Holistic Grazing (split from Cliven Bundy thread)

[Reality Check]

Citaion 13: Support for no "significant grazing pressure from bison" ...?

Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems

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].

Onto citation 13:
13. G. Wuerthner, “Are cows just domestic bison? Behavioral and habitat use differences between cattle and bison,” in Proceedings of an International Symposium on Bison Ecology and Management in North America, L. Irby, L. Knight, and J. Knight, Eds., pp. 374–383, Bozeman, Mont, USA, June 1998.
G. Wuerthner articles on the Western Watersheds Project:
Are cows just domestic bison? Behavioral and habitat use differences between cattle and bison

Bison (Bison bison) once ranged across much of North America from the eastern seaboard states to southeast Washington, eastern Oregon and northeastern California. They also roamed the high parks of the Colorado Rockies and were known from higher elevations of the Northern Rockies in Glacier National Park, and the mountains surrounding Yellowstone (Meagher, 1973; McDonald, 1981; Reynolds et al. 1982). However, the greatest numbers were found on the shortgrass plains east of the Rocky Mountains that stretched from Alberta to Texas (Reynolds et al. 1982)–sometimes referred to as the “bison belt”. Some authorities estimated that 75 million bison roamed North America in the pre-Columbian era, while a more conservative estimate by McHugh suggested the maximum number should be pegged at 30 million (Reynolds et al. 1982). Due to hide hunting, sport hunting and perhaps also as a consequence of the introduction of the horse which increased Native American hunting efficiency (Reynolds et al. 1982, Urness, 1989) bison numbers plummeted nearly to the point of extinction by the late 1800’s (Meagher, 1973).

This is support for fewer bison west of the Rockies implying lesser (maybe not significant) grazing pressure.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems

Onto citation 13:
13. G. Wuerthner, “Are cows just domestic bison? Behavioral and habitat use differences between cattle and bison,” in Proceedings of an International Symposium on Bison Ecology and Management in North America, L. Irby, L. Knight, and J. Knight, Eds., pp. 374–383, Bozeman, Mont, USA, June 1998.
G. Wuerthner articles on the Western Watersheds Project:
Are cows just domestic bison? Behavioral and habitat use differences between cattle and bison

What's interesting is that is true. Cattle are not Bison, although closely enough related to easily breed, there are behavioral differences. And what? That's actually supports Savory's work. In fact that is part of one of the most fundamental aspects of Savory's work. Cattle do not behave like wild herds, and it is up to the manager of those cattle to force them to behave in a way that mimics the wild herds. So I wonder then, and you should too as a skeptic. Who is engaged in misinformation? Is Carter so poorly informed about Savory's work that he doesn't even know the four key principles? Seems to me he doesn't know a damn thing about Savory's work. Certainly there is not one study of HM land in all his references.

This is support for fewer bison west of the Rockies implying lesser (maybe not significant) grazing pressure.

Implications mean nothing. This is a "Which came first? The chicken or the egg" problem. It is just as easy to imply that the reduction in mega fauna caused the deterioration of the grassland biome, as it is to imply the grassland deteriorated and forced there to be fewer mega fauna. The important part is if Savory's principles work in that habitat. And sure enough they do. Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho

 

[Reality Check]

What's interesting is that is true. ...

Sorry, Red Baron Farms, but your continued inability to understand even who the authors of Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems (by John Carter,Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, and George Wuerthner) are does not bode well !
This is multiple authors addressing the assumptions in Savory's HM.

Implications mean something - this citation is partial support for the debunking of an HM assumption ("Are Western North American Ecosystems Adapted to Herds of Large Hooved Animals?").

You remain ignorant of the contents of the paper - it is not a critique of the 4 principles of HM as stated in a Wikipedia page.
Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems by John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, and George Wuerthner.

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]. These publications by Savory and his colleagues show that HM is based on the following assumptions: (1) plant communities and soils of the arid, semiarid, and grassland systems of the world evolved in the presence of large herds of animals regulated by their predators; (2) grasses in these areas will become decadent and die out if not grazed by these large herds or their modern day equivalent, livestock; (3) rest from grazing by these large herds of livestock will result in grassland deterioration; (4) large herds are needed to break up decadent plant material and soil crusts and trample dung, urine, seeds, and plant material into the soil, promoting plant growth; and (5) high intensity grazing of these lands by livestock will reverse desertification and climate change by increasing production and cover of the soil, thereby storing more carbon.
We address these five assumptions of HM with a focus on western North American arid and semiarid ecosystems, principally in the desert, steppe, grassland, and open conifer woodland biomes as described by [8]. We use the broad term, grassland, to be inclusive of these types.

 

[Reality Check]

Citaion 14: F. G. Roe's 1951 book

No scientific debunking from you of Citation 13 which is implied support for no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies as anyone who reads it can see.

Next is:

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]. These low numbers and patchy occurrence would not have played the same ecological role as in the plains.

Limited numbers => no "significant" grazing pressure from bison.
14. F. G. Roe, The North American Buffalo: A Critical Study of the Species in Its Wild State, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Calif, USA, 1951.

I do not have access to the book but it is probably repeating what is already obvious - fewer bison numbers west of the Rockies means no "significant" grazing pressure from bison compared to the west of the Rockies.

 

[Reality Check]

Citaion 9. R. N. Mack and J. N. Thompson “Evolution in steppe with few large ho..."

What about other browsing animals?
Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems by John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, and George Wuerthner.

Historically, pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) were more widespread than bison west of the Rockies, but these animals are smaller and lighter than bison and are not ecologically comparable [9].

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. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No scientific debunking from you of Citation 13 which is implied support for no "significant grazing pressure from bison" in grasslands west of the Rockies as anyone who reds it can see.

Next is:

Limited numbers => no "significant" grazing pressure from bison.
14. F. G. Roe, The North American Buffalo: A Critical Study of the Species in Its Wild State, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Calif, USA, 1951.

I do not have access to the book but it is probably repeating what is already obvious - fewer bison numbers west of the Rockies means no "significant" grazing pressure from bison compared to the west of the Rockies.

We are going nowhere with this Reality Check. You assume the "chicken" came first and therefore it is proof Savory's methods can't be right, and I look at the empirical evidence that Savory's methods do in fact work and conclude then that most likely the "egg" came first.

Either way, try as you might, you have offered no evidence that grasslands and graziers didn't co-evolve. All you have offered is one example where there may possibly have been no significant grazing pressure in a certain region that has been experiencing ecological deterioration for many thousands of years. That example could support Savory just as easily as debunk him...all depends on which came first.

 

[Reality Check]

We are going nowhere with this Reality Check...snipped usual iognorance...

We are getting nowhere except emphasizing your denial of the science in Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems by John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, and George Wuerthner.

Any rebuttal of Citation 9. R. N. Mack and J. N. Thompson “Evolution in steppe with few large hooved mammals" as evidence that antelope are not ecologically comparable to bison, Red Baron Farms?

Or do you accept that antelope are not bison ?

The usual ignorance is the actual assumption being addressed: Are Western North American Ecosystems Adapted to Herds of Large Hooved Animals?
To which the answer based on the scientific evidence 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.

 

[Reality Check]

Citation 15: J. F. Howden, “Some possible effects of the Pleistocene on the distr..."

Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems

Whereas 34 native species of dung beetle (g. Onthophagus) are found east of the Rockies on the plains where bison were numerous, none are found west of the Rockies [15].

15. J. F. Howden, “Some possible effects of the Pleistocene on the distributions of North American Scarabaeidae (Coleoptera),” Canadian Entomologist, vol. 98, no. 11, pp. 1177–1190, 1966. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar

This is evidence of a "Western North American Ecosystem" that is not adapted to "Herds of Large Hooved Animals" - there are no dung beetles to process their dung.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

This is evidence of a "Western North American Ecosystem" that is not adapted to "Herds of Large Hooved Animals" - there are no dung beetles to process their dung.

It is far more likely evidence of a trophic cascade. Biodiversity loss can precipitate extinction cascades and impair ecological processes. We are actually close to losing even more species of dung beetles. Multiple lines of evidence from temperate and tropical systems indicate that the regional-scale decline or extirpation of medium and large bodied mammal faunas can severely disrupt the diversity and abundance of dung beetle communities through alterations in the composition and availability of dung resources. This observed community disassembly we see now has significant long-term implications for the maintenance of key ecosystem processes including nutrient recycling and secondary seed dispersal. That would also explain the loss of many C4 grass species and a general decline in the over all biodiversity of the region... Animals, plants and insects.

So again..we go back to the chicken and the egg question. Which came first? The decline of the large herbivores which caused a gradual ecosystem collapse? Or did the ecosystem collapse and cause the decline of the large herbivores? Both obviously happened, but which came first and forced the other?

The fact that re-introducing large herbivores to that region (managed properly) almost immediately begins restoring ecosystem function would be both evidence the loss of them is what caused the trophic cascade.....and support for Savory's work in regenerating lost ecosystem services. (the egg came first, see above)

 

[Reality Check]

Red Baron Farms: No decline in Savory's assumption no 1

It is far more likely evidence of a trophic cascade. ... more irrelevant stuff snipped...

Citations to the scientific literature supporting your unsupported assertion, Red Baron Farms.

Trophic cascades are usually defined as the result of the removal of a predator but a hypothetical removal of bison (herbivores!) west of the Rockies would cause a decrease and even extinction of associated insects such as dung beetles. But that is not the point. There are
* bison west of the Rockies and no dung beetles.
* bison east of the Rockies and dung beetles.
That is evidence of no adaption of grasslands to include dung beetles even though there are bison there.

Before there can be a "chicken or egg", you have to know the "chicken or egg" being discussed is Red Baron Farms . There is no decline in Savory's assumption no 1 addressed in the paper .
Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems

2. Are Western North American Ecosystems Adapted to Herds of Large Hooved Animals?
Not all of today’s grasslands, arid, and semiarid systems evolved with herds of large, hooved animals. ...

The scientific evidence that you have not refuted yet is:

• 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 pronghorn antelope are not ecologically comparable
• Citation 13: G. Wuerthner, “Are cows just domestic bison? Behavioral and habitat use differences between cattle and bison” is support for fewer bison west of the Rockies implying lesser (not significant) grazing pressure.
• Citation 14: F. G. Roe, The North American Buffalo: A Critical Study of the Species in Its Wild State, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Calif, USA, 1951
  A book possibly supporting fewer bison west of the Rockies.
• Citation 15: J. F. Howden, “Some possible effects of the Pleistocene on the distributions of North American Scarabaeidae (Coleoptera)”
  The lack of dung beetles west of the Rockies is evidence of a "Western North American Ecosystem" that is not adapted to "Herds of Large Hooved Animals" - there are no dung beetles to process their dung.

 

[Reality Check]

So again..we go back to the chicken and the egg question. Which came first? The decline of the large herbivores which caused a gradual ecosystem collapse? Or did the ecosystem collapse and cause the decline of the large herbivores? Both obviously happened, but which came first and forced the other? ...

So again .. let us derail into this irrelevant topic, Red Baron Farms .


Please cite the scientific evidence that "re-introducing large herbivores to that region (managed properly) almost immediately begins restoring ecosystem function" ("that region" being the grasslands west of the Rockies where native dung beetles are absent).

Please show that the obvious example worked - the introduction of cattle to the Great Plains almost immediately began to restore the "ecosystem function".

Please show that the inverse happened - the removal of boson from the Great Plains almost immediately began to degrade the "ecosystem function".

 

[Red Baron Farms]

You want a reference that S. Idaho is west of the Rocky Mountains?
You want that peer reviewed? Maybe confirmed by 3 more non-biased witnesses? Because I already gave the the study. It wasn't even behind a paywall.

As far as the inverse? It is still happening right now.

On the global basis, the soil degradation is caused primarily by overgrazing (35%), agricultural activities (28%), deforestation (30%), over-explotation of land to produce fuelwood (7%), and industrialization (4%).[1]

The only part where Savory differs is in understanding that the above should read "Improper grazing (35%)" instead of "overgrazing (35%)", because undergrazing has the same effect. Grasslands and graziers coevolved...there's is a symbiotic relationship connected to everything else like dung beetles, predators, soil micro-organisms etc.... That why they call it an ecosystem and system science (holism) needs to be used to have a good understanding of the interactions.

 

[Reality Check]

You want a reference that S. Idaho is west of the Rocky Mountains?

You need to try to understand the topic we are discussing, Red Baron Farms. !
It is the debunking of the assumption that are the basis of Savory's HM as listed in Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems backed up by citations to the scientific literature.

Red Baron Farms: No decline in Savory's assumption no 1 !

We are going through the citations 1 by 1 so that you can cite the refuting scientific literature. Five done and no refutation from you - about 90 more to go!

So far Savory's assumption of "Western North American Ecosystems are Adapted to Herds of Large Hooved Animals" actually all grasslands) is totally wrong. The grasslands west of the Rockies are not adapted to herd of bison or other large hooved animals.

Once again, Red Baron Farms: It is up to you to cite the scientific literature that shows that the grasslands west of the Rockies are adapted to herds of large hooved animals. Otherwise you have no choice but to accept the papers conclusion about that Savory assumption.

Because I already gave the the study. It wasn't even behind a paywall

Seems to be a lie, Red Baron Farms .
One reason that Savory and his supporters dismiss the papers that refute HM is that they state that the papers do not study HM as it is practiced. I do no recall any citation from you to a published scientific paper that evaluated HM as it is practiced, i.e. compared a set of Savory HM ranches to a set of non-HM ranches.
For example: Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie by Teague et al. has no mention of Savory's HM in the abstract.
But that is not your "study" as it is behind a paywall.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Seems to be a lie, Red Baron Farms .
One reason that Savory and his supporters dismiss the papers that refute HM is that they state that the papers do not study HM as it is practiced. I do no recall any citation from you to a published scientific paper that evaluated HM as it is practiced, i.e. compared a set of Savory HM ranches to a set of non-HM ranches.
For example: Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie by Teague et al. has no mention of Savory's HM in the abstract.
But that is not your "study" as it is behind a paywall.

Calling me a liar? I guess you will stoop to anything. VERY bad form. The citation is in post #482 A quote from the citation under the category "methods" is:

In late summer 2005, the
study area was divided into three treatment pastures. The first was
a simulated holistic planned grazing (SHPG) pasture (11 ha) where
cattle grazed at high density (66 AU/11 ha [36 AUD ha1
]) for
a short period of time (6 days) during the first week of June each
year (2006e2008). The second treatment was a rest-rotation
(RESTROT) pasture where cattle grazed at low density (300 AU/
1467 ha [6 AUD ha1
]) for long periods of time (30 days) during the
month of May each year. One grazing period was applied each year
allowing 359 days and 335 days of recovery/reset within each
production pasture (SHPG and RESTROT), respectively. By following
this grazing schedule, both production pastures were grazed at as
near the same time as was logistically possible. Stocking rates
differed between the production pastures to compare the effect of
high-intensity/short-duration grazing (i.e., SHPG) with a more
traditional low-density/long-duration grazing treatment (i.e.,
RESTROT). While the number of cattle grazed in each pasture was
constant between years, the size of these herds was dictated by the
availability of cattle from the cooperating ranchers. The third
treatment was a total rest (TREST) pasture (13 ha) where no livestock
grazing has occurred since June 2005.

PS I gave you a link to the Teague study as well (which was done at ranch scale) that wasn't behind a paywall....multiple times. At this point all you are doing is obfuscating again. par for the course.

ETA More importantly though, both grazing systems outperformed total rest. And BTW HM outperformed total rest in the Teague study as well. So no matter how convinced you are by John Carter et al. Empirical evidence shows it is wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

K.T. Weber, et al. includes a "simulated holistic planned grazing" pasture (no HM!)

Calling me a liar?

Here is what you wrote:

What's The important part is if Savory's principles work in that habitat. And sure enough they do. Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho

You wrote what seemed to be a lie, Red Baron Farms which unfortunately is supported by your citation. The PDF Effect of grazing on soil-water content in semiarid rangelands of southeast Idaho

• is only about soil-water content.
• only cites Savory with his 1999 book and a 2008 newsletter article
• does not mention Savory's HM being used
• actually states what they use, i.e. "simulated holistic planned grazing (SHPG)" which is not Savory's HM !

"Savory's principles" (plural) were not used in that habitat and stating so is a lie !
The best that you can say is that an assumption of high levels of grazing and a guess at what they should be resulted in better soil-water content. AFAIK Savory does not have a principle stating that a density of X will produce a increase in soil-water content of Y!


Read what SHPG actually is, Red Baron Farms:

Prior to this experiment the entire study area (1491 ha) was managed as a single unit under a rest-rotation grazing system. For over two decades cattle grazed at low density (approximately 300 head) for long periods of time (30 days). In late summer 2005, the study area was divided into three treatment pastures. The first was a simulated holistic planned grazing (SHPG) pasture (11 ha) where cattle grazed at high density (66 AU/11 ha [36 AUD ha1]) for a short period of time (6 days) during the first week of June each year (2006-2008).

(my emphasis added)

Regardless of the results, Savory and his supporters would reject this paper because it is not HM as practiced.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Regardless of the results, Savory and his supporters would reject this paper because it is not HM as practiced.

So now you are a mind reader of someone and something you don't even understand, and have thus far shown no capability to be taught?

The REALITY is that the study is on the Savory Institute webpage.[1] So rather than your fanciful meanderings it is in fact NOT rejected by Savory.

Furthermore The Savory Institute is currently working in collaborations with several institutions to get even more empirical evidence.[2] including:
University of Wyoming – Haub School of Natural Resources and the Environment.
Princeton University – Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Texas A&M University – Texas AgriLife Research
Idaho State University’s – GIS Training and Research Center
Oregon State University – Geosciences

So expect more studies with even more peer reviewed empirical evidence to follow in the near future.

 

[Reality Check]

So now you are a mind reader ...

No, Red Baron Farms, I can read and understand English and make logical conclusions !

1. One reason that Savory and his supporters dismiss the papers that refute HM is that they state that the papers do not study HM as it is practiced.
2. K.T. Weber, et al. includes a "simulated holistic planned grazing" pasture (not HM as it is practiced).
3. Thus Savory and his supporters would dismiss this paper .
   That they do not is a problem as below.

ETA:
That the Savory Institute cannot understand the hypocrisy in "refuting" papers by stating that they do not study HM as it is practiced while citing a paper that does not study HM as it is practiced (presumably as support for HM) is a different matter.
ETA2: What is the evidence that the authors of the paper are "Holistic Management Experts" as that the Savory Institute web page asserts?
K.T. Weber looks like an expert in geospatial science as applied to semiarid savanna ecosystems.
I do not know about B.S. Gokhale but the paper suggest that he works with Weber at the GIS Training and Research Center.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

No, Red Baron Farms, I can read and understand English and make logical conclusions !

I have yet to see any evidence of this so far. When given the opportunity to actually logically think through the problems surrounding the issue, you have repeatedly failed. Probably because you are not interested in actually obtaining an understanding, but rather more likely due to the need to hold onto your own preconceived notions and assumptions. Quite certainly you show a marked resistance to even consider holism in science due to connotations you yourself hold. The irony is that when faced with any attempt to obtain data in a reductionist manner (difficult but not entirely impossible) you reject that as well. This leaves you in the unenviable position of rejecting both reductionist science[1] and holism[2] simultaneously and siding on dogma, assumptions, traditions, antiquated science and a synthesis of all of them[3]; already proven inadequate.

 

[Reality Check]

I have yet to see any evidence of this so far.

Then you need to read what I write rather than fantasizing that you can read my mind, Red Baron Farms .
There are three logical steps in my post:

1. One reason that Savory and his supporters dismiss the papers that refute HM is that they state that the papers do not study HM as it is practiced.
2. K.T. Weber, et al. includes a "simulated holistic planned grazing" pasture (not HM as it is practiced).
3. Thus Savory and his supporters would dismiss this paper .

That they do not is a problem as in the Savory Institute web page hypocrisy and possible lie about "Holistic Management Experts" for the K.T. Weber, et al. paper.

ETA: The fact is I am quite prepared to consider holism in science when actual science involving holism is presented. No citations of studies of Savory's HM as it is practiced from you is not presenting anything about holism.
The fact remains that the assumptions behind Savory's HM as it is practiced have been shown to be wrong: The current topic is the debunking of the assumption that are the basis of Savory's HM as listed in [URL="http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbd/2014/163431/#B9"]Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems backed up by citations to the scientific literature.[/URL]

 

[Red Baron Farms]

ETA: The fact is I am quite prepared to consider holism in science when actual science involving holism is presented. No citations of studies of Savory's HM as it is practiced from you is not presenting anything about holism.
The fact remains that the assumptions behind Savory's HM as it is practiced have been shown to be wrong:

No Reality Check That is not true. That study has absolutely no evidence Savory is wrong. That is merely a review of the science documenting why John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, and George Wuerthner conclude Savory's methods shouldn't work. But the whole thing is a house of cards. None of it is data taken from HM land. There isn't any actual evidence. There is scientific dispute. Fair enough. But what really decides scientific disputes is empirical evidence. The evidence causes the house of cards built by John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, and George Wuerthner to come tumbling down. Not because the citations they use are necessarily bad references, but because it is a matter of interpretation. They made poor conclusions. Now you are mirroring their poor conclusions.

If it's any consolation. Savory himself mirrored those same poor conclusions once upon a time. The difference is that when faced with evidence he was wrong, Savory didn't stubbornly cling to those poor conclusions. Instead he followed the evidence and came to a completely new conclusion.