SHEFIK: ja fakt nevim. jedna z veci, u kterejch se fakt snazim proniknout do hloubky je interakce pudy, bylozravcu a lidi ...
ten text toho prehledu je dobrej, ale
'overgrazing – defined here as grazing at stocking densities higher than the land can support'
a
'Where soils are over-grazed, reducing the grazing pressure – including by removing the animals altogether if necessary until the vegetation recovers – can help'
prekonana definice/teorie - 'overgrazing' nesouvisi s pocty zvirat, ale casem
ad 'here defined' - zajimavy, ze to definujou, misto aby to definovali opet jako jeden specifickej pristup, resp. koncept prislusici nejaky [v dusledcich degenerativni] teorii pastvy - ie kde je studie srovnavajici dusledky aplikace techle teorii?
ad 'The Savory Institute hides the very detailed description of the specific practices involved behind a paywall' - lol, muzou si to koupit na amazonu - prirucka s explicitnima popisama vseho a pracovni sesity k tomu :D je to min za paywallem nez kazdej druhej vedeckej clanek, kterejma se to tam hemzi
....
ramcove souhlas:
it is clear is that the extremely ambitious claims its proponents make are dangerously misleading. The Institute claims that widespread application of its methods would lead to quite massive removals of carbon from the atmosphere – some 500 billion tonnes over 40 years. This would be enough, as it says,125,126,127 to ‘reverse climate change’ since about 555 billion tonnes carbon (or 2035 tonnes CO2) have been released into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. The Nordborg review128dismantles this claim extremely effectively and its conclusions are worth summarising here. First, Nordborg points out that the sequestration rate of 2.5 t C/ha/yr is substantially higher than all other peer-reviewed estimates (see Section 3.5 below). Second, the amount of grassland to which this is applied, 5 billion hectares, is considerably greater than most estimates of the area of grasslands that can be defined even loosely as grazing lands – Nordborg cites the estimate provided in the IPCC’s 2000 report on land use change, of 3.5 billion hectares.129,130 Third, it is vanishingly unlikely that this constant high sequestration rate could be maintained for 40 years since the rate of accrual diminishes over time as soils approach carbon equilibrium. Finally, Savory does not take into account the significant increases in methane and nitrous oxide that would result from higher livestock numbers.In many ways, the regenerative approach and its variants can also be seen as a socialmovement, appealing to people who are dissatisfied with conventional practices. Those attracted are often unusually motivated by considerations that go beyond the monetary, and tend to embrace the nuanced approach that is required. Emphasis is placed on community support, knowledge exchange, peer to peer learning and the replacement of inputs with knowledge.131,132,133,134 While these motivations are clearly laudable, their effectiveness serves to underline the importance of the social context ather than the merits of any one particular management regime. Regenerative grazing, applied well and by motivated farmers, could well benefit soils, build organic carbon matter and as such perhaps help sequester some carbon. However the overall gains are likely to be modest, are not exclusive to rotational practices, and will be time limited – and the problem of the other greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide – do not go away. There is an important difference between arguing that good adaptive management can improve soil quality and increase soil organic matter – and concluding that it offers the solution to our climate crisis.