This is one of the most important posts ever on WUWT, it will be a top “sticky” post for a few days, and new posts will appear below this one during that time.
People send me stuff.
Imagine, shooting 40,000 elephants to prevent the land in Africa from going to desert because scientists thought the land couldn’t sustain them, only to find the effort was for naught and the idea as to why was totally wrong. That alone was a real eye opener.
Every once in awhile, an idea comes along that makes you ask, “gee why hasn’t anybody seen this before?”. This one of those times. This video below is something I almost didn’t watch, because my concerns were triggered by a few key words in the beginning. But, recommended by a Facebook friend, I stuck with it, and I’m glad I did, because I want every one of you, no matter what side of the climate debate you live in, to watch this and experience that light bulb moment as I did. The key here is to understand that desertification is one of the real climate changes we are witnessing as opposed to some the predicted ones we often fight over.
It is one of those seminal moments where I think a bridge has been created in the climate debate, and I hope you’ll seize the moment and embrace it. This video comes with my strongest possible recommendation, because it speaks to a real problem, with real solutions in plain language, while at the same time offering true hope.
This is a TED talk by Dr. Allan Savory in Los Angeles this past week, attended by our friend Dr. Matt Ridley, whose presentation we’ll look at another time. Sometimes, TED talks are little more that pie in the sky; this one is not. And, it not only offers a solution, it shows the solution in action and presents proof that it works. It makes more sense than anything I’ve seen in a long, long, time. Our friend Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., champion of studying land use change as it affects local and regional climate will understand this, so will our cowboy poet Willis Eschenbach, who grew up on a cattle ranch. I daresay some of our staunchest critics will get it too.
To encapsulate the idea presented, I’ll borrow from a widely used TV commercial and say:
Beef, it’s what’s for climate
You can call me crazy for saying that after you watch this presentation. A BIG hattip to Mark Steward Young for bringing this to my attention.
“Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it’s happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes — and his work so far shows — that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert.
Published on Mar 4, 2013
There’s a longer version with more detail below, about an hour long. Also worth watching if you want to understand the process in more detail:
Feasta Lecture 2009
Extracts available at vimeo.com/8291896
Allan Savory argued that while livestock may be part of the problem, they can also be an important part of the solution. He has demonstrated time and again in Africa, Australia and North and South America that, properly managed, they are essential to land restoration. With the right techniques, plant growth is lusher, the water table is higher, wildlife thrives, soil carbon increases and, surprisingly, perhaps four times as many cattle can be kept.
feasta.org/events/general/2009_lecture.htm
Recorded 7 November 2009, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
johanna says:
March 10, 2013 at 5:13 am
Geoff Sherrington, well said.
Just like some fool above claimed that this was as important as the contribution of Norman Borlaug, the notion that the application of science to farming is ‘going against Nature’ and doomed to eventual failure is hippie nonsense promulgated by the well-fed.
As for goats, they are the cockroaches of the mammalian world, along with rats. They serve a useful purpose, but anyone who knows anything about them know that in a confined or low-food area, they have a scorched-earth eating policy.
My old man used to keep one on a long chain when he owned acres. He would tie it up anywhere that noxious weeds were becoming a problem. After a week or two, the ground was suitable for reseeding or replanting. Not a blade or leaf or root was left.
People should try this approach in the UK for the otherwise invincible Japanese Knotweed!
– – – – – – – –
johanna,
I read all the ~370 comments.
You seemed to have a very clearheaded critical perspective and sufficiently skeptical view on the ideas presented in the TED talk by Dr. Allan Savory in Los Angeles.
Individual farmers can take or leave his thoughts. The marketplace simply judges and adapts. But I think Savory is not making his pitch to them. I think he is addressing the central planners in governments (the anti-market bureaucracies) and also he is addressing those NGOs whose sole profession is to influence the central planners in enviro areas.
Individual farmers make individual judgements on ideas like Savory’s. The effects of their errors are limited. Centrally planned errors are the highest risk exposure for civilization; central planning should be replaced by the market. I vote no on adopting Savory’s ideas to any central planning effort.
John
Geoff Sherrington says:
March 10, 2013 at 3:19 am
farmerbraun says: March 9, 2013 at 9:50 pm “Organic” because it arose from a concern for conservation of soil carbon , or organic matter. If you don’t mind me asking Geoff, what exactly is the problem that you have with that?
…………………………..
Don’t play the disingenuous game, please. You now that there is a self-invented definitional difference between normal farming and organic farming that is far deeper than your chosen words suggest. The latter dissuades the use of agricultural chemicals. It is based on ignorance of the chemistry of plant growth. It is an insult to chemical professionalism.
I’m not going to give oxygen. Just the one example, where in your studiously principled way you say from the tablet of stone “To maintain the long-term fertility of soils.”
You cannot maintain the fertility of soils when you harvest plant or animal crops and take them off location. There are a dozen or so moderate to trace elements, leaving aside for the moment other than inorganic chemicals, that are depleted each time you take material off the site. One of them will eventually fall below the level need to give growth and the crop will fail. Perhaps one example is potassium. Repeated removal of potassium is not balanced in most cases by the rapid decay of enough bedrock to replace the potassium. Hence, addition of fertilizer in the form of KCl (potash) is commonly a part or normal farming. Another inorganic example would be zinc, another molybdenum. All of these have recorded instances where crops have exhausted the supply; but the soil has recovered after their addition as chemical fertilizers, which is against the Holy Writ of strict organic farming.
Farmerbraun responds: actually , my working hypothesis was that you don’t know the first thing about sustainable agriculture/ organic farming. Everything that you have written so far tends to confirm my hypothesis. For example , using your paragraph on fertility above , the protocols require annual soil testing to ensure that mineral levels are being maintained and that no depletion is occurring. The principle of Limiting Factors is observed.
You say : ” . . .addition as chemical fertilizers, which is against the Holy Writ of strict organic farming.”
In that you are completely wrong; the form of the element may differ (K2SO4 rather than KCl is likely but KCl is used where appropriate). The point is that replacement of depleted minerals is COMPULSORY. In my operation the only element never applied would be potassium, because the base saturation % for K is already high in my soil. I do use Ca, Mg, Na, , S, P, Cu , Zn, Bo , Mn , Fe, Mo , Se , I, Co, to name a few.
Of course the main element inputs are C, H, O and N all from atmospheric sources.
I rest my case. But I feel sure that you could produce further erroneous examples which I could point out if you were listening. It is clear that you have formed an opinion in the complete absence of knowledge. Such faith! 🙂
“Maintaining the long term fertility of soils “may be written in stone , so to speak : why do you have a problem with that? Surely it should be a requirement for sustainable agriculture.
You are tilting at windmills.
John Tillman;
except to add that in NE Oregon some of my neighbors still burn their wheat fields intentionally not so much to clear stubble, which is short nowadays, but to get rid of the straw left behind by combines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, there’s always exceptions to the rule driven by local conditions and crop specifics. Flax straw for example takes decades to decompose so incorporating it back into the soil is problematic. Wheat straw is easier, but not in all soil types. If you have a bumper crop with a late harvest you’ll also have challenges that might cause burning to be a more likely choice. Enjoyed the balance of your comment by the way, learned a lot.
@Willis
“Which comment is he referring to? He gives no hint or clue. I made a number of comments about continuous grazing in my post. Is he talking about his previous quote? Is he thinking about a different comment?”
FB says: my fault Willis. Ducking in to post between jobs is not a great idea, but it is what I must do. I’ll get better at this.
michael hart says:
March 10, 2013 at 10:09 am
johanna says:
March 10, 2013 at 5:13 am
Geoff Sherrington, well said.
Just like some fool above claimed that this was as important as the contribution of Norman Borlaug, the notion that the application of science to farming is ‘going against Nature’ and doomed to eventual failure is hippie nonsense promulgated by the well-fed.
As for goats, they are the cockroaches of the mammalian world, along with rats. They serve a useful purpose, but anyone who knows anything about them know that in a confined or low-food area, they have a scorched-earth eating policy.
FB says; another convincing display of ignorance. Any animal confined in a low -food area has a scorched -earth eating policy. Goats are not special. FB has about 500 goats and finds them very useful agronomically and economically.
Just one question though . Where do you find these practitioners of sustainable agriculture who insist that the application of science to farming is “going against nature”?
In the supermarket? In your imagination? In your commune?
FB: Goats have this reputation because they are browsers, IMO. They eat enthusiastically vegetation, like blackberry vines, which would be a last resort for grazers.
davidmhoffer says:
March 10, 2013 at 10:40 am
“Enjoyed your comments…”
Thanks for the kind words regarding such a long post. I edited out comments on integrating wildlife into ranching, for example the effects of coyotes (& domestic & feral dogs), deer & elk (& introduced pheasants). Deer spread morning glory seeds, which weed is nearly impossible to eradicate now that Tordon is banned.
Indegar: You’re sadly right about forest fires’ being blamed on CAGW instead of mismanagement. The Udall cousin senators from CO & NM are leaders in that chorus.
Whatever anyone thinks of Savory’s presentation, I’m glad Anthony made it sticky, since the topic has provoked worthwhile heated discussion & produced some light of information.
Man, I love this web site. My profound thanks to all of those who have posted thoughtful, insightful, and usually experience-based comments and criticisms.
Clive, you say:
March 10, 2013 at 10:01 am
Yeah, I was sorry to find that out, because while “False in one, false in all” is not true, once you see an error that large then you have to check every number the guy pulls out.
It’s fascinating not to have seen the video, and instead to see it through the eyes of of the commenters. It sounds like he’s on the right track (a mix of animals and plants and insects are necessary to bring damaged soil back to life) but prone to exaggeration and oversimplification.
These kinds of solutions tend to be very site-specific. A healthy ecosystem often falls prey to the “cake problem”, where one missing ingredient can stop the whole process. Often, it’s not obvious what might be missing, or what the unexpected long-term effects of a change might look like. It is by no means a simple challenge.
It also sounds like he wants to take credit for a basic concept that farmers have used since forever. This is the idea that all the different parts of the farm both feed and affect each other. I’ve read about Chinese farmers who raise mink next to their duck and fish pond. The excrement from the mink and the ducks fertilizes the pond, providing food for the plants that feed the fish and ducks … and the mink eat the guts of the ducks and the fish.
These are the kinds of inter-relationships and linked physical effects that human farmers have fostered since time immemorial.
Where he has the most impact, from the comments, is in his insistence that animals are an essential part of a healthy farm ecosystem.
Again, my thanks to the commenters, keep’m coming, always more for me to learn.
w.
Matthew L Marler;
1. that is not known. Experience shows the soil getting thicker year after year.
I refer you to the very well informed comments by farmerbraun
farmerbraun says:
March 9, 2013 at 8:06 pm
2. The accumulated carbon in the soil is little disturbed.
Which doesn’t change the fact that in the scenario you propose, the bulk of co2 sequestered is released again. The amount accumulated in the soil in any given year is by comparison inconsequential
3. I agree with you there, but I think it’s irrelevant; his talk would have been better without the claim, but I never made the claim.
When someone uses complete nonsense to hype their facts, one can only wonder why they felt their position could not be substantiated with facts alone. In this case he didn’t even provide rainfall records to show that his before and after pictures were not the result of a change in local climate rather than his efforts. Odd that he would leave out such important information while going out of his way to hype information that doesn’t hold up to even the briefest scrutiny.
And once again, I’m not disagreeing with his techniques. I’m just pointing out that they aren’t his, they aren’t new, and had he done any research into dry land crop practices all over the world in the first place he wouldn’t have made such an incredibly stupid error. But well presented plagiarism seems to be OK at TED so he gets a standing ovation. Pffffft.
farmerbraun says:
March 10, 2013 at 10:44 am
No fault, FB, I post in the same manner. I was just bugged by Mosher’s incessant hammering on me, it gets old.
w.
” not so much to clear stubble, which is short nowadays, but to get rid of the straw left behind by combines.”
Where annual monoculture is the practice , the burning is usually to prevent the build-up of pathogens where the soil cannot digest the crop aftermath.
Where crop rotation is practised , the problem is lessened or eliminated.
Unfortunately, this bridge was burned years ago. The dire CAGW meme that CO2 emissions must be stopped at all costs is overruled by an earlier, more comprehensive meme that humans can do no good vis-à-vis Nature. Attempts to “improve” Nature with intelligent grazing practices or timely thinning of forests are strictly forbidden according to Orthodox Environmentalism. Other posters have coined the terms “post-truth” (crafted messaging and endless re-branding instead of straight talk) and “post-science” (using science factoids to support an agenda, rather than using science to understand reality) to describe what we’re up against. Truth and science have become malleable concepts to be enlisted in the Noble Cause, so simply making a clear and rational argument, or even demonstrating obvious benefits in practice on the land, isn’t going to cut it.
It doesn’t matter that the officially sanctioned solution for the manufactured CAGW crisis is all about extreme pain and expense for humanity – that’s a feature, not a bug. At the same time, the most effective and painless solution for addressing real ecological problems, including real human-caused climate change, is the millennia-long tradition of exemplary and conscious land stewardship. Aside from token gestures on small parcels with a heavy topping of happy talk about sustainability, any significant, landscape-level ecosystem management is fought tooth and nail via the courts and media. If it ain’t wilderness, it’s broke – there’s no middle ground for these folks.
So it remains an uphill battle. Enlightened ranchers know that they are grass farmers first, and will evolve rapidly as this research becomes more widely known. Grazing management feedback is measured in months and years. But forest management feedback runs decades to centuries. U.S. National Forests have been in lockdown mode for over 20 years, so the overcrowding due to non-management is just getting to the point of collapse. Expect to see massive loss due to wildfire and insects over the next 20 years, of course blamed exclusively on CAGW. I peg the year 2030 as the point of inflection when 40 million acres of unnecessarily wasted trees triggers the Alan Savory 40,000 elephant death “Aha” moment, and we can begin to restore sanity to our public forest lands.
Willis,
I echo your appreciation for this web site.
However, this particular thread has staggered me a bit with the warmth of concern for our planet earth.
Perhaps the name may have to be changed to WGWT?
WattsGreenWithThat 🙂
Calvin Long,
What percentage of cattle nitrogen are you ascribing to gut N fixation?
Mature cattle excrete about 70kg of nitrogen per year per head. (A lactating cow about 150kg) Most of this is in the urine. We need again to look at the larger processes to see what nitrogen is being retained in the system and what is lost. Urine patches as shown by a study by Stout (1997) are not like evenly spread like applied manure and oversaturate an area allowing mobilization of N and transfer to groundwater (lost from system). (Winter grazing triples this effect)
Nitrogen fixation in water logged soils and 1% straw produces N fixation rates up to 150/kg/ha and 500-1000kg/ha when straw increases to 5 to 20%. Adding manure to the equation can bump fixation rates to over 1300kg/ha. (Stewart 1969) Its easy to see that the real injection of new nitrogen into the system is from soil N fixation.
The fire, cattle and waterlogged soils of the unplowed US tall grass prairies in combination with other variables produced soil nitrogen levels that were so high that corn was grown without fertilizer till the 1920s. Wheat was unable to grow in freshly plowed prairie soils- ofter requiring decades for the excessive nitrogen and SOC levels to fall low enough for wheat to survive. (Welch 1979)
So great was the soil N fixation rate that nitrate salts were common on the surface of prairie soils and nitrate licks and vegetation N actually killed many early Corn Belt domestic cattle.
The nitrate buildup is what made prairie fire so feared by early settlers. An investigation by Mayo(1895) found that cornstalks contained 18.8% pottasium nitrate by dry weight! Mayo wrote,
“Upon splitting a corn stalk, the crystals in the pith of the stalk could easily be seen with the unaided eye…. On lighting a bit of stalk with a match, it would deflagrate, burning rapidly like the fuse of a fire cracker.” Its why one person stayed awake at all times on the early prairies.
Nitrogen fixation (KNO3) and fire were positive feedbacks. It did not take much to burn the prairies. Burning fueled N-fixation- N fixation fueled burning. We are talking annual acreages of prairie burning the size of several midwestern states. (Why EPA’s PM2.5 air quality reference condition is rediculous)
Some of the virgin midwest black loam soil have nearly 1500kgN/ha in the top 40 inches. A grassland system loses nitrogen to runoff, groundwater and air(ash), recylces nitrogen, sequesters nitrogen through various soil and vegetative processes and creates new bio-available nitrogen. Each step there are multiple variables controlling whether nitrogen is being lost or accumulated within or from the system by porcesses we are just coming to understand. (And each of the many variables also influence whether soil organic carbon increases or decreases.) And even when or if we understand them the chaotic complexity/intial condition will limit our able to predict with precision. (Not implying knowledge cannot usefully inform mangament or decision)
Two essential papers on the subject of US grassland dynamics were written by Ed Krug- who felt the full wrath of the environmental movement for having the audacity to claim that soil processes and fire suppression were equal to or more important than acid rain. (The environmental narrative on acid rain has constrained our understanding and caused a host of mangement probems but that is another subject). Krug’s papers:
http://webh2o.sws.uiuc.edu/pubdoc/CR/ISWSCR2003-02.pdf
http://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/CR/ISWSCR2000-08.pdf
A very good paper on the keystone role of bison on the tall grass prairie:
http://www.konza.ksu.edu/keep/main/Knapp_Bison_99%5B1%5D.pdf
A billion hectacre burn might be possible with the same acreage burned multiple times a year.
Talking from south London on a US website.
Tonight and last week on the British version of Top Gear car show Clarkson May and Hammond are again driving across Africa in very cheap old second hand estate car (not 4x4s).
Last weeks episode they got stuck in a 24 hour Traffic Jam in Kampala capital of Uganda .Then they visit the old abandoned Terminal building at Entebbe Airport complete with bullet holes from the Israeli commandos Hijack Hostage rescue from many years ago.
Watching the show you see just how bad the roads in Africa actually are.Unlit unmaintained single lane tarmac to impassable dirt tracks.
A plan to irrigate the African Deserts to create a natural Carbon Sink and thousand of acres of Farm land needing reservoirs and pumping stations .However you need proper roads and proper communications.
Improved roads is a benefit .But what crops are you going to grow .The WTO and the EU puts massive inport tarriffs on African Food exports .Africa’s biggest Agriculture export is Cut Flowers.
At present the African main economy is based purely on mining oil Gas and tourism.Its people suffering the highest rates of Poverty and civil war.
Every Industrial revolution has always been followed by an Agricultural revolution.Britain in the 19 century farmers had suddenly got steam Railways and Canals to take their produce to market.The previously far eastern backward countries with peasant farming transformed themselves into the G20 Tiger Economies..
Similarly just as in the western world their farmers too have proper roads.
You have to massively industrialize Manufacturing before you can industrialize agriculture .
Invest in communications to create manufacturing industry is best way to help Africa and lift the continent out of Poverty.China Singapore Vietnam Thailand India Brazil Malayzia .Not long ago they were considered primitive feudal societies.Now we refer to them as Tiger Economies.
Maybe one day we might refer to emerging Hi Tech Enterprising Manufacturing based African nations as “Lion Economies”
Top Gear can go another road trip across Africa on Proper Roads.
No relation to the ideas in Savory’s presentation. Draft animals are animals hitched to equipment and yes, animal power can till much more land than a single person with a hoe.
I don’t know. Savory’s suggestions are basic farming common sense and practices in use for millennia. So there is nothing wrong with the basic suggestions. I take issue with his rather imaginative exaggerated narratives on why, but not basic rotational farming practice.
Without water, this practice will not perform miracles! Before all of you lovely believers in Savory’s desert rescues I strongly suggest that you purchase some of those “overgrazed” properties and then rescue it using Savory’s techniques… That would provide some proof to us miracle desert rescue doubters.
Excellent statement of reality Geoff! Thank you for adding this post.
Also great stuff about the reality of soils. Though I can’t quite agree fully with your statement that prairies only exist because of man. In the United States Prairies man certainly abetted or better phrased as managing prairies by natives using fire. Prairie fire use was also a method of harvesting small game in quantity by the natives. I am not as positive there is evidence for man maintaining the prairies of Asia, Canada and lower South America. I don’t flatly disagree, I’m just not convinced.
One of the ways to spot signs of people out in the American west is to look for trees. Trees are frequently the mark of man’s settlement in formerly treeless areas.
I saw the shorter version of Dr. Allan Savory TED talk (22 + minutes long) and I’m no farmer but it seems to make sense. If what he says is true, this would be a boon for the parts of the world where desertification has occurred. We need more arable land to feed a growing population. With a possible climate minimum in the future the more temperate parts of the world would have be the bread basket of the world.
farmerbraun says:
March 10, 2013 at 10:58 am
Re: crop rotation, pathogens & burning.
In my region, we’re pretty limited as to dryland rotation. The basic rotation is alternating years of summer fallow & winter (soft white) wheat, because two years of rain are needed to make a crop (spring barley is also possible, but doesn’t pay as well). Peas can be grown instead of summer fallow, because they use only the moisture close to the surface, whereas wheat roots grow down farther, & of course legumes fix N, saving a bit on fertilizer. But in a dry year peas can kill your wheat yield & in any case, the canneries (actually freezeries now), such as owned by former OR senator Smith (another Udall cousin), let few contracts these days.
In wet years, rust can be a threat, which burning does help deter, but to fight pathogens isn’t the main reason in this area.
A scientist discovering what farmers (me included) practice all year long since ages. It is sad to think that this guy has taken almost his entire life to (re-)discover what every farmer using rotating grasslands to feed livestock is required to know if he want to stay in the business next year.
Using the climate change meme to push his ‘research’ is disgusting (especially the wrong tirade on fossils fuels) and there is no word to describe my sentiment of him using a public tribune as a kind of redemption for his former and grave errors of judgement.
I just had a recollection from my teenage years that is relevant.
When I was a kid, my Dad rented some pastureland for our cattle to free range on. There was very little water on the land, it had to be hauled. My Dad insisted that the watering station be placed in the center of pasture. That kinda p*ssed me off because the person who had to haul the water was me, and driving an extra 2 km over uneven prairie with a 500 gal water tanking sloshing about on the back of the truck wasn’t my idea of a good time. So of course I wanted to know why all the way out in the center instead of at the corner where the road came in?
“So the cattle will graze in a circle.”
At the time I had no idea what he meant. But it became evident over time. The cattle would fan out and graze, then go for water. They’d generally tend toward the longest grass on the way back from the watering station, so would move in a circle around it. The shortest grass was always behind them, the longest always in front of them, and they would chase the long grass around in a circle over the course of the summer. Had the watering station been in one corner of the pasture, they would have constantly returned to that end, and on the way back, would have stopped at the first grass long enough to easily graze. So the area close to the watering hole would have been over grazed while the far end of the pasture would have been untouched.
Of course events like storms or invasion by a coyote pack or other disruptions would interrupt the pattern. But in general, just simply putting that watering station in the center of the pasture insured grazing rotation without much additional effort.
So environmentalists are capable of admitting they are many times totally wrong, even if it is just one. Never thought I would see the day. 😉
Very, very, good catch Anthony. This video needs to be spread far and wide for all to see, our future does depend on it.
So will pigs if you give them a chance. I’ve even seen pigs eat the tender stems of thistle. yeah they got thistle thorns in their mouth, they just chewed thistle slower with a funny slant to their jaws. Out at an Aunt’s place in California, I watched her pigs pull tumbleweed branches through her fence so they could eat the tender (well softer anyway) tips. For anyone unfamiliar with tumbleweed, if you’ve ever backed into a fir, cedar or cypress and gotten those sharp dry leaves down your shirt; they’re similar to mature tumbleweed leaves/seeds green or dry. Given a choice pigs will uproot plants and eat the roots; unable to uproot, they’ll eat what they can get.
Pigs are walking stomachs. Goats eat anything chewable, pigs eat anything they can swallow.
@John Tillman
‘In wet years, rust can be a threat, which burning does help deter, but to fight pathogens isn’t the main reason in this area.”
That makes sense. Wheat growers here have to contend with annual precipitation of 40 in. (1000mm). Very conducive to fungal growth, but pathogenic bacteria are also a big concern.
And of course , without adequate rainfall, you cannot get the biological activity needed to incorporate the straw any way. And the constant cultivation can be very hard on soil structure, further compromising biological activity through loss of pore space.
John Tillman says:
March 10, 2013 at 11:38 am
: Goats have this reputation because they are browsers, IMO. They eat enthusiastically vegetation, like blackberry vines, which would be a last resort for grazers.
FB: that’s right. Goats like a little bit of everything everyday. Confining them is a great way of getting unhealthy goats. And they do like a bit of crunch in their diet.
It is surprising how much browsing the grazers (cows and sheep) will do though, given the opportunity. Blackberry leaf and willow bark etc seem to be relished by cows, even in a diverse multi-species sward (which is a rarity in these parts where ryegrass/ white clover is the norm).
He has ignored two thirds of the Earth’s surface and only talks about a small proportion of the other third and then ignores all the ice deserts.