Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

[Reality Check]

Citation 9: Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals supports the paper

What it supports is Savory's observation that undergrazing can actually cause desertification. ....

Which is a lie (and a derail!), Red Baron Farms, since neither of the cited papers are about deserts or desertification - they are about steppes, grasslands and their ecology.
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.

Citation 9: R. N. Mack and J. N. Thompson, “Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals,” American Naturalist, vol. 119, no. 6, pp. 757–773, 1982

Abstract:
The morphology of rhizomatous and caespitose grasses reflects the two extremes to which perennial grasses have evolved at least in partial response to continuous high versus low selection pressure by large congregating mammals. In North America steppe of the Bouteloua Province east of the Rockies is dominated by a mix of mainly rhizomatous C3 and C4 grasses which have long been associated with large herds of Bison and more recently with cattle. Introduction of cattle into these grasslands had much less effect on community structure than did livestock introduction into steppe of the Agropyron Province west of the Rockies which lacked large herds of mammals throughout the Holocene (and perhaps earlier). The underlying cause of native ungulate sparseness may have been related to the moisture cycle of the Prevailing Westerlies, which may have largely excluded C4 species, thereby severely controlling Bison numbers. In these communities both the dominant C3 caespitose grasses and the prominent cryptogam layer were soon destroyed by domestic ungulates and replaced largely by alien winter annuals. The relative changes in these two Provinces over the past 200 yr illustrate the importance in plants of herbivore-adapted traits in generating the overall physiognomy of some steppes and the resiliency of those grasslands to the introduction of novel selection pressure.

(added JSTOR link, full abstract)
A steppe is not a desert !

Citation 12: The western limits of the range of the American bison which states that the eastern densities never reached the high western densities. Once again support for no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies

Citation 12. R. Daubenmire, “The western limits of the range of the American bison,” Ecology, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 622–624, 1985

It is an intriguing fact that the American bison (Bison bison) which at the start of the 19th century occurred by the millions in steppe habitat east of the Rocky Mountains, was unable to permanently colonize the steppe to the west of the mountains, despite the continuity of such vegetation across South Pass in Wyoming. In recent centuries the few herds that wandered through that mountain gap penetrated various distances but did not survive long.
...
Archaeologists hold that at least two species of Bison occurred west of the Rockies at the close of the Wisconsin glaciation (Schroedl 1973) These lingered on until xerothermic (= Hypsithermal = Altithermal) time, then were replaced by the modern species. Although Boson bison soon became well established west of the Rockies, achieving its maximum, abundance there ~ 3000-1500 yr BP (Butler 1978), it seems never to have reached the high population densities it achieved west of the mountains (Schroedl 1973). Later its numbers west of the mountains diminished more or less progressively until at the time of the Caucasian invasion its continued presence there became dependent on rather short-lived recruitments thorough the Wyoming gap in the mountains. It became extinct as a wild species west of the Rockies early in the 19th century.

This states that the eastern densities of bison were always less than the western and supports that there was no "significant grazing pressure from bison (Bison bison)" (my emphasis added - significant grazing pressure would be densities comparable to western densities).

If you want to continue with that unsupported HM assumption then you will have to produce evidence that
* the deserts west of the Rockies were grasslands, are of recent origin and expanded as the numbers of boson declined.
* the deserts east of the Rockies were grasslands, are of recent origin and expanded as the numbers of boson declined.
* and the Great Plains have turned into deserts p) and that the reason is that the large herds of bison were removed from these grasslands.
We will get to the debunking of that HM assumption in a few years after going through the preceding citations but meanwhile Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems

Does Rest Cause Grassland Deterioration?
...
Conclusion. 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.

ETA: Make that two lies. These two citations support the debunking of a HM assumption:

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

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Generally, this transition was from coniferous woodland to grasslands and eventually to the present day desert scrub. Perspectives on desertification: south-western United States

There you go. Clearly shows the gradual deterioration of the biome, first caused by natural climate change as the glaciers retreated. This changed the biome from coniferous woodland to grasslands. Then with the extirpation of the wild herbivore herds, no longer able to support pre-columbian hunter gatherer lifestyle, the desert gradually grew. Then when those extirpated herds were replaced with poorly managed livestock, the desertification grew even faster.

This paper focuses on the south west, but the same pattern can be seen all through the West where similar brittle climatic conditions exist.

 

[Reality Check]

There you go.

There you go - not able to understand what you write, Red Baron Farms!

What it supports is Savory's observation that undergrazing can actually cause desertification.

is not about that citation !
It is about the scientific literature that we have been talking bout for over a week now:
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.
Citation 12: The western limits of the range of the American bison which states that the eastern densities never reached the high western densities. Once again support for no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies

 

[Reality Check]

Clearly shows the gradual deterioration of the biome, first caused by natural climate change as the glaciers retreated.....

And what does the paper you cite actually say, Red Baron Farms:
Perspectives on desertification: south-western United States

Several climatic changes occurred in the northern Chihuahuan Desert and other parts of the south-west United States during the last 12,000 years leading to a markedly warmer and drier climate. Vegetation changed in response to this climatic shift. Generally, this transition was from coniferous woodland to grasslands and eventually to the present day desert scrub. Pre-Columbian inhabitants of this region adapted by changing from hunter-gatherer to primarily agrarian economics. European immigration into the south-west U.S. beginning in the mid 1500s greatly affected this region. The greatest impact occurred after the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s. Before that time land use tended to be localized near small agricultural areas, mines, and military installations. The post-war range livestock industry expanded dramatically, especially during the 1880s—a period of general abuse of arid lands in the region. Recognition of this abuse and the deteriorating productivity of the land led to greater government involvement, including establishment of experimental stations and eventually management of the public domain by governmental agencies. Fire suppression, mismanaged grazing, changing climatic conditions, loss of soil and increasing atmospheric CO2concentrations, mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, are among the probable causes of continued desertification trends. Urban and rural populations, presently technologically isolated from their environment, need to better understand the dynamic nature of their environment. A greater degree of co-operation among diverse entities will be crucial.

(my emphasis added)
Climate changes being blamed for the "transition was from coniferous woodland to grasslands and eventually to the present day desert scrub" as you state.
No mention of the removal of bison being a cause of any desertification.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

And what does the paper you cite actually say, Red Baron Farms:
Perspectives on desertification: south-western United States

(my emphasis added)
Climate changes being blamed for the "transition was from coniferous woodland to grasslands and eventually to the present day desert scrub" as you state.
No mention of the removal of bison being a cause of any desertification.

Right because the main shift that was natural climate caused was the shift from coniferous forest to grassland. For the information needed to figure out if the extirpation of the larger herbivore herds had an effect on the observed gradual decline of the grasslands to desert, all you have to do is read the other study the Belsky paper cited. When you compare them you get a correlation. You test that correlation, like Savory has, and you find strong evidence of not only a correlation but also a causation. Not only that, but you find it is reversible.

Now you can play the idiot all you want. But you are not fooling me. You know damn well what's going on here. You are offended by the terminology "holistic". You are a slave to your own bias, either unwilling or incapable of actually thinking. Only repeating thoughts of others. Thoughts that you screen with your bias first. There is nothing what-so-ever Holy, spiritual, paranormal, nor magical about holistic management. It is simply a type of systems thinking. As long as you continue to refuse any systems science, or continue to purposely focus your mind away from biological cycles, patterns and complexity, just due to the connotation you incorrectly placed on "holistic", you will never in a gazillion years ever be capable of understanding. But think in a holistic context, and it becomes quite easy.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Einstein

 

[Reality Check]

Perspectives on desertification: south-western United States

...snipped the obvious, fantasies and insults...

You missed the point withthat little tirade, Red Baron Farms: Perspectives on desertification: south-western United States does not claim that desertification was caused by the removal of bison from grasslands..


In fact the opposite could be the case - the abstract has "The post-war range livestock industry expanded dramatically" leading to "abuse of arid lands" and "deteriorating productivity of the land". This is the introduction of herds of large hooved animals causing deterioration (desertification?) which is the opposite of HM's assumption that adding large hooved animals reverses desertification. But there are a couple of caveats:
* This is the abstract so the full description in the paper may clarify the meaning of that sentence.
* HM may have an extra assumption - that there is a stocking rate under which desertification happens and over which desertification is reversed. On the other hand, that implies that HM has a way of producing a number for that stocking rate. One of the points in Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems is that Savory’s HM is rather deficient in published methodology

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].

No comments on the science or even English in
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.
Can I take it that you will ignore that it supports that assertion?
If so I will add it to:
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.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You missed the point withthat little tirade, Red Baron Farms: Perspectives on desertification: south-western United States does not claim that desertification was caused by the removal of bison from grasslands..

Agreed. It doesn't. You said,

"you will have to produce evidence that
* the deserts west of the Rockies were grasslands, are of recent origin and expanded....
* the deserts east of the Rockies were grasslands, are of recent origin and expanded...."

That shows evidence for both. Then of course there was another part to your statement:

you will have to produce evidence that
* the deserts west of the Rockies .... the numbers of boson declined.
* the deserts east of the Rockies ... the numbers of boson declined.

For West of the Rockies use Citation 9 12
For East of the Rockies: Bison

But more importantly, the evidence is not really in question. The issue is the interpretation of the evidence.

The holism-reductionism dichotomy is often evident in conflicting interpretations of experimental findings and in setting priorities for future research.

That's where holism has a distinct advantage. That's why I discussed your inability to think about the problem. I have no desire to insult you. It's not necessarily automatically your fault you can't think in a systems thinking or holistic manner. But your inability to think that way is in fact your blind spot. Otherwise you wouldn't keep posting evidence that supports Savory's HM while thinking it refutes it.

But more important than your blind spot, is the fact that both interpretations have been tested. The Belsky interpretation fails regularly, while Savory's interpretation gets consistent positive results when both are put to the test.

ETA: Keep in mind that both Belsky and Savory started in the same place. It is only because that position failed consistently that Savory set out to rethink the problem in order to find something that did work.

 

[Reality Check]

Agreed.
...snipped quote mining...

I wrote

If you want to continue with that unsupported HM assumption then you will have to produce evidence that
* the deserts west of the Rockies were grasslands, are of recent origin and expanded as the numbers of boson declined.
* the deserts east of the Rockies were grasslands, are of recent origin and expanded as the numbers of boson declined.
* and the Great Plains have turned into deserts p) and that the reason is that the large herds of bison were removed from these grasslands.
We will get to the debunking of that HM assumption in a few years after going through the preceding citations ...

(emphasis added)
ETA: the Great Plains bit is not really a joke. It is more a counter example to HM. Removal of bison did not result in the Great Plains turning into deserts as HM suggests should happen.
Look at the Range history of bison in North America diagram. By 1870 the range of bison was about half of what it was before Europeans arrived. That is roughly 70 years of grasslands having herds of large hooved animals removed. Then another 29 years until most of the grasslands were devoid of bison. Any replacement by cattle was localized until the 1880's (Perspectives on desertification: south-western United States) and may have caused desertification.


You repeated what I already know about

• 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 then went onto an irrelevant bit that holism validates HM somehow.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I wrote

(emphasis added)
ETA: the Great Plains bit is not really a joke. It is more a counter example to HM. Removal of bison did not result in the Great Plains turning into deserts as HM suggests should happen.

Oh really?

Magnitude of Desertification

Nearly 90 percent of North American arid lands are moderately and severely desertified (Table 6). The status of the U.S. rangelands does not appear to have been much improved in recent years, and less than 20 percent is producing anywhere near its potential. It is likely that the same condition prevails in Mexico.
...
An indication of the magnitude of the wind erosion problem can be obtained from annual surveys conducted by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for the Great Plains. Since 1935, surveys have been made of the amount of land damaged by wind erosion in susceptible parts of the Great Plains. Annual totals have varied from about 400,000 hectares to a maximum of 6,000,000 hectares[1]

But better yet try reading this. That way you won't be offended by terminology.

The dust bowl and aftermath

 

[Reality Check]

The near extinction of the bison is a counter-example to HM

Oh really?

Oh really - you do not know that the near extinction of the American bison happened in the 19th century, Red Baron Farms !

ETA: the Great Plains bit is not really a joke. It is more a counter example to HM. Removal of bison did not result in the Great Plains turning into deserts as HM suggests should happen.
Look at the Range history of bison in North America diagram. By 1870 the range of bison was about half of what it was before Europeans arrived. That is roughly 70 years of grasslands having herds of large hooved animals removed. Then another 29 years until most of the grasslands were devoid of bison. Any replacement by cattle was localized until the 1880's (Perspectives on desertification: south-western United States) and may have caused desertification.

That was about 100 years during which bison were removed from the Great Plains grasslands and "deteriorating productivity" did not happen until cattle became widespread (no mention of desertification but the title implies that is the case) !

The near extinction of the bison and no resulting desertification during the process is a counter-example to HM, Red Baron Farms.
But I am sure that Savory has written a paper matching the decrease in bison numbers and range to the increase in desertification of the Great Plains !

Better yet learn that

• Today is not 1870 or 1899.
• a quote mentioning the current desertification is a fact - not support for the HM assumption that low numbers of hooved animals cause desertification
• the dust bowl of North America happened in the 1930's and is not thought to be caused by a decrease in animal numbers (drought + plowing methods).

That way you won't be offended by reality .

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Once again your refusal to think holistically has blinded you. What do you suppose the land was being plowed to grow? You guessed it, animal feed. Back then originally for pig feed mostly. Why? Because industry wanted solid fats and way back then they had no idea how unhealthy they were.

In America, acorn-fed hogs bring lower prices in the wholesale
market because they have soft flesh. Is this a permanent
handicap? I doubt it, if the problem is studied in a scientific
way. In the first place, acorn-fed pork has fine (perhaps finer)
flavor. For local consumption the meat (acorn-fed hogs) is satisfactory.
If the lard is liquid instead of solid, what is the difference?
One kind may go into a can while the other goes into
a carton. Its meat drips; if so, the drip is good lard. Perhaps
it needs to be subjected to some process such as 120° F for
a stated period to force and finish the dripping. This reduction
of the fat might make bacon better. It is certainly no handicap
to animals on a maintenance ration. "It might be stated his
hogs would not eat corn in quantity until the acorns were gone."
(J. C. Holmes, The Country Gentleman) December 13, 1913,
p. 1822.

Later came cattle stockyards. (once they figured out how to feed cattle grain without killing them) Further, the dust bowl included actually more acres on rangeland than crop land. Although you are right, it started in that cropland first and that's where it was worse. But be sure, desertification was then and still is a problem on the rangeland as well.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped "holistically " delusion....

Are you really insisting that you cannot understand the irrelevancy of the dust bowl to my post, Red Baron Farms?
The feeding of hogs is an interesting fact but not relevant.

• The dust bowl of North America is not the near extinction of the bison.
• The dust bowl of North America happened in the 1930's, the near extinction of the bison was in full swing by the 1870's.
• The dust bowl of North America is thought to be caused by the drought + deep plowing methods. It is not thought to be caused by a decrease in animal numbers.

You have ignored the main point of my post so here it is again:
The near extinction of the bison and lack of desertification matching the decrease in bison numbers is a counter-example to HM's assumption that grasslands turn to desert if animal numbers decrease.

That was about 100 years during which bison were removed from the Great Plains grasslands and "deteriorating productivity" did not happen until cattle became widespread (no mention of desertification but the title implies that is the case) !

The near extinction of the bison and no resulting desertification during the process is a counter-example to HM, Red Baron Farms.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The near extinction of the bison and lack of desertification matching the decrease in bison numbers is a counter-example to HM's assumption that grasslands turn to desert if animal numbers decrease.

Only you could claim the ever increasing rate of desertification is a counter example to HM. But hey if it matches your bias, run with it.

 

[Reality Check]

The introduction of cattle + deterioration is another counter-example to HM

Only you could claim the ever increasing rate of desertification is a counter example to HM. But hey if it matches your bias, run with it.

Hey if you want to lie abut an imaginary bias so be it, Red Baron Farms .
It is basic facts that produce:
The near extinction of the bison and lack of desertification matching the decrease in bison numbers is a counter-example to HM's assumption that grasslands turn to desert if animal numbers decrease.
Two basic facts that you still cannot grasp, Red Baron Farms

• Almost a century during which bison were removed from grasslands
• No evidence of matching desertification during that period

combine to give a counter-example to HM !

And the next counter-example to that HM assumption is that the introduction of cattle did not produce a matching increase in grassland quality. The opposite happened - deterioration of productivity. But the HM excuse probably is that there is a magic, unknown stocking rate that the cattle did not reach.

ETA: A HM excuse for the bison counter example could be that the desertification takes a long time, e.g. hundreds of years. But that is a problem for the claim that desertification can be reversed with high stocking rates, etc. The reversal should also take hundreds of years! Not too much of a problem for ranchers willing to wait. But a big problem for any claims of desertification reversal.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

• No evidence of matching desertification during that period

You just made that up. It is in your imagination only.

 

[Reality Check]

You just made that up.

You are wrong, Red Baron Farms -

• You have presented "No evidence of matching desertification during that period".
• Savory has (as far as I know) totally ignored this easy test of that assumption in HM, i.e. "No evidence of matching desertification during that period".
• I do not know of any "evidence of matching desertification during that period".

Think skeptically:

• Where is Savory's paper correlating the loss of bison with any desertification during that period?
• Where is the paper that convinced you, Red Baron Farms[/B, that there is a correlation between the loss of bison with any desertification during that period?
  

Thus: The near extinction of the bison and lack of desertification matching the decrease in bison numbers is a counter-example to HM's assumption that grasslands turn to desert if animal numbers decrease.
and the converse:
The introduction of cattle + deterioration is another counter-example to HM

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Rebuttals in the ongoing debate:
Regarding Holechek and Briske, and Rebuttals by Teague, Gill & Savory

Why George Monbiot is wrong: grazing livestock can save the world

 

[Reality Check]

Rebuttals in the ongoing debate:

No real rebuttals there, Red Baron Farms !
You have cited a PDF on a web site and a news report.
The PDF is regurgitating what we already know:
Two papers Briske (2008) and Holechek (2000) exist.
More papers Teague et al. (2008), Gill (2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c), and Savory (2000) also exist!

Seth J. Itzkan is almost pointing out that there is no scientific evidence supporting Savory's actual methodology .
Briske (2008) and Holechek (2000) "discredit" a static version of his methodology but do not look at ranches using his actual methodology.

The news article emphasizes this again by not citing scientific tests of Savory's actual methodology with personal anecdotes including from the author. That makes the article into adverting!

You need to read Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems again which goes into depth about the invalid principles in Savory's HM.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No real rebuttals there, Red Baron Farms !
You have cited a PDF on a web site and a news report.
The PDF is regurgitating what we already know:
Two papers Briske (2008) and Holechek (2000) exist.
More papers Teague et al. (2008), Gill (2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c), and Savory (2000) also exist!

Seth J. Itzkan is almost pointing out that there is no scientific evidence supporting Savory's actual methodology .
Briske (2008) and Holechek (2000) "discredit" a static version of his methodology but do not look at ranches using his actual methodology.

The news article emphasizes this again by not citing scientific tests of Savory's actual methodology with personal anecdotes including from the author. That makes the article into adverting!

You need to read Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems again which goes into depth about the invalid principles in Savory's HM.

I have already explained to you why Dr. John Carter's review (really a synthesis of why he thinks HM shouldn't work) fails.

The reason that paper fails is that it fails to explain the robust empirical evidence HM actually does work (and the even larger body of anecdotal evidence from working ranchers). Lots of evidence as to why conventional models think it shouldn't work. No explanation what so ever of many 10s of millions of acres where it has already worked and continues to work. I even already showed you the Teague study[1], which Dr. John Carter et al has no explanation for what so ever. But Teague isn't the only one. Here is another: Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho

 

[Reality Check]

I have already explained to you why Dr. John Carter's review (really a synthesis of why he thinks HM shouldn't work) fails.

No you have not, Red Baron Farms.
The paper is not about any imaginary "robust empirical evidence HM actually does work". The paper is an examination of the HM assumptions and the published science that debunks those assumptions.

You are ignoring those debunks:
Red Baron Farms is ignoring science that debunks an assumption of HM (Are Western North American Ecosystems Adapted to Herds of Large Hooved Animals?).

No scientific evidence presented against

• 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.

Points I made: The HM assumption of returning to a "herds of bison" ecology + my assumption of 1 cow = 1 bison means a reduction of 20 to 60 million cattle to match the bison numbers.
The near extinction of the bison and lack of desertification matching the decrease in bison numbers is a counter-example to HM's assumption that grasslands turn to desert if animal numbers decrease.
The introduction of cattle + deterioration is another counter-example to HM