Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

[halleyscomet]

Summary of the thread thus far:


Hosted on a site that allows hotlinking

 

[Reality Check]

LOL Still hanging your hat on Belsky's failed crusade?

This is science, Red Baron Farms, rather than blindly following the claims of someone who has no credible scientific evidence that his methods work. You also need to learn to read links:
Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems has no " Belsky" in it. The authors are John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, and George Wuerthner.
The points in the review are

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

  Western US ecosystems outside the prairies in which bison occurred are not adapted to the impact of large herds of livestock. Recent changes to these grassland ecosystems result from herbivory by domestic livestock which has altered fire cycles and promoted invasive species at the expense of native vegetation.

• Do Grasses Senesce and Die If Not Grazed by Livestock?
  

  Grasses, particularly bunchgrasses, have structure that protects growing points from damage, harvests water, and protects the soil at the plant base. Removal of the standing plant material exposes the growing points, leading to loss or replacement by grazing tolerant species, including invasives.

• Does Rest Cause Grassland Deterioration?
  

  Contrary to the assumption that grasses will senesce and die if not grazed by livestock, studies of numerous relict sites, long-term rested sites, and paired grazed and ungrazed sites have demonstrated that native plant communities, particularly bunchgrasses, are sustained by rest from livestock grazing.

• Is Hoof Action Necessary for Grassland Health?
  

  We found no evidence that hoof action as described by Savory occurs in the arid and semiarid grasslands of the western USA which lacked large herds of ungulates such as bison that occurred in the prairies of the USA or the savannahs of Africa.

• Can Grazing Livestock Increase Carbon Storage and Reverse Climate Change?
  

  Livestock are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock removal of plant biomass and altering of soil properties by trampling and erosion causes loss of carbon storage and nutrients as evidenced by studies in grazed and ungrazed areas.

• What Is the Evidence That Holistic Management Does Not Produce the Claimed Effects?
  

  Studies in Africa and the western USA, including the prairies which evolved in the presence of bison, show that HM, like conventional grazing systems, does not compensate for overstocking of livestock.

• What about Riparian Areas and Biodiversity?
  

  HM does not address riparian areas and biodiversity with its focus on livestock production, although operators could choose these as goals.

• Is Scientific Evidence Important?
  

  Studies supporting HM have generally come from the Savory Institute or anecdotal accounts of HM practitioners. Leading range scientists have refuted the system and indicated that its adoption by land management agencies is based on these anecdotes and unproven principles rather than scientific evidence.

They cite supporting studies but note

Studies commonly held up as supporting HM [104–108] used HM paddocks that were grazed with light to moderate grazing, not the heavy grazing that Savory recommends.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

This is science, Red Baron Farms, rather than blindly following the claims of someone who has no credible scientific evidence that his methods work. You also need to learn to read links:
Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems has no " Belsky" in it. The authors are John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, and George Wuerthner.

My emphasis

Really? Because she died before she finished, and those other converts finished the draft for her, that means it wasn't part of her failed crusade?

Acknowledgment

Joy Belsky (1944–2001), Range Ecologist, who made available a draft analysis of holistic management before her death, provided us with much of the material presented here.

 

[Reality Check]

My emphasis

My emphasis added:

This is science, Red Baron Farms, rather than blindly following the claims of someone who has no credible scientific evidence that his methods work. You also need to learn to read links:
Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems has no " Belsky" in it. The authors are John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, and George Wuerthner.
The points in the review are [the answers are basically no]

• Are Western North American Ecosystems Adapted to Herds of Large Hooved Animals?
• Do Grasses Senesce and Die If Not Grazed by Livestock?
• Does Rest Cause Grassland Deterioration?
• Is Hoof Action Necessary for Grassland Health?
• Can Grazing Livestock Increase Carbon Storage and Reverse Climate Change?
• What Is the Evidence That Holistic Management Does Not Produce the Claimed Effects?
• What about Riparian Areas and Biodiversity?
• Is Scientific Evidence Important?

Added emphasis on the science that you are still ignoring, Red Baron Farms.

And you think that someone who has been dead for 13 years somehow corrupted the science stated in this review paper!

Acknowledgment

Joy Belsky (1944–2001), Range Ecologist, who made available a draft analysis of holistic management before her death, provided us with much of the material presented here.

The "converts/crusade" language is the stuff we see from conspiracy theorists all of the time. You should to not follow their jargon. Otherwise you need to look at another "convert" who has a "failed crusade" to support HM called Red Baron Farms !

 

[Reality Check]

Joy Belsky seems to have been a prominent range ecologist, e.g. Guide to the Joy Belsky Papers 1931-2001

Belsky published over 45 peer-reviewed scientific papers and book chapters on African and North American grasslands and rangelands and was working on a paper contesting Allan Savory’s theory of holistic management when she died.

and was the first to challenge Savory's HM (thus Red Baron Farms dislike of her).

 

[Red Baron Farms]

My emphasis added:

Added emphasis on the science that you are still ignoring, Red Baron Farms.

Reality Check

You think I ignored it? Or you think I read it, even tried some of it, and found it ridiculous?

Truth is most of it isn't anything to do with HM or any other modern grazing system at all, and only shows that eliminating overgrazing is beneficial. And what? We all already knew that. But particularly funny was the "scientist" who went out and used hand scissors to cut grass plants to "simulate" grazing![1] I still chuckle at that one. I can just see those researchers crawling around on their knees with scissors cutting random grass plants!

What you had with Belsky and her converts was an attempt to equate all grazing with poor management. She started quite a good synthesis, and John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, and George Wuerthner, finished it for her. But one problem. It failed in the field. It's still failing in the field where it is tried. Meanwhile Savory's theories are working in the field.[2]

So she had a good concept. Even made a valiant attempt attempt to promote her almost religious zeal to eliminate all grazing from public lands. But it all falls apart when actually put into practise. That's primarily due to her not considering the trophic cascades that cause emergent properties, all resulting from the symbiosis between the grassland, grazer and predator. Although it is all there in the references. [3] Apparently just wasn't capable of seeing how to mimic it with livestock. Blinded by her own biases! Luckily Savory succeeded where so many before failed.

 

[Reality Check]

You think I ignored it?

You did not address any science in that review so I did think that you ignored the science for your little rant about "converts/crusade" and obsession about a dead scientist (Belsky) which you double up about in this post !
Meanwhile Savory's theories are working in the field only according to biased converts and their failed crusades to support HM .
The science on HM is still at the best mixed.
The assumptions behind Savory's HM are shown to be invalid in Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The assumptions behind Savory's HM are shown to be invalid in Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems.

Yes! Especially by those scientists crawling around on their knees with scissors! Completely invalidates all Savory's decades of work with livestock in the field.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes! ...

Glad you agree that HM's assumptions are so thoroughly debunked by Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems, Red Baron Farms.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Glad you agree that HM's assumptions are so thoroughly debunked by Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems, Red Baron Farms.

Glad to see you at least agree with my sarcasm. I had become to think you were simply being hardheaded on purpose.

 

[Reality Check]

Getting serious again, Red Baron Farms: Are you going to ignore the science in Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems?
For example: a tenet in HM is that "Western North American Ecosystems are Adapted to Herds of Large Hooved Animals" but the evidence this that this is only true for those areas where there are herds of large hooved animals (obviously!)

ETA: I am curious about one statement in the review:

Savory’s writings lack specifics that could be used for implementation of HM or for scientific testing. Details regarding setting of stocking rates, allowable use by livestock, amount of rest needed for recovery, or ecological criteria to be met for biodiversity, sustainability, wildlife, and watershed protection are absent [3–7].

where the Savory’s writing references extend to 1999 ([7] is 7.C. J. Hadley, “The wild life of Allan Savory,” Rangelands, vol. 22, pp. 6–10, 2000.)
That implies that Savory and his colleagues ("converts" in Red Baron Farms-speak) have not published any comprehensive description of HM that could be used for scientific testing in the last 14 years!
Has the review missed some critical papers by Savory, etc.?

 

[Reality Check]

There is an implied question in

It looks like you ignored the actual contents of the blog to find a comment written by Teague which seems to not be there, Red Baron Farms!

which I will make explicit:
Red Baron Farms: Where is the "well written rebuttal by Teague" in the comments section of Cows Against Climate Change: The Dodgy Science Behind the TED Talk

You may be referring to the "well written" and irrelevant comment by Teague in the RealClimate article comments which is about previous papers (not the article or TED talk). I find it interesting that the first paper Teague criticizes is

Briske, D., Derner, J., Brown, J., Fuhlendorf, S., Teague, R., Gillen, B., Ash, A., Havstad, K., Willms, W., 2008. Benefits of Rotational Grazing on Rangelands: An Evaluation of the Experimental Evidence. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61, 3-17. http://www.srmjournals.org/doi/abs/10.2111/06-159R.1

(my emphasis added)

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Getting serious again, Red Baron Farms: Are you going to ignore the science in Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems?
For example: a tenet in HM is that "Western North American Ecosystems are Adapted to Herds of Large Hooved Animals" but the evidence this that this is only true for those areas where there are herds of large hooved animals (obviously!)

In my personal opinion it is nitpicking. I doubt the "hoof action" is of more than just secondary importance. I have observed that it does create the disturbance needed for new seeds to sprout though. And that's not just me. It actually is a standard practice to trample seeds when overseeding pasture to achieve better germination. But I question whether there really is that huge a difference between horse, sheep, cattle, antelope or deer. Seems to me that other things like mulch on the soil, living plant cover, manure/urine, and micro-organism community are more important "impacts" than the particular size and quality of the hoof impact. However, the larger harder hooved animals certainly can over impact an area easier. So it seems to me that you couldn't ignore it. You just need to be more aware and monitor more closely when dealing with large horses or cattle. Either way, large hooved herbivores did coevolve with savanna/grassland ecosystems throughout N. America. Some even larger than the horses and cattle we have today, and removing those impacts, or changing the behavior of those animals will set up a trophic cascade of effects. Both that paper, and Savory agree on this point. The disagreement is to whether Savory's method is sufficiently adaptive and flexible enough to mimic this effect in a positive way. Belsky assumed it was impossible based on her observations of OTHER grazing systems. Savory would agree with Belsky, but claims he found a way to succeed where so many others failed. She's dead now, so it would be difficult to say whether she would ever be convinced of that. Hard to say. Most the case studies and scientific studies that showed rangeland improvement using HM came after Belsky died. Even though this was more recently published, it is actually just a few people finishing her much older paper because she died in 2001 before she could finish it.

ETA: I am curious about one statement in the review:
where the Savory’s writing references extend to 1999 ([7] is 7.C. J. Hadley, “The wild life of Allan Savory,” Rangelands, vol. 22, pp. 6–10, 2000.)
That implies that Savory and his colleagues ("converts" in Red Baron Farms-speak) have not published any comprehensive description of HM that could be used for scientific testing in the last 14 years!
Has the review missed some critical papers by Savory, etc.?

As far as I know Savory himself has only published results from project Hope since then. (a proof of concept project) That won him the Buckminster Fuller Award. [1] I don't know of any journal published papers from him since then.

Where is the "well written rebuttal by Teague" in the comments section of Cows Against Climate Change: The Dodgy Science Behind the TED Talk

I don't know actually. Either I mixed up where that rebuttal was posted. Or it is taken down now.

You may be referring to the "well written" and irrelevant comment by Teague in the RealClimate article comments which is about previous papers (not the article or TED talk). I find it interesting that the first paper Teague criticizes is

Briske, D., Derner, J., Brown, J., Fuhlendorf, S., Teague, R., Gillen, B., Ash, A., Havstad, K., Willms, W., 2008. Benefits of Rotational Grazing on Rangelands: An Evaluation of the Experimental Evidence. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61, 3-17. http://www.srmjournals.org/doi/abs/10.2111/06-159R.1

(my emphasis added)

Yes I agree. I saw that around a year and 1/2 ago. It was one of the things that peaked my interest. Here was Teague, a member of the Briske study, then publishing a newer study largely contradicting that older study he was a part of. They are even both from Texas A&M University! Colleagues! That lead me to very closely look at what Teague had to say about it. He would know as well as anyone if that study should be properly applied to refute HM or not....or if it was just an synthesis to apply it to HM. That's why when Teague published a rebuttal in Rangelands (BioOne) Deficiencies in the Briske et al. Rebuttal of the Savory Method [1] this year, I paid close attention. There are some older rebuttals too. [2] But even more interesting is that Briske also back tracted on that first paper quite a lot just 3 years later! Basically saying almost the exact things Savory does, and has been doing, should be done, but confirmed in a more rigorous way to resolve the debate.[2] Teague did that just as the second Briske paper recommends, but then Briske seems to have waffled a bit yet again? Or maybe he didn't waffle, but is still waiting for more studies to be published before he allows himself to be convinced? But then the RealClimate post came up and instead of resolution, it only polarised the debate even more!

Now I am not 100% sure, but I just bet Savory, Briske and Teague are a whole lot closer than they appear to be. But Briske taking the "devils advocate" approach. At least it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 

[Reality Check]

In my personal opinion it is nitpicking. ....

So no evidence to counter the rebuttal for the first HM assumption which is nothing to do with "hoof action".
Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems

Not all of today’s grasslands, arid, and semiarid systems evolved with herds of large, hooved animals.

It is to do with a simple fact - ecosystems evolve to fit their populations. An ecosystem with large hooved animals evolves to need large hooved animals. An ecosystem without large hooved animals does not evolve to need large hooved animals !


Thank you for confirming that the published literature on HM (at least by Savory) stopped in 2000 - 14 years of silence and counting !

 

[Red Baron Farms]

So no evidence to counter the rebuttal for the first HM assumption

Not an assumption. The first rebuttal simply states

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

And then claims not. But if you read the sources. The sources say something quite different. They acknowledge that large herds are gone now, but they were there thousands of years ago. See there were two mass extinctions (or maybe the second and current one is just a continuation of the first)

One was shortly after humans arrived in North America, and then a decline ever since but extra severe when Europeans arrived. The real question from that POV is did the loss of the large herbivores cause the desertification and local climate change and change in the plant communities in a trophic cascade, or did the climate change and plant community change cause the loss of the large herbivores? That is still being debated fiercely in the scientific community. The paper you are putting your faith in actually muddles the whole thing, because Belsky believed that climate change caused the loss of the large herds. But the paper has some new information about the opposite view which say the herds (or loss of them, change of behavior etc) can cause the change in something called a trophic cascade! Belsky clearly did not believe that at all!

No convincing evidence supports the theory that herbivory benefits grazed plants. Joy Belsky 1986

 

[Reality Check]

...

Wrong, Red Baron Farms.
The section starts with the range of bison which was and is still not over every single bit of grassland in the USA

Lands west of the Continental Divide of the USA, including the Great Basin, Sonoran, Mojave, and Colorado Plateau deserts, along with the Palouse Prairie grasslands of eastern Washington, western Montana, and northern Idaho, did not evolve with significant grazing pressure from bison (Bison bison) [9, 12, 13]. Though bison were abundant east of the Rockies on the Great Plains, they only occurred in limited numbers across western Wyoming, northeastern Utah, and southeastern Idaho [12, 14].

Do I really have to ask for your evidence that bison were abundant in western Wyoming, northeastern Utah, and southeastern Idaho, Red Baron Farms?

The section continues with the evolution of grasslands away from livestock grazing after the Pleistocene epoch.

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]. ... In summary, the western USA of the Pleistocene is not the western USA of today

This is evolution in action - plant communities evolving to adjust for the lack of livestock !
Thus the conclusion is

Conclusion. Western US ecosystems outside the prairies in which bison occurred are not adapted to the impact of large herds of livestock. Recent changes to these grassland ecosystems result from herbivory by domestic livestock which has altered fire cycles and promoted invasive species at the expense of native vegetation.

(my emphasis added)

If Savory has some magic stick to wave to reverse this evolution so western North American becomes dependent on livestock again then he should share it with the world .

 

[Red Baron Farms]

If Savory has some magic stick to wave to reverse this evolution so western North American becomes dependent on livestock again then he should share it with the world .

There is no magic wand Reality Check. The sooner you get that false assumption and strawman out of your head the better. There also is little to no area on the North American continent not already affected by human impact. The vast majority of ecosystems affected have been affected negatively. Further, there is no going back either.

The real question is can we feed people and benefit the ecology simultaneously? If a person were to look around, they might be tempted to conclude the best way to restore ecosystem function over vast tracts of land would be to just leave it alone. At least eventually some sort of biome would eventually take over, and likely not as bad as the destruction human impact has caused.

However, that discounts one very important possibility. That humans are actually potentially capable of improving an ecosystem just as easily as we are capable of destroying one. It's a little trickier. Using biomimicry helps. Understanding how trophic cascades work helps. It' still a lot of work, but the benefits far outweigh the costs.

Now you can side with the so called eco-extremists (that think that humans can ONLY destroy) if you wish. That the only ecological solutions are to remove humans. The so called "Environmentalism By Abandonment" crowd like Joy Belsky[1]. Or as Joel Salatin calls them:

The radical earth muffins and preservationists who believe nature is too sacrosanct to foul with human breath.

I can't attack your fundamental belief system, it's yours to believe. But I do get offended when people of your ilk obstruct those of us attempting to conduct participatory environmentalism and feed the world at the same time. Not by magic, but by hard work. Just get out of the way and let us get to it.

 

[Reality Check]

Not all of today’s grasslands, arid, and semiarid systems evolved with herds ...

There is no magic wand Reality Check. ..sniped irrelevant rant....

So other than Savory's magic stick (not the ) and your wishful thinking, you are going to ignore the science that debunks an assumption behind HM, Red Baron Farms?
Or are you going to acknowledge that that assumption is wrong?

Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems

Not all of today’s grasslands, arid, and semiarid systems evolved with herds of large, hooved animals.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

So other than Savory's magic stick (not the ) and your wishful thinking, you are going to ignore the science that debunks an assumption behind HM, Red Baron Farms?
Or are you going to acknowledge that that assumption is wrong?

Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems

Real climate

There is no science that debunks HMPG. Regardless of the topic of that link, the absence of evidence NEVER equals evidence of absence. Scientists crawling around on their hands and knees with scissors is NOT evidence HMPG doesn't work. It is nothing more than a poorly patched together, highly biased and completely unproven synthesis. Further, there isn't even an absence of evidence, although that link surely ignores any evidence that HMPG works (albeit somewhat limited). I have posted evidence here many times. While it may not be enough evidence to form a consensus as a general rule world wide without further studies, it is in fact evidence. There simply needs to be more case studies and more proof of concept trials in many more unique habitats and ecosystem climatic conditions to be sure the principles are sound world wide. That actually is happening as we speak, but the results we simply must wait for.

More importantly though. When Belsky's work is applied in the field, it fails. It has failed over and over. It failed in Africa, it has failed in the Western US. So while maybe to date it may still be considered the "scientific consensus", that consensus is not evidence driven, but instead bias driven and synthesis driven.

Here is just one example: Belsky was right out front in her crusade for the Hart Mountain Antelope Refuge. Cattle were first blamed then removed. Fencing was taken down so there would be no temptation to reintroduce them. Human access was greatly restricted. Culling programs instituted. Restocking programs instituted. Even burn programs instituted. Everything that has been tried has resulted in even more habitat deterioration and some species are now even approaching extirpation from the whole 251,000 acres.

The refuge now has about a third as many mule deer (an estimated 800 to 1,000) as it did at the time it was established. Populations of sage grouse have declined as well from a peak of 8,750 in the 1940s to 800 to 1,000 currently.[1]

So we started with a problem, poor livestock management. Then to solve that problem the livestock were removed. But the result wasn't an improvement in habitat, it was a further deterioration of habitat. Then culling programs were instituted so as not to over impact the habitat, and even further deterioration of habitat proceeded. That pattern is EXACTLY the pattern Savory as a young wildlife biologist was dealing with in Africa. (ETA BTW Savory also hated cattle at that time and blamed them, just as Belsky did) The consensus doesn't work. It is based on too many assumptions and not enough actual evidence. The fact that the scientific consensus doesn't work in practice is the whole reason Savory developed Holistic Management.

 

[Reality Check]

Red Baron Farms ignores science that debunks an assumption of HM

...usual irrelevant wall of text totally ignoring my post snipped.....

Once more time: Red Baron Farms are you going to ignore the science that debunks an assumption of HM?
For that matter are you ever going to try to understand the simple English in my post:

So other than Savory's magic stick (not the ) and your wishful thinking, you are going to ignore the science that debunks an assumption behind HM, Red Baron Farms?
Or are you going to acknowledge that that assumption is wrong?

Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems

Not all of today’s grasslands, arid, and semiarid systems evolved with herds of large, hooved animals.

ETA: Let me see, I mentioned the review on 22 October 2014 so that is 6 days and counting!
That is quite a long time not to understand basic English:
Question: Are Western North American Ecosystems Adapted to Herds of Large Hooved Animals?
Answer: Not all of today’s grasslands, arid, and semiarid systems evolved with herds of large, hooved animals.
Conclusion: This assumption of HM is wrong.