Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "CuriousReason" channel.

  1. LARGE herds of bison left a completely "roughed" up landscape behind (but that only looked bad, if was beneficial). They had to move on FAST if the herd was large, not so much because of predators (there a large herd is much safer), but because a large herd could not find food for a longer time. If they were grazing in smaller groups (likely in spring when grass was the best) and before they joined the large wandering herds the pressure of predators kept them moving (so the slow overgrazing was counteracted). When acting as a large herd the hooves loosened the soil and they prevented thick undergrowth. They kinda ploughed it, but not as deep as a human plough and they did not upend the layers, just pierced it and opened it up, and they STOMPED down old grass, so new shots also had a chance, and got enough light. With cool nights (always except for the height of summer) moisture would condensate, or the occasional rain would start new growth. Large herds and their trampling rejuvenated the grass.
    1
  2. Goats are also valuable, there are breeds that eat grass only as last resort and they like the brushes that cattle and even sheep will not or cannot eat (they can eat plants that are poisonous for cattle. And they love to eat plants that cattle farmers hate and fear - if they prevail because of overgrazing the land becomes useless for them. And they are also a fire hazard. PBS Wyoming has a video online. Some travelling goat herders offer services. They put up an electric fence, their goats (cashmere) eat the shrubs that are the weed to others, after they cleared the meadow, the contractors move on. Cattle ranchers pay them, to restore land, and cities pay them to remove fire hazards (old dry brush). I also saw a video of Australia, Victoria. There the goats love to eat the blackberry bushes. After humans have fenced them in, which is some work because they first have to remove some undergrowth to even establish the electric fence. The goats eat the shots, leaves, fruit if there are any, they climb up the trees (the blackberries grow up the trees, and that is an extra fire hazard, because they are like tinder and lead a potential (even smaller) fire up the trees. Plus the old undergrowth is like tinder. Since the goats eat the young shots and trample down old undergrowth, new plants can come up. Grass. So in one year they will need 1 month in the area. Next year they do maintainance but then they are done in 10 days, the blackberries have not yet recovered from last year. The year after the job for the goats only lasts 1 week. So the forest now looks more like parkland, in that case that helps against wildfires (it is in the state of Victoria, a region where they have higher risks, and it is nearby a settlement).
    1
  3. It would be a good idea to quote the sources. for instance massive carbon sequestering in soil sounds like a stellar solution - but where is the date. I mean: good soil has a lot of bacteria and they need carbon to build their "body" (and the right kind of bacteria get nitrogen out of the air). I would VERY much prefer that to the industrial methods of building industrial plants that catch carbon out of the air (because a) aesthetics b) costs c) no waste when producting the machines, buildings, and hardly any energy necessary to promote an ecosystem versus building man made structures d) the money and income would go to small communities. People make a living in rural regions and not all have to flock to the cities. e) Job creation and redistributive effects. Within a wealthy country AND from first world to developing countries. Money does NOT go into the pockets of big biz. First they dragged their feet to do something against climate change, and environmental destruction (in most cases directly opposing measures). Life affirming / conserving = sustainable economic projects appear to be more "expensive" than normal agriculture or other forms of producing goods and services. Because they unload the costs for the long term damage to others or onto future generations, so the wheat or meat can be produced "cheaply", or they would rather pollute the water than install and invent methods to clean up the mess of industrial production where they create it. f) political benefits - (Islamic) radicalization in North Africa. See Egypt, ISIS etc. also recruited in North Africa. It has to do with lack of identity (having success as a nation !) and lack of perspective and economic development. Funneling money to the lower income groups there would create a lot of goodwill. the Islamic extremists can also recruit there with welfare measures, the nation states are too poor / corrupt to provide for the population. And the first world nations let their oligarchs exploit these countries instead of building them up to win them over as STABLE countries and allies. Egypt could have lots of tourism but that is undermined by safety concerns because of the Islamists that are there. And they must have some support by the population (or being tolerated). That would dwindle if they see that they are getting help. g) some of those areas might see a little eco tourism, and it protects endangered species. d) protecting endangered species and ecosystem. Agriculture that works with nature allows niches for wildlife. The sales prices in our allegedly "free markets" do not have to cover ALL the costs. So they are rigged markets. all of them (at least to a degree). Either exploiting mining or cheap labor in developing countries. All of them using too much fossil fuel (squandering in a few years what took millions of years to form). The "free market" does not create prices that cover in a fair manner ALL externalities. There will have to be some subsidies to level the playing field compared to conventionally produced agricultural products or other products. I'd rather have the subsidies going to the regular folks and small farmers in developing countries. That way there will not only be sequestering of carbon. They also will have a level playing field to compete with big ag. And a lot of benefits one does not get with carbon sequestering industrial plants. I can think of methods of earthwork where you bring up deeper layers, broken down rock but it is dense and not soil (like dense loam, clay). They could not be used for gardening as is, but they could be the raw material and humans work with it, using natural processes to upgrade it to soil. Clay can be used to build ponds, that can catch water and slowly release it into the aquifers. Dense dirt from deeper down (for instance when digging out for construction, or building ponds) would need mixing with lighter material (Sahara sand ??) and some help to get very robust plants started, but once their roots interact with the dense material they could build it up. That is how life started on the planet. Rock was ground down by weather or later by plant and bacteria (or cooled down lava) and very hardy plants incorporated it and upgraded the material. Same with Loess soil. Glaciers ground down rocks, the constant wind carried the fine particles away from the Northern glaziations (Antarctic is surrounded by ocean, so no rocks to grind down and it would have fallen into the ocean anyway). But on the Northern hemisphere the glaziations built rich Loess soils, some areas got a lot of that material (established patterns of wind currents). Some regions in China, Ukraine, but even as far away from the glaciers as Germany were the lucky recipients of lots of dust carried by wind - due to specific patterns of wind currents. The rich soil is excellent for vineyards or for agriculture in general. So the dust from ground down rocks blew towards the grass stepp, the cold steppe and further away. Plants incorporated the dust, it made for VERY RICH soils. Clay deposits are the insoluble parts of the rocks. Not sure if it is possible to upgrade it, but it could be used as building material. Even homes, or dams, bedrock of streets, lining lots of ponds (instead of foil !). Would create colonies with TONS of bacteria, and bacteria need carbon. They also need nitrogen there are plants that have nitrogen producing bacteria in their roots, legumes (for instance beans, but also plants that are fodder, I think clover is a legume as well. They improve fertility of soil because they get the nitrogen of the air into the soil.
    1
  4. Even the land nearby the wall of ice during the Ice Age in the Northern hemisphere was ice / snow free in the short spring / summer / fall. And it was always windy - from the Arctic to the warmer regions. There was hardy grass. It was a cold steppe, with standing hay. Too cold, too little rain and too windy for forests, and even bush was crippled (if it grew at all). Nearby the glaciers it was very dry, rain only in spring and fall, and in spring additionally the runoff from the glaciers that fed streams for a short time. That is where the mammoths and the wooly rhinocerus roamed, it was bitterly cold, always windy but DRY. There was not much snow in winter either (too dry). What precipitation fell, was sucked up by the glaciers, it snowed down over that wall of ice that covered the Arctic and Northern Europe, and fed it. The coarse outer fur and thick fine inner fur and thick layers of fat insulated mammoths and wooly rhinocerus as long as the insulation = fur stayed dry. They could take a spring rain when it was warmer (they moved South in early spring), but not when it started getting freezing temps again in fall. They coped well with the bitter cold as long as it was not wet = rain or even worse lots and heavy snow (soaking through their fur and undoing the effect of insulation). During late spring, short summer, late fall & winter they lived in the extremely cold land nearby the glaciers, and in winter they shoved the little snow aside (dry = not a lot of snow and it is powdery) and ate the standing hay from last summer. Only in spring they went to the "warmer" regions to the South to fatten up on the young grass, that shot up earlier because it was warmer and likely also wetter (more rain, and they were not limited to areas around the seasonal runoff streams). It was warm (but not hot) and fairly dry during summer in the Ice age - think central and South Europe, and that was way too hot for their excellent insulation. So once they had eaten the first green they returned to the bleak cold steppes close to the glaciers. In fall they also could stand the temperatures in the grassland that had a "milder" climate, but before the first heavy snow fell they had to return to their prefered habitat (when there is more precipitation snow will fall out as wetter / heavier snow and they could not deal with that a) insulation, and worse they could not shove it away to get the grass. A mammoth needs lots of fodder, they are not as good in using it as ruminants (with several stomachs, that are bioreactors with lots of bacteria that enrich the nourishment and help the animal to squeeze all value out of the plants). That is why mammoth & wooly rhinocerus went extinct after the last ice age ended. The cold steppes did not exist anymore. The soils were rich everywhere - thanks to the dust, it shows in the size of wildlife then and how they could afford huge antlers and dropped them every year (some deer did). Water was the limiting factor (if it is dry there will be grass land, or arid land / desert. Steppes feed more animals than forests. If there is enough rain, trees prevail over grass. In forests most of the biomass is in the trees, for feeding animals grass land is more effective. (and our fields with barley, wheat, rye, ... immitate that. these are grass plants).
    1