It's a nice try, but it's neither convincing nor compelling, because it's entirely anecdotal. Even if it wasn't, and they had bothered to care about doing it properly, what they claim as "evidence" (the freak rain storm that washed away the hydroplanter plot) is not evidence, but actually the experiment being ruined, because that wasn't what they were testing.
You've said you're a farmer, right? I assume you've participated in seed studies, you must know how these things generally work.
Because it is. Millions of people believing prayer works doesn't make the "evidence" for it more than anecdotes.
I can agree that the evidence is anecdotal. I have no problem with that. It is strong anecdotal evidence though because it is consistently repeatable. Your example of prayer is a good one and highlights this difference. I can pray for rain and it might rain and it might not rain. Thus in actuality the prayer is really for me. As evidence for prayer, rain is very weak anecdotal evidence at best. Kind of like the prayers and comments surrounding a funeral. That whole ceremony isn't for the dead, it is for the living and helps them deal with the loss.
In so much as this evidence was obtained by Wheeler, a trained professional observer, and did have a control, this type of anecdotal evidence invites further more rigorous detailed study. It is not the same as anecdotal evidence that is not based on facts or careful study.
I think the biggest problem people have with HM is the concept of Holism in Science. It is not stand alone. It actually needs to work in conjunction with reductionism. It's like the old saying "can't see the forest because of all the trees blocking your view". Yes you do need a perspective that views the forest as a whole system, but it does not relieve the requirement that you also view each part of that forest ecosystem as well. The two scientific methods (holism and reductionism) work together, each complimenting the other.
So when the system thinking holistic method that is used in HM does obtain consistent repeatable results, (and it does) There is still the need for reductionism to break it down and test each part. That has been done and is still being done. So when Gabe Brown who is a HM practitioner volunteers himself to be a cooperator and his farm to be a case study, there is a whole team of other experts in their individual fields that work on the individual parts each according to their specialty. Any papers they may write and publish will be in their individual fields. For example: The Teague study I posted. That isn't HM per se. The study has simply defined and tested rigorously part of HM. In other words Teague analyzed some important parts of HM and the claims made by Savory. It is immediately obvious once you actually read the whole paper instead of just the abstract. It is a direct rebuttal to Briske et al. which is being used to claim Savory's claims can't be confirmed scientifically.
Our study contradicts a recent review of grazing studies (Briske et al., 2008) which suggested MP grazing does not improve vegetation or animal production relative to continuous grazing.
On the evidence we present here we propose the following hypothesis as an alternative to Brisk et al. (2008). At the ranch scale, when multi-paddock grazing is managed to give the best vegetation and animal performance it is superior to continuous grazing regarding conservation and restoration of resources, provision of ecosystem goods and services, and ranch profitability.
link
Keep in mind Teague actually participated in the Briske study (D. D. Briske, J. D. Derner, J. R. Brown, S. D. Fuhlendorf,
W. R. Teague, K. M. Havstad, R. L. Gillen, A. J. Ash, W. D. Willms). They are colleagues. He knows very well both the strengths and weaknesses of the Briske review. Both are well respected and published scientists. But it is time to lay to rest the incorrect assumption that Savory's claims have been refuted and can't be scientifically confirmed or repeated. Science moves forward. That's why I refer to HM as a breakthrough. Of course there are more studies that need to be done (both reductionist and holistic). That's how the scientific method handles exciting breakthroughs. You know that.
ETA PS Yes I am a farmer. I also am running trials on my own experimental system. I too have volunteered to be a cooperator. Those applications are still pending however.
!
!
!
HM is quite literally being trialed side by side against the absolute best conventional BMP available that money can buy. It would be quite difficult to find a more difficult test scenario. Tailings are as bad as it gets, and the technique is consistent enough that so far it hasn't failed for him ever on many sites all over the West with mine tailings problems. It is consistent enough that mining companies use it. They have a financial and legal stake. Not likely to go for something not proven to work consistently.
.
