Adam Ormes

+ Follow
since Sep 04, 2012
Apples and Likes
Total received
In last 30 days
Total given
Total received
Received in last 30 days
Total given
Given in last 30 days
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand First Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Adam Ormes

Luke Townsley wrote:There have been a couple of university type field trials along those lines, with somewhat positive results, but they weren't optimized well at all for a positive outcome and haven't really been followed up on as far as I can tell.

Could you please provide a reference to these? Likewise if anyone knows of anyone else applying such a system...

5 years ago
Well, I'd say that the bread one tastes better.

As for different strains of yeast developing, presumably this would happen through selection by environment, unless there are yeasts that establish themselves on the bread after baking - the traditional thing is to use some stale bread with a crust on.

At the same time I've been wondering whether this might be an example of something Sandor Katz describes in his Art of Fermentation is that the DNA profile of bacteria can be influenced by the presence of dead bodies of other bacteria. I have yet to fully comprehend what he writes, but this may also be happening here...

Smacznego, indeed! Traditional borsch is made with beet kvass, plus some salt, honey, pepper, nice with a bit of allspice and pepper too. As with miso soup, best to heat minimally.
6 years ago
So, I did an experiment with my polish mother, who, by the way, never uses salt (I also tried using salt, in the quantities specified in Nourishing Traditions, and found that it did not ferment for me)

We made up one batch of beet kvass with a slice of rye bread and another without, kept them next to each other, and found the following:

After 3 days, bread batch is sourer than the non bread batch.

Also, bread batch produces a pleasant looking pinkish froth, whereas the non bread batch froth is brown, which suggests more oxidation.

Anyone care to speculate as to why this might be so?
6 years ago
I also include an excerpt from an interview where Allan responds to some of these criticisms:

Q: Your theories are undeniably innovative and have therefore been criticised by “official” science. Those who criticise your studies claim that the supporting data don’t have a scientific basis. How would you reply to that?

A: Holistic management involves addressing social, environmental and economic complexity both short and long term in any management situation from government or international organization’s policies to managing a crop farm or rangelands to reverse desertification. In all situations we use a modification of the universal underlying framework of conscious decision making, and wherever livestock are involved or required to reverse desertification, we then use the holistic grazing planning process to address that complexity.

Clearly management needs to be holistic and can never be reductionist, and using the holistic framework we transcend scientific disciplines while obviously using knowledge and scientific principles gleaned from all disciplines and even traditional knowledge for example in agriculture. As such holistic management lies outside the paradigm of range science believing that grasslands or rangelands can only be managed by various rotational and other grazing systems prescribed by range scientists. Prescribed by “experts” such management systems have, as I indicated in my TED talk, accelerated desertification even in the United States.

While there are a great many peer-reviewed studies supporting all of the science applied using both the holistic framework and it’s planned grazing, I am not aware of a single peer-reviewed paper that is critical of this process. There are I know many peer-reviewed papers published by range scientists critical of many of the short duration, rotational and other grazing systems that they believe and claim represent holistic management. None of those authors made any attempt to either understand or study holistic management lying as it does outside the paradigms of their profession.

The latest and most up to date paper allegedly critical of holistic planned grazing is one by Dr David Briske et al summarizing previous range science literature. But none of the papers cited bear any relationship to holistic management as outlined earlier. And Briske et al has been refuted by other academics, including one of the authors of the paper.

Unfortunately such “expert or authoritative” opposition is normal whenever a major paradigm shift occurs in science and it would be abnormal if this was not happening as has been written about since Galileo and is well described in “The Structure of Scientific Revolution” by Thomas Kuhn.

What we are experiencing is nothing but a paradigm paralysis problem. It required many years, and deaths, before brilliant cavalry officers could comprehend that barbed wire, machine guns and trenches had rendered horses impractical in modern tank and infantry battles. In like manner brilliant range scientists have yet to come to terms with understanding the replacement of all past rotational and other grazing systems prescribed by “experts” disregarding social, environmental and economic complexity. In this case tragically millions more men, women and children have been dying as the institutional paradigm shift gradually takes place.

As one respected American range scientist wrote recently in his blog, “I have no question that there is strong scientific support for holistic management.” There is considerable peer reviewed research supporting all the science applied in holistic planned grazing available to anyone interested, as well as a simple explanation of the Science & Methodology available at
7 years ago
Allan Savory's work appears to have been getting a lot of runaround in the media since his TED talk.

I propose that in this thread we might examine the points that have emerged from media responses to the talk.

My own position is that I would very much like it to be the case that what Allan is saying is true, and would very much like to play a part in rolling out his grazing practices all over the planet and sequester carbon back to preindustrial levels while regenerating damaged land if that is indeed the case.

Today I followed a link in the comments of a Guardian article called 'Peak soil: industrial civilisation is on the verge of eating itself' where Mr Savory's work was being discussed. It seems that awareness of his work is starting to go mainstream.

Having read this link and a number of other pages it links to, I see that there are quite many people pointing to evidence of where Allan's techniques have not worked out in practice. There likewise exist academic papers claiming the same.

For many, it seems that this has been enough to discard everything that Allan said. Given how important this work might be, I feel that it might be worth examining what these things are that are being pointed to.

Clearly, this is an emotive issue, and many will probably object to what Allan is saying out of principle, without even having looked at any of the evidence. It is also understandable that when one experiments a lot, a certain proportion of experiments will fail.

With all this considered, what I'd like to do is to be able to get a better understanding of what has gone on in the instances where people are claiming to have been disappointed by the application of Allan's grazing techniques.

Of all the pieces of commentary I have seen so far, this one probably features most of the points that people have been making in criticism of HM.

Anyone want to share their thoughts/feelings/experience on this matter?
7 years ago

William Bronson wrote:So far the acceptiblity of any post seems to be decided by a judgement call.

It is what it is.

Hi William,

I was hoping for some more clarity... therefore I asked. Paul will either decide to reply or not to reply.

It is what it is.

Ok, please see my reply in Paul's thread.

I have yet to post my new thread as I am as yet unclear as to whether it would meet the publishing standards.
Hi Paul,

Presumably the post you deleted was mine.

I can see that I may be guilty of a lack of care and finesse in how I put it together. It was done in haste.

This has been pointed out to me by some kind folks in this thread

I also now see that the word debate has an unfortunate context.

c.1300, from Fr. debattre (13c.), orig. "to fight," from de- "down, completely" + batre "to beat."


mid-14c., "to examine," from L. discuss-, pp. stem of discutere "to dash to pieces, agitate," in L.L. and V.L. also "to discuss, investigate"

What violence!

I can appreciate how you wish to encourage us to share our own experience rather than throwing our pet abstractions / hearsay about at each other. I find it very sad how abusive many internet discussions end up becoming, and I applaud your efforts to try to avoid this.

However, I am still a little confused as to what in your view constitutes 'debate', as opposed to sharing. I will give an example.

Let's say that I were to start sharing on my own experiences of how amazingly I have used a certain technique to improve soil fertility, etc, etc. I then start offering courses in said technique. Some people who pay for and attend my course are not convinced that I have been truthful about what I am claiming.

Would it not be appropriate for these people to respectfully question my claims if they saw reason to doubt that they were true? Or would such questioning constitute suggesting that anybody on is less than perfect?

Personally I feel that a community that is unable to examine itself critically is not destined for a prosperous future.

Or is it only once I start taking second hand claims and disseminating those that you are not happy?



Adam Klaus wrote:

Adam Ormes wrote:If one is not permitted to criticise and debate the efficacy of the practices promoted in this community, then I can't see much point in being here.

Too bad to be so self-defeating, a lot of learning will be missed with this mindset.

Please expand, if you would.

R Scott wrote:Stop the hate.

Paul has deleted threads for hating Monsanto. He has been pretty clear that he wants to focus on the positive.

If you can spin it and isolate it to only the positive on how to reach more people, great. If it turns into name calling of either side, game over.

Dear R. Scott,

I don't believe that anything I wrote was either hateful or name calling.

The article itself may have been a little harsh, but I was inviting discussion on it. I have since discovered more balanced articles criticising Mr Savory's work, and will give preference to those in my new thread.