--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "soil-age" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to soil-age+u...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to soil...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/soil-age.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Yes, George. Please visit Dimbangombe. You have trashed Savory based on a library visit and a phone call, now please visit his site and verify your conclusions. And Chris Gill's work is not that hard to find -- www.circleranchtx.com. Visit his desert ranch in Texas. There are plenty of other places. Rancho La Inmaculada in Sonora, "the mature, diverse forests and lush grasslands ... support the highest density of songbird territories in North America ... [and] the largest known population of at least three threatened and/or endangered species" at the U-Bar Ranch in New Mexico (and other sites illustrated in www.ecoresults.org), and thousands of other HM sites. If you are correct, your conclusions should fit the landscapes of grasslands under HM, and you should be able to see it when you visit them.
Also, "Just to balance current carbon emissions, the uptake of carbon by all the world’s vegetation (not only grasslands) would have to triple." True, but only if you totally replicate what the existing vegetation does. That is a simplistic extrapolation of the carbon cycle, and is not what is proposed, and not based on what the best agricultural systems are doing. Savory, and others, are not talking about 0.1 tons C/ha/yr, but one to two orders of magnitude greater. Yes, as much as 10 tons C/ha/yr. Since you will be visiting ranches, visit a few with numbers in this range -- Colin Seis in NSW, Cody Holmes in Missouri, and Gabe Brown (featured in http://vimeo.com/80518559) in Burleigh County, North Dakota. And look at their stocking densities and rates. You, and many others it appears, have to see it to believe it. I am very interested in your response.
The science you reviewed tries to control variables. HM's framework is used to improve the resource base, quality of life, and net income using ecosystem processes and tools, testing and management guidelines, planning, and feedback. It seems to me that a proper way to test the method is to compare it to other methods, not try to adjust variables, collect data, and do statistics. The science has only tested the variables they chose, not HM. That will become apparent when you observe what these sites have done.