ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th June 2014, 02:36 PM   #201
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
That's not necessarily true.... The issue is, a lot of things we CAN'T calculate, either because we don't know how to put it into an equation yet or because the equations are not solveable (Darcy's Law, to reference hydrology once again). And then you have scales that are descriptive but not calculatable. The one about sexuality comes to mind--you can't calculate how homo/heterosexual a person is, but that doesn't stop the scale from being usful.

The most fundamental aspect of science RBF has forgotten is that a one must examine the whole of the relevant dataset. This includes things like hydrology, which RBF dismissed as woo. Until that concept is accepted, holistic grazing is never going to rise above voodoo in terms of scientific rigor.

You may think you can talk to me, but I've no interest in talking to you. I consider you nothing more than a pseudo-science peddler, and you've demonstrated a refusal to actually learn relevant information.
The biggest indicator of science is REPEATABILITY. Nothing else matters. If you amd/or someone else cannot repeat the results it ain't science.
Otherwise, I agree with your entire post
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 03:46 PM   #202
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
That's not necessarily true.... The issue is, a lot of things we CAN'T calculate, either because we don't know how to put it into an equation yet or because the equations are not solveable (Darcy's Law, to reference hydrology once again). And then you have scales that are descriptive but not calculatable. The one about sexuality comes to mind--you can't calculate how homo/heterosexual a person is, but that doesn't stop the scale from being usful.

The most fundamental aspect of science RBF has forgotten is that a one must examine the whole of the relevant dataset. This includes things like hydrology, which RBF dismissed as woo. Until that concept is accepted, holistic grazing is never going to rise above voodoo in terms of scientific rigor.

You may think you can talk to me, but I've no interest in talking to you. I consider you nothing more than a pseudo-science peddler, and you've demonstrated a refusal to actually learn relevant information.
Actually Dinwar I did not say hydrology was woo. You applied my comment to the wrong part of your post. You said, "So holistic grazing in your mind does in fact generate more water. That's the only thing it can possibly mean." That is so embarrassingly wrong and full of woo, I simply ignored it. I kinda figured you would see how full of woo that statement was and even be embarrassed yourself later. You of all people should know how wrong it was to say that, even in a heated debate. The one and only really stupid thing I have ever seen you say ever. 99.9999999% of everything else I ever read from you was quite intelligent, even if I happened to disagree, you always commented with thoughtfulness. So rather than berate you for a really really really stupid comment that even a grade school child would know as woo, I tried to just ignore it. Then you keep trying to continue with comments. So apparently ignoring it didn't work. It is undignified coming from you Dinwar. Seriously.

HM doesn't create water, nor does it magically cause more rain. What it does is make the available rain more effective. Instead of flash floods followed by bone dry, it creates an environment in the soil and vegetation that holds onto more of the available water. Less runoff and less evaporation means more available to plants and soil biology. Over a period of years, a % of that increased water in soil eventually makes its way to aquifers streams and/or springs, that previously only had water during the wet season and were dust dry the rest of the year, start flowing more and more months of the year. Sometimes if conditions are right, year round. Not one part of that observed phenomenon speculates it "generate(s) more water" out of thin air, and you know it very well.

ETA So rather than just claim the hydrological effects, here is an actual scientific study that measured the hydrological effects.

Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie

And here is another dreaded Youtube vid proving the effects studied above, given enough time can actually create riparian environments for those Missouri "show me" types that have to see it to believe it.

River Restoration in Zimbabwe - Countering the Savory Deniers
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 11th June 2014 at 04:13 PM.
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 04:53 PM   #203
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Wow - some actual science, Red Baron Farms !
A pity that you follow it up with YouTube propaganda .

The paper is good: grazing management programs can do what is expected, e.g. change the hydrological properties in tall grass prairie so that more water is held.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 05:31 PM   #204
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,690
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
That is so embarrassingly wrong and full of woo, I simply ignored it. I kinda figured you would see how full of woo that statement was and even be embarrassed yourself later.

[...]

So rather than berate you for a really really really stupid comment that even a grade school child would know as woo, I tried to just ignore it.
Now this is interesting. It might help you to know that "woo" has a meaning beyond a simple pejorative. When people call HLM "woo," they are comparing it to a specific type of belief system, one which uses specific types of arguments to distract the believer from the missing evidence underlying their beliefs. Right or wrong, HLM shares many of these same types of arguments.

Consider: everything that "brittleness" claims to represent is easily expressible in terms of aridity index, an established and agreed-upon scientific metric which already takes into account things like rainfall times and patterns. Yet the use of AI is rejected in favor of a jargon-loaded, subjective term that adds nothing new to the picture... why? Well, when real woo does this, they do it to insert an element of circular reasoning, where the measurement that predicts if the technique will work is mostly defined by whether the technique works. Aand... that's pretty much what we're seeing with brittleness. Can you see why, even if we assume HLM is right, it's right for the wrong (woo) reasons?
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 06:32 PM   #205
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Now this is interesting. It might help you to know that "woo" has a meaning beyond a simple pejorative. When people call HLM "woo," they are comparing it to a specific type of belief system, one which uses specific types of arguments to distract the believer from the missing evidence underlying their beliefs. Right or wrong, HLM shares many of these same types of arguments.

Consider: everything that "brittleness" claims to represent is easily expressible in terms of aridity index, an established and agreed-upon scientific metric which already takes into account things like rainfall times and patterns. Yet the use of AI is rejected in favor of a jargon-loaded, subjective term that adds nothing new to the picture... why? Well, when real woo does this, they do it to insert an element of circular reasoning, where the measurement that predicts if the technique will work is mostly defined by whether the technique works. Aand... that's pretty much what we're seeing with brittleness. Can you see why, even if we assume HLM is right, it's right for the wrong (woo) reasons?
Brittleness is mainly dependent on relative humidity, not rainfall. The reason it is important is that humidity (along with certain other factors) has everything to do with whether dead vegetation will oxidize or be subject to biological decay. (Biological decay being important to the nutrient cycle) I think that is a good reason to use it as opposed to the aridity index in the context of HM. Not saying the aridity index is a bad thing, it just isn't as useful in the context of HM. The reason why is that HM planning stages require monitoring of the land and determining relative oxidation vs biological decay to make decisions. Those decisions are made in the context of increasing biological decay and reducing oxidation with animal impact. It isn't the only factor in the decision making framework, but it is an important part.

Thus it isn't some ideology. It is a biophysical property important to recognise in any land restoration attempt.

Personally I see far more "ideology" and/or "belief systems" in people attempting to deny the positive effect herbivore impact can have on plants and ecosystems. Not too many people try to deny the negative effects of over grazing, but lots of denial on the negative effects of over rest (large increase of oxidation and decrease in biological decay in brittle environments). Not based on science, evidence or even simple observation, but simply "scientific" dogma.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 11th June 2014 at 07:01 PM.
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 07:15 PM   #206
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Question Can you cite an official definition of the Savory brittleness scale

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Brittleness is mainly dependent on relative humidity, not rainfall. ....
Sorry, Red Baron Farms, but you cannot say anything about the Savory brittleness scale until you cite a definition including this assertion about "relative humidity".
Savory brittleness scale does not contain "relative humidity". It points out that the scale does not include the total rainfall but does not exclude any inclusion of rainfall distribution.
And using that vague word "mainly" is not good - do you mean 51%, 75% or 99.9% or make a guess whether "relative humidity" predominates enough so that rainfall can be ignored?

I wonder what these guesses actually mean about the brittleness scale:
Quote:
Brittleness is derived, not so much from total rainfall as from the distribution of moisture over the year. Brittle environments are typically characterized by erratic precipitation and humidity during the year. For example, a 30 to 50 inch rainfall area that has a very dry period in the middle of the growing season is likely to be very brittle. On the other hand, a 20 inch rainfall zone where the moisture reliably comes during the growing season would be non-brittle. In a completely non-brittle environment, precipitation and humidity would be constant and high.
P.S. Red Baron Farms: no "relative humidity", two usages of "humidity" and seven uses of "rain".

So far the descriptions of the scale seems to of the order of "oh look the area is wet and so desert cannot form, the area is dry so a desert can form, in between I will guess". Nothing like "This area has rainfall R(t), humidity H(t), other factors A(t), B(t), C(t) and so the brittleness scale = Z", even with estimates for the factors.

ETA: Those "descriptions of the scale" reminded me that we still have not seen an official definition of the scale, just Wikipedia, a blog article or two and a PDF or two. Nothing from Savory actually defining the scale !
Red Baron Farms: Can you cite an official definition of the Savory brittleness scale that is complete enough so that anyone (for example you or me) can use it to calculate/estimate/guess a value?

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th June 2014 at 07:39 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 08:00 PM   #207
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 15,025
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
You guys don't have to do anything. I approached this with the incorrect assumption that you actually wanted to learn about a new scientific breakthrough. My bad. HM is all about predictions. Predictions that actually happen. Things like changes of biological diversity, changes in hydrodynamics etc... That's what started this whole argument, a prediction that I made that you laughed at. Predicted results that I have seen first hand. Land I have actually walked on and seen for myself. So go back to your Dilbert cubicles and find some one else to argue the point. I am exhausted trying to talk to you. Dinwar I can talk to. We may have disagreements, but at least his arguments are intelligent.
But your personal anecdotes do not make a scientific breakthrough. Just like anecdotes about Chiropractors, Reiki, etc.

Quote:
In order for your argument to have ANY validity at all, you would first have to find cases where HM didn't work to restore the land. That my friend is a VERY VERY VERY difficult thing to find. It is simply too effective to find failures. Not saying it is impossible. I am sure it is possible somewhere. But you need to be like a pig on a truffle to find it. If the land experienced or is still experiencing desertification after man killed off or changed the behavior of the large herbivore herds and megafauna and/or their predators (which is most the planet), then HM works consistently, even in seemingly impossible circumstances.
Curiously, this is the opposite of the picture Savory's life work expresses. He seems to have spent much of his time figuring out what his absolutely correct model actually was.

Quote:
It is also important to note that for all Savory’s insistence that his methods work, it has been associated with a number of failures. For instance, Hadley mentions a test farm in Zimbabwe, which collapsed as soon as Savory fled that country. Whereas those on the farm blamed the collapse on drought, Savory blamed on their lack of proper planning in his absence.

This is typical of Savory’s response to failure. The fault never lies in his methods but in people’s implementations of them. For instance, in a 1990 paper in the journal Ecological Economics6, Savory explains away “15 years of frustrating and eratic [sic] results” with the admission that “we had confused the integrated approach with the holistic approach, thinking that the terms were synonymous,” emphasizing that “the breakdowns we were experiencing were not attributable to the basic concept being wrong but were always due to management–of the people and the finances.” 7 Even after Savory realized that “the integrated approach and the holistic approach were opposites,”8 he had to struggle with “understanding not only what ‘holistic’ meant, but even more difficult, how to apply such an approach in day-to-day management.” Even when his own implementation of his own ideas leads to failure, he believes that the problem isn’t that the methods were flawed but that he didn’t fully understand them.9 It is this kind of convoluted reasoning that allows him to claim that his methods work.

In a review of Savory’s 1988 book Holistic Resource Management, M.T. Hoffman wrote “The apparent inconsistencies and lack of definitions (eg. for concepts such as complexity, stability, resilience, diversity and production which have a number of different meanings in the ecological literature), render it frustratingly difficult to compare his [Holistic Resource Management] approach with the broader literature.” Imprecise language doesn’t just make it hard to compare Savory’s methods with the existing literature. It also makes it nearly impossible to evaluate his approach scientifically because it allows Savory to blame any failures on a misunderstanding of the method. So long as nobody can understand Savory’s ideas, those ideas can’t be tested or disproven. In this framework, problems are solved not by trying different methods but by developing a “better” understanding of the existing one. It is therefore little wonder that after members of the Department of Range and Forage Resources at the University of Natal - Pietermaritzburg–Savory’s alma mater–met with Savory, they reported that it would be “extremely difficult” to test Savory’s ideas because “it would be difficult to evaluate even a short-term research endeavour (of 5 to 10 years), as the approach taken by Holistic Management proponents would surely have changed by then, as it has in the past.”
Linky.

And it is not just about finding "cases", but properly done studies.

Quote:
Well, not so fast. For all the intuitive appeal of “holistic management,” Savory’s hypothesis is beset with caveats. The most systematic research trial supporting Savory’s claims, the Charter Grazing Trials, was undertaken in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe today) between 1969 and 1975. Given the ecological vagaries of deserts worldwide, one could certainly question whether Savory’s research on a 6,200-acre spot of semiarid African land holds any relevance for the rest of the world’s 12 billion acres of desert. Extrapolation seems even more dubious when you consider that a comprehensive review of Savory’s trial and other similar trials, published in 2002, found that Savory’s signature high-stocking density and rapid-fire rotation plan did not lead to a perfectly choreographed symbiosis between grass and beast.

Instead, there were problems during the Charter Grazing Trials, ones not mentioned in Savory’s dramatic talk. Cattle that grazed according to Savory’s method needed expensive supplemental feed, became stressed and fatigued, and lost enough weight to compromise the profitability of their meat. And even though Savory’s Grazing Trials took place during a period of freakishly high rainfall, with rates exceeding the average by 24 percent overall, the authors contend that Savory’s method “failed to produce the marked improvement in grass cover claimed from its application.” The authors of the overview concluded exactly what mainstream ecologists have been concluding for 40 years: “No grazing system has yet shown the capacity to overcome the long-term effects of overstocking and/or drought on vegetation productivity.”
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 08:09 PM   #208
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
So far brittleness has defied calculation in the way you request, including the aridity index which also falls short. (2 pieces of land may have the same aridity index but very different brittleness) One day maybe someone will be able to quantify and calculate it, but so far I have not seen it. This is why at this point it is subjective, based on observations in the field. I can give you the types of observations that help the manager determine brittleness, but not a mathematical formula.

@Tsukasa Buddha You quoted a link that said this, " It also makes it nearly impossible to evaluate his approach scientifically because it allows Savory to blame any failures on a misunderstanding of the method." Biggest problem with that is actually finding the so called "failures". Because even the "failures" you mentioned have indeed restored desertified land. You can go there today and see for yourself. Don't confuse a temporary set back or a mistake to mean it failed to restore desertified land. In the real world, nothing is perfect. HM is a management system that plans for the inevitable "failures", monitors preemptively and adapts.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 11th June 2014 at 08:26 PM.
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 08:22 PM   #209
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
So far brittleness has defied calculation in the way you request,
Are you stating that the Savory brittleness scale is so badly defined that neither you nor I could get a value from it, Red Baron Farms?
What about a random farmer?
For that matter what about Savory - is he also just guessing?
Or that it is not defined at all except as "make a guess"?

Ignorance about the aridity indexes which can be calculated just makes your opinions about the Savory brittleness scale look worse.

And read the question:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
ETA: Those "descriptions of the scale" reminded me that we still have not seen an official definition of the scale, just Wikipedia, a blog article or two and a PDF or two. Nothing from Savory actually defining the scale !
Red Baron Farms: Can you cite an official definition of the Savory brittleness scale that is complete enough so that anyone (for example you or me) can use it to calculate/estimate/guess a value?
No mathematics needed - just a link to the official definition that allows anyone to make calculate or estimate or guess the value.

So far you are hinting that it is a deep, dark secret only known to Savory and his chosen few !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 08:38 PM   #210
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
That link does emphasis what we have been finding out about the Savory brittleness scale. If someone tests HM using this scale and the test fails, the vagueness of the definition allows Savory to dismiss the trial by stating that the scale was used wrongly.

The moving goalposts also provide an excuse - a trial that started now and lasted 10 years could be dismissed because Savory decided to change his definitions, add things to HM, subtract things from HM or just change the name!
A land management program that claims to work now as Savory claims must of course work now. Any changes in that program will be to improve the results. This the old program will work for the future as well (just not as well).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 08:57 PM   #211
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

And read the question:

No mathematics needed - just a link to the official definition that allows anyone to make calculate or estimate or guess the value.

So far you are hinting that it is a deep, dark secret only known to Savory and his chosen few !
No secret. It is free to anyone. If you want something "official" I can give you this from the training manual.

Quote:
The Brittleness Scale
Not all environments are the same nor do they react the same way to the same influences. This might seem obvious. Of course, all environments are different. What might be less obvious is the idea that taking exactly the same action in one type of environment will have dramatically different results in another type of environment.
Environments exist on different ends of a scale depending on how well humidity is distributed throughout the year and how quickly dead vegetation breaks down. At one end of this scale are brittle environments—where rainfall and humidity are scattered erratically throughout the year.
Dead vegetation breaks down very slowly in brittle environments unless adequately disturbed as the next insight explains. At the other end of the scale non-brittle environments exist. In these environments rain-fall and humidity are perennial and dead vegetation breaks down rapidly, whether or not it is disturbed. Brittleness is measured on a scale from 1 to 10, with a 1 being non-brittle and a 10 being very brittle.
Why is this important? Land responds to various practices differently in brittle and non-brittle environments. For those who manage land for enhanced biodiversity and increased production, it is very important to understand how that land will react to the various practices (or tools) used on it. For example, resting land in non-brittle environments restores it to a higher level of succession, but in brittle environments, resting land tends to damage and degrade it.
Something to Ask Yourself
Think about where you live—the amount of rainfall you get, the level of humidity in the air, and how it is distributed throughout the year. Think about how long it takes vegetation to break down. For example, when you look around, do you see moss growing on brick buildings, recently fallen logs already partially decayed, or living organisms moving about on the soil surface? All of these are signs of a non-brittle environment.
On the other hand, perhaps you see tall stands of dead gray-colored grass, logs that have been lying in the same place for years but have not changed significantly in appearance, only two or three types of plants with large areas of bare ground, etc. These observations indicate a brittle environment.
Based on the brittleness scale, would you say you live in a non-brittle(2-3), moderately brittle (4-6) or very brittle (7-9) environment?
Quote:
Brittleness Scale: All terrestrial environments, regardless of total rainfall, lie somewhere along a continuum from non-brittle to very brittle. For simplicity, this continuum is on a ten-point scale, with 1 being non-brittle and 10 being very brittle. Brittleness is measured by: (1) reliability of precipitation, (2) distribution of humidity throughout the year as a whole, (3) breakdown of dead plant material:decay, or chemical (oxidation) and physical (weathering) , (4) speed of development of new biological communities on bare soil surfaces, and (5) the development of more complex and stable communities (succession) depending on whether or not the soil surface is disturbed. For more detailed information on brittleness, refer to the Resources section of this guide.
That is from the intro handbook. There are actually pages and pages of charts comparing brittle to non brittle. By the time even a novice went through even the intro manual, they should have a pretty good idea on how to make an estimate, and how to adjust that estimate based on how the land reacts to impact (which is also monitored closely).
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 11th June 2014 at 09:07 PM. Reason: format error correction
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2014, 09:40 PM   #212
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,940
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Now this is interesting. It might help you to know that "woo" has a meaning beyond a simple pejorative. When people call HLM "woo," they are comparing it to a specific type of belief system, one which uses specific types of arguments to distract the believer from the missing evidence underlying their beliefs. Right or wrong, HLM shares many of these same types of arguments.

Consider: everything that "brittleness" claims to represent is easily expressible in terms of aridity index, an established and agreed-upon scientific metric which already takes into account things like rainfall times and patterns. Yet the use of AI is rejected in favor of a jargon-loaded, subjective term that adds nothing new to the picture... why? Well, when real woo does this, they do it to insert an element of circular reasoning, where the measurement that predicts if the technique will work is mostly defined by whether the technique works. Aand... that's pretty much what we're seeing with brittleness. Can you see why, even if we assume HLM is right, it's right for the wrong (woo) reasons?
But...but....but....but...what about the YouTube videos?
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 06:23 AM   #213
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,690
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Brittleness is mainly dependent on relative humidity, not rainfall.
A property which can be easily expressed in terms of aridity index, which already concerns itself with things like evapotranspiration, which modulates relative humidity. If the current incarnation of AI is insufficient, propose a variant formulation - it's not like there aren't several already. What you don't do is discard all previous work in favor of a wooish replacement and expect people not to call BS on it.

Quote:
Personally I see far more "ideology" and/or "belief systems" in people attempting to deny the positive effect herbivore impact can have on plants and ecosystems.
I don't think anyone objects to the concept in principle, it's just that you've given no evidence for this effect. You can link to a bunch of people who say it worked for them, but so can the "migraine-treating" LED headband out of the SkyMall catalog. What's missing is an actual study, with things like falsifiable hypotheses and control data. Not just if it works, but how well it works, and where it won't work, all of these things need to be detailed in an objective manner.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
This is why at this point it is subjective, based on observations in the field. I can give you the types of observations that help the manager determine brittleness, but not a mathematical formula.
"Observations in the field" are not necessarily subjective. All of geology, and much of traditional biology is based on observations in the field. If you can list all of the required observations in a comprehensive manner, we can apply them objectively.

What makes brittleness subjective is it's applied post-hoc. If HLM works, great, it wasn't brittle! If it doesn't, shoot, must have been brittle somehow, let's alter the definition slightly as Tsukasa describes. Arguments that "prove" faith healing often rely on similarly wriggly hypotheses.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
That is from the intro handbook. There are actually pages and pages of charts comparing brittle to non brittle. By the time even a novice went through even the intro manual, they should have a pretty good idea on how to make an estimate, and how to adjust that estimate based on how the land reacts to impact (which is also monitored closely).
This is what people object to. Everything that comes before doesn't matter, because you can always start with "HLM will work" and later adjust to "this isn't working," and HLM advocates can find some way to weasel out of it being a failing of HLM, rather than the land. And in practice, in this very thread, that's exactly what we see happening.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 12th June 2014 at 06:28 AM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 06:32 AM   #214
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy
I don't think anyone objects to the concept in principle, it's just that you've given no evidence for this effect.
My objection is more fundamental than that.

1) RBF is presenting a very specific type of biome as ideal, and is assessing the quality of an ecosystem by how closely it approximates that biome. This is a denial of ecology.

2) RBF's model is based off an incomplete understanding of the interactions between the biosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere.

I haven't gotten to the point where I'm willing to criticize his results yet. Even blind pigs find truffles, after all--this whole concept may be deeply flawed but touch on important concepts and appear to work. Without understanding the conceptual architecture of the hypothesis, we have no way of determining what works, what doesn't, and what we still need to test. I have a strong feeling that this is precisely why we don't see a strong conceptual framework for HLM; not providing one allows them to make endless "adjustments" to demonstrate, as you say, that the failure isn't REALLY a failure of HLM! The land was just brittle! Or the person didn't have enough faith! (Yes, that last was tongue-in-cheek.)
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 07:07 AM   #215
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,690
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
My objection is more fundamental than that.

1) RBF is presenting a very specific type of biome as ideal, and is assessing the quality of an ecosystem by how closely it approximates that biome. This is a denial of ecology.

2) RBF's model is based off an incomplete understanding of the interactions between the biosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere.

I haven't gotten to the point where I'm willing to criticize his results yet. Even blind pigs find truffles, after all--this whole concept may be deeply flawed but touch on important concepts and appear to work. Without understanding the conceptual architecture of the hypothesis, we have no way of determining what works, what doesn't, and what we still need to test. I have a strong feeling that this is precisely why we don't see a strong conceptual framework for HLM; not providing one allows them to make endless "adjustments" to demonstrate, as you say, that the failure isn't REALLY a failure of HLM! The land was just brittle! Or the person didn't have enough faith! (Yes, that last was tongue-in-cheek.)
1) This is a technique for grazing livestock, for whom grassland is pretty much the ideal biome.

2) I'm assuming only a scaled-down version of RBF's claims as "positive effect," limiting it to only the current falsifiables. It needn't cure cancer or make the deserts bloom, but might aid water retention and plant growth in already-established grasslands, and we can test that. Once we establish that it actually works in the manner in which it is claimed to work best, then we can examine if or how well it works in extending grassland biomes into inhospitable areas.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 07:14 AM   #216
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy
1) This is a technique for grazing livestock, for whom grassland is pretty much the ideal biome.
I'd accept that if RBF hadn't brought up deserts. Much of the grazing land in the USA is effectively desert (I once had to do a field survey in the middle of a herd fo cattle; that was...weird).

Quote:
It needn't cure cancer or make the deserts bloom, but might aid water retention and plant growth in already-established grasslands, and we can test that.
RBF specifically said it would. If he hadn't made that specific claim, I'd be okay with this--but in as much as he has, I must disagree with you here. For HLM to work as RBF says it does, in fact, need to make deserts bloom.

I'm also not sure why any of this is a response to my point. I acknowledge that my perspective is only one potential perspective on this type of problem, but it's a valid one--without a deep understanding of the theoretical foundations of this sort of thing, creating a new concept for grazing is basically playing a game of chance.

Will altering grazing habits impact established grasslands? Probably. Then again, so does introducing predators. It's likely that a wide variety of alterations would be beneficial to environmental health of established grasslands--which speaks more to historic and current land use than any benefits from any particular new land management stratigy.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 08:26 AM   #217
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,690
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
I'd accept that if RBF hadn't brought up deserts. Much of the grazing land in the USA is effectively desert (I once had to do a field survey in the middle of a herd fo cattle; that was...weird).

RBF specifically said it would. If he hadn't made that specific claim, I'd be okay with this--but in as much as he has, I must disagree with you here. For HLM to work as RBF says it does, in fact, need to make deserts bloom.

I'm also not sure why any of this is a response to my point. I acknowledge that my perspective is only one potential perspective on this type of problem, but it's a valid one--without a deep understanding of the theoretical foundations of this sort of thing, creating a new concept for grazing is basically playing a game of chance.

Will altering grazing habits impact established grasslands? Probably. Then again, so does introducing predators. It's likely that a wide variety of alterations would be beneficial to environmental health of established grasslands--which speaks more to historic and current land use than any benefits from any particular new land management stratigy.
1,2) Right, that's why I specifically mentioned that I'm dismissing RBF's more outlandish claims for now. He's made a number of naive claims that aren't shared by the HLM stuff he's linked to, so when he said "deny the positive effect of herbivore impact," I'm choosing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume we're talking about the existence of the effect itself, not the full extent of its applications.

If he'd like to insist that he was, in fact, lamenting our unwillingness to drink as deeply of the Kool-Aid as he has and ascribe to HLM all kinds of fantastical powers, I will of course agree with you.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 09:50 AM   #218
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
I already acknowledged that in my frustration I used simplified language and that was a mistake. The same mistake I have criticized others of doing. So the personal criticism of me for doing that is both valid and well taken. I should have never been sucked into ever using the word desert ever. Effectively desert, or desertified, is more proper. So instead of "make the desert bloom" and things like that, I should have said restore land that used to bloom with an abundance of plants and animals and has deteriorated into desert like conditions due to over rest and/or over grazing.

ETA Also I would like to say. I need not lament that certain people here at JREF refuse to accept HM. It is growing at an astounding rate, partly because it is so effective, and partly because the USDA NRCS and SARE are actively educating HM. Even partly due the the controversial Ted Talk, because ranchers will go visit their neighbors that have used it for years to see for themselves. In the end, the only thing that matters is results and the results are consistent. That's why I get so angry at propaganda blogs attacking HM's supposed "failures". Show me. Where has it failed to be effective? There are millions of acres throughout the world that it has been shown to be effective, please show me these supposed "failures". I would love to actually find one so I can study why it failed and make sure I don't make the same mistake.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 12th June 2014 at 10:26 AM.
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 11:17 AM   #219
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,940
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Also I would like to say. I need not lament that certain people here at JREF refuse to accept HM. It is growing at an astounding rate, partly because it is so effective, and partly because the USDA NRCS and SARE are actively educating HM.
Also I would like to say. I need not lament that certain people here at JREF refuse to accept <homeopathy/reiki/psychic readings/dowsing>. It is growing at an astounding rate, partly because it is so effective, and partly because <Dr Oz/Oprah/Psychic Sally/Natural News> are actively educating <homeopathy/reiki/psychic readings/dowsing>.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 12:38 PM   #220
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,690
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
So instead of "make the desert bloom" and things like that, I should have said restore land that used to bloom with an abundance of plants and animals and has deteriorated into desert like conditions due to over rest and/or over grazing.
It's the last bit you need to stress, not "desert" or lack thereof. Dinwar's point was that deserts in formerly grazable land can form from shifts in rainfall patterns and hydrology too, and no amount of grazing will be able to magic enough water back.

Quote:
That's why I get so angry at propaganda blogs attacking HM's supposed "failures". Show me. Where has it failed to be effective? There are millions of acres throughout the world that it has been shown to be effective, please show me these supposed "failures". I would love to actually find one so I can study why it failed and make sure I don't make the same mistake.
Tsukasa gave you a few.

BTW, HM has not been shown to work. Not in any way that counts. Your "millions of acres" don't mean squat if you don't have proper controls in place.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 02:38 PM   #221
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
No secret. It is free to anyone.
Thanks, Red Baron Farms, but you are actually confirming that
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
So far you are hinting that it is a deep, dark secret only known to Savory and his chosen few !
The chosen few are his trainees.

You missed that nowhere in your quotes do the totally subjective guesses give a number for the Savory brittleness !
Those quotes are a repeat of the vague guesstimates that we already know are the basis of the Savory brittleness scale.

And then there is the fact that this is an training manual from a web site selling a product. That is not science, Red Baron Farms.

The question remains:
Red Baron Farms: Can you cite an official definition of the Savory brittleness scale that is complete enough so that anyone (for example you or me) can use it to calculate/estimate/guess a value?
That is the point of a scientific scale - you do not have to pay someone to take a course in using a thermometer !
A scientific scale just needs the ability to make the appropriate measurements and plug them into an equation. Or at least to make observations and match them to detailed descriptions - see the descriptive part of the Beaufort Wind Scale.

Last edited by Reality Check; 12th June 2014 at 02:46 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 02:44 PM   #222
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post

BTW, HM has not been shown to work. Not in any way that counts. Your "millions of acres" don't mean squat if you don't have proper controls in place.
Actually there has been plenty of trials. I posted multiple times. It gets routinely ignored. For me the most compelling is this one:

Convincing evidence Notice the first picture the tailings are split, one side with HM and the other side not. The side without even has irrigation! 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.

Of course in their arrogance, many in the entrenched academia dismiss this sort of evidence out of hand, even though there is a control. Terry Wheeler is not a Phd, and hasn't published his evidence in a scientific journal as far as I know. It doesn't mean Wheeler isn't educated. He is a graduate of the University of Arizona and holds a Bachelor of Science Degree with majors in Animal Science and Range/Watershed Management, plus completed graduate work in those areas as well as Agricultural Economics, Horticulture and Administration. He is an accredited professional ecologist with a lot of experience, over 50 years experience domestic and international, including working with leading universities, energy and mining corporations, industry associations, the United States’ federal, state and local governments, the governments of several other nations, and numerous village and tribal authorities. So ranchers and farmers and even mining companies may accept such evidence (I do), but many in academia either ignore it completely or call it "anecdotal". Mayor Terence O. Wheeler
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 12th June 2014 at 03:03 PM.
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 02:46 PM   #223
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Savory brittleness scale:
"Think about where you live:"
* "the amount of rainfall you get" (lots)
* "the level of humidity in the air" (moderate)
* "how it is distributed throughout the year" (mostly in winter)
* "see moss growing on brick buildings" (on some)
* "recently fallen logs already partially decayed" (yes)
* "living organisms moving about on the soil surface" (of course !)
So I live in a non-brittle environment but ....
* "tall stands of dead gray-colored grass (in summer yes)
* "logs that have been lying in the same place for years but have not changed significantly in appearance" (yes)
* "only two or three types of plants with large areas of bare ground" (yes)
So I live in a brittle environment !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 03:01 PM   #224
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
It is growing at an astounding rate, partly because it is so effective, and partly because the USDA NRCS and SARE are actively educating HM.
Red Baron Farms, what is your evidence that the USDA NRCS and SARE actively educating HM (i.e. Savory's methodology that seemingly only he teaches)?

"the results are consistent" - what results and what are they consistent with?
That changing the management of degraded land improved the land - well Doh .

Show us where Savory's HM has been conclusively shown to be more effective than other land management methods.
ETA: There is at least one small sample study that showed that high capacity methods are worse then adaptive methods:
Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie

Citations please to the "millions of acres throughout the world that it has been shown to be effective", Red Baron Farms?

P.S.
Red Baron Farms (28th May 2014): Evidence for HM is actually very popular and widely used in NZ and Australia?.

Red Baron Farms: Evidence that "dry" grassland will turn to desert if the herds of herbivores are removed (and the reverse)?

Red Baron Farms: Evidence for the "The australian megafauna decreased, in brittle areas that ecological change resulted in desert, but in areas that were not brittle, change still happened, but didn't result in desertification" claim?
Please not based on any rather silly "deserts formed thus the land was brittle". But the rational: here is an area that was "brittle", megafauna decreased then desert formed.

Last edited by Reality Check; 12th June 2014 at 03:06 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 03:34 PM   #225
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Red Baron Farms, what is your evidence that the USDA NRCS and SARE actively educating HM (i.e. Savory's methodology that seemingly only he teaches)?
I already posted enough evidence of that you shouldn't even question it. Spoilered in case others don't want to see it again.
This from USDA SARE:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


USDA NRCS:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Not to mention major grants to HMI
Quote:
Fiscal year 2009 recipients include:

...
Holistic Management International, Albuquerque, N.M., $639,301 Link
...
And also funding for NCATT ATTRA who has many resources to educate people in HM. Holistic Management: A Whole-Farm Decision Making Framework

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

Show us where Savory's HM has been conclusively shown to be more effective than other land management methods.
ETA: There is at least one small sample study that showed that high capacity methods are worse then adaptive methods:
Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie
Then when you say silly things like this I have even more confirmation you are simply not paying attention. Please at least read the abstract of the study.
Quote:
evaluated the impact of multi-paddock (MP) grazing at a high stocking rate compared to light continuous (LC) and heavy continuous (HC) grazing
That "adaptive" method is taken directly from HM. It isn't HM in it's entirety, just a study of certain biophysical effects claimed by Savory. Since the adaptive is at high capacity, your statement "sample study that showed that high capacity methods are worse then adaptive methods" doesn't make sense.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 12th June 2014 at 03:56 PM.
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 06:27 PM   #226
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I already posted enough evidence of that you shouldn't even question it.
YouTube videos that are not USDA NRCS and SARE actively educating HM (i.e. Savoy's methodology that seemingly only he teaches) are not evidence, Red Baron Farms jaw-dropp!
There is the possibility that these YouTube videos mention HM. But lying about the content is bad: The first video is a presentation by a farmer.
However the second video is presented by someone from USDA NRCS.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Not to mention major grants to HMI
Not mention that you have not mentioned USDA NRCS or SARE "major" grants to HMI

Holistic Management: A Whole-Farm Decision Making Framework
Oh dear - the notion that a web page containing a brochure is somehow an organization educating people about HM. It is a web page selling HM. It is basically an advertisement, Red Baron Farms!

ETA
The correct term to use is that the USDA NRCS acknowledges the existence of Savory's HM.
As for SARE - I get results from "Holistic management Savoy" that are mostly personal accounts, a conference event and books.

I actually got the results reversed in
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
ETA: There is at least one small sample study that showed that high capacity methods are worse then adaptive methods:
Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie
Pity you resorted to insults rather than pointing it out.
What that study says: multi-paddock (MP) grazing at a high stocking rate is better (I will emphasis the small sample size) than light continuous (LC) and heavy continuous (HC) grazing .

Last edited by Reality Check; 12th June 2014 at 06:56 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 07:04 PM   #227
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
The USDA NRCS (National Resource Conservation Service) is oddly enough about conservation.

The USDA service that should really be interested in Savoy's HM is the Agricultural Research Service but there is a enormous 5 results for "Savoy holistic management!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2014, 10:17 PM   #228
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The USDA NRCS (National Resource Conservation Service) is oddly enough about conservation.

The USDA service that should really be interested in Savoy's HM is the Agricultural Research Service but there is a enormous 5 results for "Savoy holistic management!
All you are proving by your last 2 posts is your knowledge of the subject is based entirely on a brief google search. Not only do you not know anything about HM, (even though it is free and available to anyone just for the asking) You can't even watch a USDA NRCS or SARE educational vid on HM and even recognise it as such! How could you possibly miss that the "Farmer" in the vid (his name is Gabe brown) is a HM practitioner discussing HM and the educational seminar was produced and published by USDA SARE? Who do you think pays for all the scientific research on his land, being that it is a case study? Who do you think Jay Fuhrer, Dr. Duane Beck, Dr. Kris Nichols, Dr. Rick Haney, Ray Archuletta, David Brandt and Dr. Jill Clapperton are? Just random people? Do you understand what a cooperator is? The second vid by Doug Peterson, 25 year employee of the USDA NRCS and uses HM on his own ranch. You didn't see the intro?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 12th June 2014 at 10:20 PM.
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2014, 06:22 AM   #229
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,690
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
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.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
So ranchers and farmers and even mining companies may accept such evidence (I do), but many in academia either ignore it completely or call it "anecdotal". Mayor Terence O. Wheeler
Because it is. Millions of people believing prayer works doesn't make the "evidence" for it more than anecdotes.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2014, 10:46 AM   #230
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 13th June 2014 at 11:54 AM.
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2014, 08:03 PM   #231
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,690
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
The two scientific methods (holism and reductionism) work together, each complimenting the other.
Yeah... I'm putting you in the woo bucket. Protip: anytime you have to redefine all of science to be right, you're wrong.

Have fun with him, guys.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2014, 09:48 PM   #232
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Yeah... I'm putting you in the woo bucket. Protip: anytime you have to redefine all of science to be right, you're wrong.

Have fun with him, guys.
Holism does not even come close to redefining all of science.

Quote:
I think that the scientific concept that would improve everyone's cognitive toolkit is holism: the abiding recognition that wholes have properties not present in the parts and not reducible to the study of the parts. - Dr. Nicholas A. Christakis, Harvard
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2014, 10:00 PM   #233
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,940
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Yeah... I'm putting you in the woo bucket. Protip: anytime you have to redefine all of science to be right, you're wrong.

Have fun with him, guys.
One of us called it on the first page.

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Those of us who are critical thinkers know that anything with the word "holistic" attached is most likely nonsense.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2014, 06:18 AM   #234
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Holism does not even come close to redefining all of science.

We have to look at the big picture but we can't lose sight of the details like "does it work?"
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2014, 08:02 AM   #235
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
We have to look at the big picture but we can't lose sight of the details like "does it work?"
What planet are you from? Seriously. How on God's green Earth could you possibly construe that from anything I have ever said? Since when is looking at the "big picture" and the "details" mutually exclusive?

Talk about people dropping woo on this thread! OMG

I specifically said and explained in pretty good detail how holism and reductionism work together and compliment each other, both in theory and in practise in the case of HM. I also explained the mistake in only relying on reductionism, especially in complex biological systems. Nothing I said on the theory of holism is even all that controversial for that matter. I am nowhere near the first person to recognise emergent properties in complex self organising systems. That idea has been around at least as long as Aristotle and always was a part of the scientific method.

Quote:
the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the parts - Aristotle
So please explain to me how that redefines all of science when it has been part of the scientific method for at least as long as there has been a scientific method?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 14th June 2014 at 08:19 AM.
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2014, 02:20 PM   #236
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
...snipped insults...
leaving a post that is a completely fact-less rant, Red Baron Farms!
As I said:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
YouTube videos that are not USDA NRCS and SARE actively educating HM (i.e. Savoy's methodology that seemingly only he teaches) are not evidence, Red Baron Farms jaw-dropp!
There is the possibility that these YouTube videos mention HM. But lying about the content is bad: The first video is a presentation by a farmer.
However the second video is presented by someone from USDA NRCS..
The idiocy of posting YouTube videos is that no one is going to waste their time watch them unless the title or caption states that they are about the subject being discussed.
Grazing Cover Crops and Benefits for Livestock Operations - Gabe Brown
No mention of Savoy's HM. A conference presentation in the SARE YouTube channel.

Soil Health and Production Benefits of Mob Grazing
No mention of Savoy's HM. In the USDA NRCS channel.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2014, 03:25 PM   #237
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
leaving a post that is a completely fact-less rant, Red Baron Farms!
As I said:

The idiocy of posting YouTube videos is that no one is going to waste their time watch them unless the title or caption states that they are about the subject being discussed.
Grazing Cover Crops and Benefits for Livestock Operations - Gabe Brown
No mention of Savoy's HM. A conference presentation in the SARE YouTube channel.

Soil Health and Production Benefits of Mob Grazing
No mention of Savoy's HM. In the USDA NRCS channel.
If a teacher talks about fractions to their students, isn't he still teaching math? Is math factions? Or is it that fractions are just a small part of math?

You literally sound like a grade school child protesting that algebra can't be math because it uses letters instead of numbers!

I have pointed out a couple times here that all you need to do is educate yourself even a little on the subject instead of relying only on google searches, and you'll have no problem recognising HM when you see it. You might even be able to comment without feeling insulted when you embarrass yourself with your ignorance of the subject matter.

Both speakers are HM practitioners, teaching parts of HM in government funded and sponsored programs. I really don't care if you like YT educational vids or not. The point is that USDA NRCS and USDA SARE use them for educational purposes, and in this case, to teach parts of HM.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 15th June 2014 at 03:35 PM.
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2014, 03:45 PM   #238
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,981
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
If a teacher talks about fractions to their students, isn't he still teaching math?
No teachers in those videos. Fractions actually work. There is mixed scientific evidence about Savoy's HM and the majority of range scientists have not been able to experimentally confirm that intensive grazing systems similar to those at the center of holistic management show a benefit, and claim that managers' reports of success are anecdotal.

These videos are people telling stories. That is not education that is entertainment or maybe propaganda !

The point is that USDA NRCS and USDA SARE have YT channels where they put presentations. The point is these specific presentations are anecdotes, i.e. getting close to propaganda.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th June 2014 at 03:53 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2014, 05:25 PM   #239
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,588
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
No teachers in those videos. Fractions actually work. There is mixed scientific evidence about Savoy's HM and the majority of range scientists have not been able to experimentally confirm that intensive grazing systems similar to those at the center of holistic management show a benefit, and claim that managers' reports of success are anecdotal.

These videos are people telling stories. That is not education that is entertainment or maybe propaganda !

The point is that USDA NRCS and USDA SARE have YT channels where they put presentations. The point is these specific presentations are anecdotes, i.e. getting close to propaganda.
1) Just because critics claim it, doesn't mean those claims are true. To decide that you must actually follow the evidence.

2) Your whole argument rests on dismissing the evidence supporting HM as anecdotal, even though that evidence continues to grow and much is being obtained by teams of well trained professionals, including published scientists working in their fields of expertise. That's woo. Pure and simple. In science you follow the evidence first and foremost. If the evidence doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, then it is appropriate to investigate further, not dismiss it out of hand.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2014, 06:23 PM   #240
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 52,940
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
1) Just because critics claim it, doesn't mean those claims are true. To decide that you must actually follow the evidence.

2) Your whole argument rests on dismissing the evidence supporting HM as anecdotal, even though that evidence continues to grow and much is being obtained by teams of well trained professionals, including published scientists working in their fields of expertise. That's woo. Pure and simple. In science you follow the evidence first and foremost. If the evidence doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, then it is appropriate to investigate further, not dismiss it out of hand.
Remember to send a post card when you get to China!!!
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.