"Improving Our Lot" - Planned Holistic Grazing, for starters..

[holwellcourtfarm]

On the other hand- before and after works well also as a demonstration. Highlight problems and weaknesses and then fix them.

Agreed. I was talking to Sheila on the course about possibly keeping a corner of the farm "reductionist" for comparison....

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Roadside verges are looking pretty happy after a grazing and a wee rest, can't exactly say how long since they were in here but they look tasty - so the heifers can give them a wee chew again at some stage.

Hopefully the calves don't go walkabout!
I'll use a 3 wire fence to be safe.

Multispecies mix is away, I'm moving them on at about this stage to try to "go easy" on it, would like to see the pretty flowers

Sarah got a cracking photo of our big lad with one of the speckles, while they were still in the mothering-on paddock

They seem to be milking OK, still no more calves on the deck but good things take time....

 

[texas pete]

Roadside verges are looking pretty happy after a grazing and a wee rest, can't exactly say how long since they were in here but they look tasty - so the heifers can give them a wee chew again at some stage.

Hopefully the calves don't go walkabout!
I'll use a 3 wire fence to be safe.

Multispecies mix is away, I'm moving them on at about this stage to try to "go easy" on it, would like to see the pretty flowers

Sarah got a cracking photo of our big lad with one of the speckles, while they were still in the mothering-on paddock

They seem to be milking OK, still no more calves on the deck but good things take time....

"Shock as calf eats South Island boy"!!! Actual footage...

Looks a good mix mate.

 

[Tyedyetom]

Roadside verges are looking pretty happy after a grazing and a wee rest, can't exactly say how long since they were in here but they look tasty - so the heifers can give them a wee chew again at some stage.

Hopefully the calves don't go walkabout!
I'll use a 3 wire fence to be safe.

Multispecies mix is away, I'm moving them on at about this stage to try to "go easy" on it, would like to see the pretty flowers

Sarah got a cracking photo of our big lad with one of the speckles, while they were still in the mothering-on paddock

They seem to be milking OK, still no more calves on the deck but good things take time....

Nice to see some spring sunshine, even if it’s the other side of the world!

 

[martian]

I did the 3 day fundamentals last week and met Bruce and thought the same thing about his services. Having recently installed several mains water supplys to take the pressure off ponds / bomb craters there's more that can be done to hold more water on the land, but it needs someone with experience and knowledge as those changes could have negative impacts to the current flora and trees.

Ahhh! So you're Inky...it was good to meet you
It was an interesting Course. I still haven't worked out my holistic context. All other work is currently on hold.

 

[exmoor dave]

+1
We always got more marks for "showing our workings" than having the correct answer, HM is (or should be) a journey, of discovery and experimentation.
I've got 4 or 5 groups pencilled in for this month, and I hope each and every one leave with more questions than answers (including @exmoor dave)....

IMO the process is much more interesting than "long grass and no fertiliser" or even the tools we use, as they are such common tools. It's all in how we use those tools, so at any point along the journey we are "open to scrutiny" as often we learn more via teaching than retaining old knowledge?

Looking forward to it Pete! ?

 

[bitwrx]

Ahhh! So you're Inky...it was good to meet you
It was an interesting Course. I still haven't worked out my holistic context. All other work is currently on hold.

I'm in a similar position @martian. Except I'm doing it from the book.

Question for the course attendees:
When defining the whole under management, we need to understand who are the 'decision makers' and who are the 'human resources'. That is, the people who make decisions within the whole, and those that are only affected by them.
If I consider our farm as a whole, I can immediately think of 5 decision makers. I suspect that 3 of them have probably never heard of holistic management, and probably have no interest in it, and one considers Savory to have 'dangerous ideas'. Introducing an exercise to 'define our holistic context' would be challenging, at best.

It makes sense that all decision makers need to be involved in defining a holistic contex, so is it even possible to use the HM framework if not all the decision makers in a particular whole are invested/engaged in doing so? Or does that automatically make them human resources of a smaller whole (i.e. me), that sits within a larger whole that can't be managed holistically?

 

[Poorbuthappy]

I'm in a similar position @martian. Except I'm doing it from the book.

Question for the course attendees:
When defining the whole under management, we need to understand who are the 'decision makers' and who are the 'human resources'. That is, the people who make decisions within the whole, and those that are only affected by them.
If I consider our farm as a whole, I can immediately think of 5 decision makers. I suspect that 3 of them have probably never heard of holistic management, and probably have no interest in it, and one considers Savory to have 'dangerous ideas'. Introducing an exercise to 'define our holistic context' would be challenging, at best.

It makes sense that all decision makers need to be involved in defining a holistic contex, so is it even possible to use the HM framework if not all the decision makers in a particular whole are invested/engaged in doing so? Or does that automatically make them human resources of a smaller whole (i.e. me), that sits within a larger whole that can't be managed holistically?

That's some difficult thinking and squaring of a circle right there.

 

[Cece]

It depends how you graze it, I'd think, and what with?
Plenty of steep slopes get grazed down these ways (rightly or wrongly) but damage and soil slip can be minimised - the main thing IMO is to have a backup plan because: "assume you are wrong"
With assuming you're wrong, comes the countering "you won't know if you don't test it".

Grazing with cattle. My thinking would be cut it for hay and leave it in the field, let the grass grow all around it then have them in there grazing it but have it electric fenced and back fenced as they move.

The long grass should hold more volume before complete destruct, also the back fence should keep it inlíne I'd hope

 

[RushesToo]

I'm in a similar position @martian. Except I'm doing it from the book.

Question for the course attendees:
When defining the whole under management, we need to understand who are the 'decision makers' and who are the 'human resources'. That is, the people who make decisions within the whole, and those that are only affected by them.
If I consider our farm as a whole, I can immediately think of 5 decision makers. I suspect that 3 of them have probably never heard of holistic management, and probably have no interest in it, and one considers Savory to have 'dangerous ideas'. Introducing an exercise to 'define our holistic context' would be challenging, at best.

It makes sense that all decision makers need to be involved in defining a holistic contex, so is it even possible to use the HM framework if not all the decision makers in a particular whole are invested/engaged in doing so? Or does that automatically make them human resources of a smaller whole (i.e. me), that sits within a larger whole that can't be managed holistically?

Is there a chance you can say "well granddad always used to say" and just pass on some of the principles.
Another trick is to use lots of the above and make what you want to do their idea - at which point you have to agree that that sounds like a good idea.

TBH, sometimes it might be easier to leave and go elsewhere, it can be too slow.

 

[Jungle Bill]

I'm in a similar position @martian. Except I'm doing it from the book.

Question for the course attendees:
When defining the whole under management, we need to understand who are the 'decision makers' and who are the 'human resources'. That is, the people who make decisions within the whole, and those that are only affected by them.
If I consider our farm as a whole, I can immediately think of 5 decision makers. I suspect that 3 of them have probably never heard of holistic management, and probably have no interest in it, and one considers Savory to have 'dangerous ideas'. Introducing an exercise to 'define our holistic context' would be challenging, at best.

It makes sense that all decision makers need to be involved in defining a holistic contex, so is it even possible to use the HM framework if not all the decision makers in a particular whole are invested/engaged in doing so? Or does that automatically make them human resources of a smaller whole (i.e. me), that sits within a larger whole that can't be managed holistically?

One way of deciding if someone is a decision maker is whether they have the power to veto any decision. Sometimes you have to work with wholes within the whole so that decision makers in a ‘sub whole’ (eg the arable team) are not directly involved in decision making for the whole (eg the whole estate) to get things started.
I always find defining the Holistic Context, and therefore identifying decision makers, the most difficult and critical part of the process. Once this is done the rest tends to follow; it is where a good facilitator really earns their money. If you manage to do it successfully from a book everything else will be simple.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I'm in a similar position @martian. Except I'm doing it from the book.

Question for the course attendees:
When defining the whole under management, we need to understand who are the 'decision makers' and who are the 'human resources'. That is, the people who make decisions within the whole, and those that are only affected by them.
If I consider our farm as a whole, I can immediately think of 5 decision makers. I suspect that 3 of them have probably never heard of holistic management, and probably have no interest in it, and one considers Savory to have 'dangerous ideas'. Introducing an exercise to 'define our holistic context' would be challenging, at best.

It makes sense that all decision makers need to be involved in defining a holistic contex, so is it even possible to use the HM framework if not all the decision makers in a particular whole are invested/engaged in doing so? Or does that automatically make them human resources of a smaller whole (i.e. me), that sits within a larger whole that can't be managed holistically?

If you mean that you have 5 or more Peuple in your business who can each support or veto a decision and some are intractable then yes, you have a huge challenge in implementing Holistic Management.

You may find it interesting to have a chat to @Samcowman about the matter.

It is worthwhile you defining your own holistic context. That process will help you decide where your own path lies. It's an empowering process once you complete it (always accepting that, like a will, your holistic context should constantly be subject to review and revision).

 

[Inky]

Ahhh! So you're Inky...it was good to meet you
It was an interesting Course. I still haven't worked out my holistic context. All other work is currently on hold.

And you, It was good to hang out with everyone for a few days. I left with an Excalibur sword ready to wield change which upon returning to the forest and all its complexity soon reverted to a rusty spoon. The rusty spoon is going to have a crack and rotational movements on the forest in quieter parts next year as a trial, time to do some "doing".

I imagine after 9 days you've transcended the written word and instead of writing the context the context will write you.

 

[bitwrx]

If you mean that you have 5 or more Peuple in your business who can each support or veto a decision and some are intractable then yes, you have a huge challenge in implementing Holistic Management.

You may find it interesting to have a chat to @Samcowman about the matter.

It is worthwhile you defining your own holistic context. That process will help you decide where your own path lies. It's an empowering process once you complete it (always accepting that, like a will, your holistic context should constantly be subject to review and revision).

By the definition in the HM book, yes there are 5 decision makers (including me) in the whole. Intractable isn't the right word; but I wouldn't anticipate any other decision makers actively engaging in a change of approach to management. (Although I haven't actually asked them, so could be unjustly misrepresenting them.)

I think my real question is: do all decision makers need to be involved in defining the holistic context?

As you suggest, working through my own holistic context is on the job list, and I hope it will give me a better understanding of the framework, and how it may be applied to my situation. I'm hoping @Samcowman and I can bounce ideas round as we go through all this.

That's some difficult thinking and squaring of a circle right there.

Is there a chance you can say "well granddad always used to say" and just pass on some of the principles.
Another trick is to use lots of the above and make what you want to do their idea - at which point you have to agree that that sounds like a good idea.

TBH, sometimes it might be easier to leave and go elsewhere, it can be too slow.

Don't worry @Poorbuthappy and @RushesToo, it ain't all that bad. This is only an intellectual exercise at this stage, so it doesn't really matter that I don't have the answer yet. Anyway, getting everyone pointing in the same direction (using HM or not) won't be half as hard as summoning the courage to actually make the changes.

 

[Inky]

I'm in a similar position @martian. Except I'm doing it from the book.

Question for the course attendees:
When defining the whole under management, we need to understand who are the 'decision makers' and who are the 'human resources'. That is, the people who make decisions within the whole, and those that are only affected by them.
If I consider our farm as a whole, I can immediately think of 5 decision makers. I suspect that 3 of them have probably never heard of holistic management, and probably have no interest in it, and one considers Savory to have 'dangerous ideas'. Introducing an exercise to 'define our holistic context' would be challenging, at best.

It makes sense that all decision makers need to be involved in defining a holistic context, so is it even possible to use the HM framework if not all the decision makers in a particular whole are invested/engaged in doing so? Or does that automatically make them human resources of a smaller whole (i.e. me), that sits within a larger whole that can't be managed holistically?

Do the other decision makers have veto on day-to-day activities? i think that would play a large part. I cannot implement HM to my whole organisation but i can do it to the section that i manage and have day-to-day control over. I have 2 superiors, a senior management team and a committee locally (as well as other organisational committees and directors) that can veto large projects but the general day-to-day and future planning is entrusted to me.

Even if you write a HM context for what you have control over it will give you a base to expand from. If you wish to expand it to the whole farm as a management plan there's no reason you can't drop mention of "HM" in the document if that upsets people.

 

[Farmer Roy]

• Home
• About Us
• Our Philosophy
• Our Bison
• Meat Sales
• Conservation Agriculture
• Contact
• Links
• More

What does the 'brittleness' of an ecosystem mean?
The 'brittleness' of an ecosystem, in the management sense, is a statement regarding it's capacity to support biological decay of dead plant material. The term 'brittleness' comes from the simple snap test where a stem of a plant is bent. If it snaps, it's dry and if it bends, it's moist. If humidity is high enough, dead vegetation will retain enough moisture to support biological decay. If humidity is too low, the dead vegetation will not decay, it will oxidize, a chemical process.

A 'brittle' environment is one in which humidity is very low and/or seasonally sporadic. The more 'brittle' the environment, the greater the number of days per year in which dead vegetation is dry. It is not a matter of total precipitation per year, but the distribution of humidity throughout the year.

The brittleness scale is not an objective scale, but a subjective judgement based on observation. In a 'wet' year, east-central Alberta would probably rate in the 4-5 range, but in a drought year, it would probably rate a 7-8. In general, it could be referred to as a 'semi-brittle' region but managing grasslands in this region will require adjustment based on year-on-year variation in rainfall.

Most of the world's grasslands ecosystems fit in the 'semi-brittle' to 'brittle' end of the scale.

Why does 'brittleness' matter?

Brittleness matters for a simple reason, it determines the mechanism(s) required to produce biological decay and prevent oxidative/chemical decay of dead vegetation. In order to support healthy soil, dead plant matter must break down biologically and the nutrients liberated from the old material be added to the soil. In addition, dead plant material that is left standing will prevent sunlight penetrating to the new leaves of young plants. With insufficient sunlight, this new growth is hampered in much the same way that a wood chip mulch will help prevent weed growth in a flowerbed. If left to decay chemically, grasslands lose biodiversity and biomass over time, causing the soil to develop a hard surface (poor water infiltration) and slowly open patches of soil open up where the plant life has died off. Exposed to sunlight, it overheats, killing remaining biology. Exposed to rain/wind, it begins to erode.

Therefore, in a semi-brittle or brittle environment, another mechanism is needed to force biological decay of plant material. In nature, this is provided by animal impact. Vast herds of bison, wildebeest, zebra, etc, eat and trample old vegetation. This trampled vegetation and dung is deposited in a shallow mat on the soil surface, protecting it from wind, rain and sun. This layer of soil is called the detritusphere. Because it is protected from wind and sun, humidity from the soil is trapped below and inside this mat. This creates a safe and hospitable living space for a multitude of insects, worms and other organisms that get to work breaking down the dead plant material and recycling it into the soil. In addition, this mat of decaying material, combined with the action of soil biology hard at work, create a spongy porous topsoil able to rapidly infiltrate precipitation, where it becomes available for use by plants and soil biology.

Above the detritusphere, the new plants now have only to put up shoots a short distance to find full sun. With unimpeded access to sunlight above the mat of dead vegetation, new plants can rapidly get on with photosynthesis and restarting the whole cycle.

It was the discovery of the vital importance of animal impact to semi-brittle and brittle grasslands ecosystems that lead to regenerative rangeland management systems.

 

[onesiedale]

I'm in a similar position @martian. Except I'm doing it from the book.

Question for the course attendees:
When defining the whole under management, we need to understand who are the 'decision makers' and who are the 'human resources'. That is, the people who make decisions within the whole, and those that are only affected by them.
If I consider our farm as a whole, I can immediately think of 5 decision makers. I suspect that 3 of them have probably never heard of holistic management, and probably have no interest in it, and one considers Savory to have 'dangerous ideas'. Introducing an exercise to 'define our holistic context' would be challenging, at best.

It makes sense that all decision makers need to be involved in defining a holistic contex, so is it even possible to use the HM framework if not all the decision makers in a particular whole are invested/engaged in doing so? Or does that automatically make them human resources of a smaller whole (i.e. me), that sits within a larger whole that can't be managed holistically?

@bitwrx
This is the exact dilemma I find myself in and a really am struggling to find a way forward. Annoyingly, it is me who is the 'older' generation and am constantly being put down for my 'way out' ideas about how HPG can really work. Even the landlord has joined in now insisting that all thistles must be sprayed next year and that a number of fences be taken down so he may gallop his horses

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Certainly non-brittle here this year, but a good point that it can change, and we must be ready for change if we're going to make the most of it @Farmer Roy

 

[Treg]

I'm in a similar position @martian. Except I'm doing it from the book.

Question for the course attendees:
When defining the whole under management, we need to understand who are the 'decision makers' and who are the 'human resources'. That is, the people who make decisions within the whole, and those that are only affected by them.
If I consider our farm as a whole, I can immediately think of 5 decision makers. I suspect that 3 of them have probably never heard of holistic management, and probably have no interest in it, and one considers Savory to have 'dangerous ideas'. Introducing an exercise to 'define our holistic context' would be challenging, at best.

It makes sense that all decision makers need to be involved in defining a holistic contex, so is it even possible to use the HM framework if not all the decision makers in a particular whole are invested/engaged in doing so? Or does that automatically make them human resources of a smaller whole (i.e. me), that sits within a larger whole that can't be managed holistically?

Consider them as a whole, look at it as a positive to bounce ideas of different people, you will learn who gives you positive & negative vibes & find your own path.
Mr Savory does have dangerous ideas as do all of us , sometimes asking someone with a different opinion can give you a light bulb moment even if initially you didn't agree with their opinion.

 

[ShooTa]

I suppose on the topic of those decision makers - you must also concider time.... or their influence over time

- im in a succesional position atm - so i have the planning and running, but not fund control (yep OUCH) but at the same time i get to play with some of my ideas in somewhat of a safe space. my context although mostly still in outline doesnt expand into the whole enterprise yet but will once the trial period ( 3-5 years) has been completed. \
so for me, the time for the whole context planning is an ongoing affair with an expected changeover of context makers.

for you it could be the ability to add decision makers in a staggered approach - each time tweaking your context should it need re jigging - -its the whole expecting your plan to fail and having backups upon backups.