have evidence that will not happen.

• Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. (PDF)
  4.3 How much carbon can be stored in pastures?
  An optimistic estimate for Savoy's numbers and standard soil science gives < 10% of current annual emissions.
  4.4 The Savory Institute’s view on emissions of methane from cattle
  The Savory Institute denies the scientific evidence that there is a correlation between rising livestock numbers and increasing methane production: "Lassey (2007) showed that the increasing concentration of methane in the atmosphere can largely be attributed to the world’s increasing livestock population".
• Retallack (2013): Roughly 15% of current Australian greenhouse gas emissions
  
• Teague, et. al (2016): Less than 10% of the total human caused emissions as at 2014

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You need to understand Savory's myth: New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change' (my emphasis added).

Just to stop global warming, Savory is claiming an ability to sequester 100% of our CO2 emissions using Holistic Management. The scientific sources in the article have evidence that will not happen. Your scientific sources have evidence that will not happen. My scientific sources have evidence that will not happen.

• Nordborg, M., 2016. A critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method. (PDF)
  4.3 How much carbon can be stored in pastures?
  An optimistic estimate for Savoy's numbers and standard soil science gives < 10% of current annual emissions.
  4.4 The Savory Institute’s view on emissions of methane from cattle
  The Savory Institute denies the scientific evidence that there is a correlation between rising livestock numbers and increasing methane production: "Lassey (2007) showed that the increasing concentration of methane in the atmosphere can largely be attributed to the world’s increasing livestock population".
• Retallack (2013): Roughly 15% of current Australian greenhouse gas emissions
  
• Teague, et. al (2016): Less than 10% of the total human caused emissions as at 2014

sequestering carbon in the soil is the only way to reverse AGW. That is in fact true. But it doesn't mean that part of the strategy isn't also reducing emissions from fossil fuels. He makes that very clear from the beginning.

It's true he focuses on that side of the carbon cycle, as it is his field of study. But he awknowledges right from the get go we need a technological fix for energy and then fix the biological side too, and together it can reverse AGW.

No other strategy that only focuses on emissions actually can reverse AGW. They all fall short, or rely on technology only being developed.

Now there's no question about it at all: we will only solve the problem of replacing fossil fuels with technology. But fossil fuels, carbon -- coal and gas -- are by no means the only thing that is causing climate change. Savory

 

[Reality Check]

Repests ignorance about Savory's claim

sequestering carbon in the soil is the only way to reverse AGW. ...

Still wrong: Climate change mitigation lists other ways to reverse AGW, e.g. reforestation, sequestering in carbon sinks.

Savory's TED talk has Savory's claim

I believe I've shown you how we can work with nature at very low cost to reverse all this. We are already doing so on about 15 million hectares on five continents, and people who understand far more about carbon than I do calculate that, for illustrative purposes, if we do what I am showing you here, we can take enough carbon out of the atmosphere and safely store it in the grassland soils for thousands of years, and if we just do that on about half the world's grasslands that I've shown you, we can take us back to pre-industrial levels, while feeding people. I can think of almost nothing that offers more hope for our planet, for your children, and their children, and all of humanity.

The scientific evidence is that Savory's claim is wrong.

Savory may have changed his claim and told no one about it. We have to go with the claim he made.

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

The controversial claim appears to be based on a calculation in a report issued by the Savory Institute, ”Restoring the climate through capture and storage of soil carbon through holistic planned grazing” (Savory Institute, 2013a), in which it is assumed that 2.5 tonnes of C can be sequestrated per ha and year, on 5 billion ha (corresponding to one third of the world’s land), continuously for almost 40 years. A calculation shows that: 2.5 tonnes of C / ha / year × 5 billion ha × 40 years = 500 billion tonnes of C. This amount corresponds fairly well to the total emissions of carbon since the beginning of the industrial revolution, which amount to 555 billion tonnes of C (see Appendix 1). However, the assumptions on which this calculation is based are presented without support or references and appear to be speculation4

There is also an unpublished report at the Institute by Seth Itzkan "which yields a total of 88-210 billion tonnes of sequestrated C." using visual inspection of before/after photos to estimate changes in soil carbon!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Still wrong: Climate change mitigation lists other ways to reverse AGW, e.g. reforestation, sequestering in carbon sinks.

Those can mitigate. It's not the same as reversing. Mitigating AGW really is easy. Anything that reduces mankind's impact qualifies as "mitigation". I said reverse. That means it needs to be on a scale large enough to offset over 100%. (We still need to reduce emissions) There is no current technology we humans use at that scale big enough to potentially reverse AGW. The others are simply either too small or untested "futuretech".

Savory's TED talk has Savory's claim

The scientific evidence is that Savory's claim is wrong.

Savory may have changed his claim and told no one about it. We have to go with the claim he made.

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

There is also an unpublished report at the Institute by Seth Itzkan "which yields a total of 88-210 billion tonnes of sequestrated C." using visual inspection of before/after photos to estimate changes in soil carbon!

Nordborg is quite flawed as already discussed. Just repeating your claim without discussing why it is not flawed in your unscientific opinion is just that...a worthless unscientific opinion.

As an analogy I will borrow the bumblebee analogy from the 70's. I could have given all sorts of aerodynamic reasons why bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, yet they do anyway. So it means I need new aerodynamic models. It doesn't force bumblebees to the ground. Your reasoning by using Nordborg is equally flawed. Nordborg doesn't explain observed phenomenon. Thus we need to find new models to explain it, but it in no way means it can't be done. It has been done on tens of millions of acres worldwide already. If Nordborg hypothesizes it cant be done, yet it is beeing done already, it means Nordborg is already falsified and Nordborg will need to come up with a new hypothesis.

As far as Retallack goes, he calculated current land, not new land where desertification was reversed. There is a whole vast area of desertified land that could be restored.

 

[Reality Check]

Still ignores Alan Savory's actual, invalid claim

Those can mitigate. It's not the same as reversing....

Try reading the link: Climate change mitigation lists other ways to reverse AGW, e.g. reforestation, sequestering in carbon sinks.

Sinks and negative emissions
Main articles: Carbon sink and Negative carbon dioxide emission

A carbon sink is a natural or artificial reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period, such as a growing forest. A negative carbon dioxide emission on the other hand is a permanent removal of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Examples are direct air capture, enhanced weathering technologies such as storing it in geologic formations underground and biochar. These processes are sometimes considered as variations of sinks or mitigation,[171][172] and sometimes as geoengineering.[173] In combination with other mitigation measures, sinks in combination with negative carbon emissions are considered crucial for meeting the 350 ppm target.[174][175][176]

Sequestration of carbon in soli is not the only method of sequestration of carbon that exists !
We can sequester carbon in trees. This is called reforestation.
We are currently sequestering carbon in sinks on an industrial scale.

I am repeating Alan Savory's invalid claim that Holistic Management can sequester enough carbon to return levels to pre-industrial levels within 40 years stated in his 2014 Ted talk because you still do not understand his words. No published science supports this. The published science gives limits of 10-20% of current emissions per year.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Try reading the link: Climate change mitigation lists other ways to reverse AGW, e.g. reforestation, sequestering in carbon sinks.

Sequestration of carbon in soli is not the only method of sequestration of carbon that exists !
We can sequester carbon in trees. This is called reforestation.
We are currently sequestering carbon in sinks on an industrial scale.

I am repeating Alan Savory's invalid claim that Holistic Management can sequester enough carbon to return levels to pre-industrial levels within 40 years stated in his 2014 Ted talk because you still do not understand his words. No published science supports this. The published science gives limits of 10-20% of current emissions per year.

Biomass does not reverse AGW it is just a temporary help because biomass is part of the short term carbon cycle and saturates relatively quickly, after that it is net zero on the geological carbon cycle. Your failure to grasp the difference between the biological pathways of carbon are showing.
Limits to growth of forest biomass carbon sink under climate change

Thus reforestation biomass cant actually reverse climate change. It is only a relatively much smaller mitigation potential. We still should do it of course. But it isn't going to reverse AGW.

Industrial CCS has even less potential. It can't even hope to ever exceed 100% .

And yes, if done on enough land, and there is enough land, HPG could actually sequester enough to remove the legacy fossil fuel carbon in around 40 years. It is easily a sink in that range of scale. And there are published results showing it too. And 10s of millions of acres already beginning to do it. That's not enough though. It will take expanding this worldwide.