I may disagree on some points, but I probably come off harsher than I intend with this form of communication. If so, I don't intend to.
I think one thing should be remembered, letting land rest is not a new idea. It is recorded in Leviticus as being mandated for the Jews.
I don't doubt for a minute it helps with increased growth the following year/s. A plant that is not stressed will survive better than one that is overstocked.
What needs to be considered also is the amount of total production for a 10 yr period on the same ground with and without the proposed changes. This means including the total loss of the fallow years.
It makes sense that if your not taking a crop of whatever, there should be more nutrients and nitrogen left. So having a good year the next isn't a surprise to me.
One thing i do have a problem with is the accounting of intensive grazing/haying or whatever the correct term is. When cattle are used to build up the soil by feeding them in a concentrated area. The issue is that you have robbed Peter to pay Paul. The hay your using for build up fodder is coming from somewhere so the nutrient and nitrogen levels there are being consumed.
Matter is neither created or consumed in our universe, it is just redistributed. Some places may need it, we built up some sand hills like that. But I know that it's not without having to replenish what I'm taking elsewhere.