The Savory Method

From Climate Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Savory Method is a system of intensive cattle ranching developed by Rhodesian counterinsurgency expert, Captain Allan Savory.

It has been widely promoted in the last decade by the Savory Institute in coordination with Big Ag and Big Oil companies as a climate solution and the only climate solution. It is neither - its ecosocial foundations have been rigorously and comprehensively discredited.

In terms of Climate Science, implementing Savory's method of intensive cattle ranching increases net greenhouse gas emissions on both a 100-year and 20-year timeframe, even according to studies produced by its leading advocates, practitioners, and financial backers. Denials, distortions, and omissions are found where the matter of Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions is raised - the two main emissions which help make big cattle one of the largest contributors to global heating, climate collapse, and the sixth mass extinction.

Although the Savory Method is frequently, and often deliberately conflated with "regenerative grazing," "holistic grazing," and "rotational grazing" more broadly, there are many grazing systems and techniques which ARE actually regenerative and do not rely on cowboy mythology or large cattle monocultures.

See, for example, over 5000 years of Indigenous rotational grazing stewarded regeneratively with the Pte Oyate across the Great Plains of Turtle Island.

Definition

Technical

The AMP Grazing Method as illustrated by Standard Soil, founded by Russ Conser a 30-year expat of Shell Oil. It inaccurately equates this system with natural bison grazing patterns.[1]

AMP Grazing (Adaptive Multi-Paddock Grazing) is an adaptive system of grazing which typically uses a system of movable fencing to rotate grazing herds of livestock across multiple sub-paddocks of a given rangeland. It was designed above all with cattle in mind, but is also used with other ruminants.

It is often referred to by many other names:

  • It belongs to a category of grazing methods which include other forms of rotational grazing that are also time controlled grazing and short-duration grazing. However, other systems of rotational grazing - such as those practiced by Indigenous pastoralists and hunters for millennia - differ in many key respects.
  • While sometimes referred to as regenerative grazing, holistic management, and holistic resource management, its regenerative and holistic credentials have been thoroughly discredited.
  • As the method developed by Allan Savory, it is often referred to as the Savory Method, and was first called the "Savory Grazing Method" by Allan Savory and Sid Goodloe in 1969.

Theoretical

In a speech for the Mulloon Institute, Savory describes how he "drew heavily on the theory of General Jan Smuts, Prime Minister of Apartheid South Africa who in 1926 wrote 'Holism and Evolution'" to form his theoretical framework of holistic management. Within this framework, Savory claims that despite having "no expertise in climate change," he "solved the problem by using 300 years of European military experience of planning in immediate battlefield situations. What they had worked out for complicated fast changing situations, I simply adapted and developed as a grazing planning process."[2]

Regarding organic gardening/agriculture and chemical pesticides:

Nothing should be included in any holistic context that is a prejudice against any future action. We would not say, for example, organic. Why? Because that’s a prejudice against chemicals, and that prejudice should be kept out of the context.[3]

Critical Summary

The efficacy of Savory's method of cattle grazing is predicated on five assumptions and an article in the International Journal of Biodiversity addressed all five assumptions necessary for the Savory method to hold any validity, focusing on "western North American arid and semiarid ecosystems, principally in the desert, steppe, grassland, and open conifer woodland biomes"[4]

The responses to Allan Savory's assumptions are summarized below:

Assumption 1: Plant communities and soils of the arid, semiarid, and grassland systems of the world evolved in the presence of large herds of animals regulated by their predators

Western US ecosystems outside the prairies in which bison occurred are not adapted to the impact of large herds of livestock. Recent changes to these grassland ecosystems result from herbivory by domestic livestock which has altered fire cycles and promoted invasive species at the expense of native vegetation.

Assumption 2: Grasses in these areas will become decadent and die out if not grazed by these large herds or their modern day equivalent, livestock

...Grazing and trampling by domestic livestock damage plants in natural plant communities, reduce forage production as stocking rates increase, and can lead to simplification of plant communities, establishment of woody vegetation in grasslands, and regression to earlier successional stages or conversion to invasive dominated communities and altered fire cycles. In contrast to the assertion that grasses will die if not grazed by livestock, bunchgrasses in arid environments are more likely to die if they are heavily grazed by domestic animals...

...Grasses, particularly bunchgrasses, have structure that protects growing points from damage, harvests water, and protects the soil at the plant base. Removal of the standing plant material exposes the growing points, leading to loss or replacement by grazing tolerant species, including invasives.

Assumption 3: Rest from grazing by these large herds of livestock will result in grassland deterioration

...grasslands that have never been grazed by livestock have been found to support high cover of grasses and forbs. Relict sites throughout the western USA, such as on mesa tops, steep gorges, cliff sides, and even highway rights of way, which are inaccessible to livestock or most ungulates, can retain thriving bunchgrass communities...

...Published comparisons of grazed and ungrazed lands in the western USA have found that rested sites have larger and more dense grasses, fewer weedy forbs and shrubs, higher biodiversity, higher productivity, less bare ground, and better water infiltration than nearby grazed sites. These reports include 139 sites in south Dakota, as well as sites that had been rested for 18 years in Montana, 30 years in Nevada, 20–40 years in British Columbia, 45 years in Idaho, and 50 years in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona. None of the above studies demonstrated that long periods of rest damaged native grasslands...

...Contrary to the assumption that grasses will senesce and die if not grazed by livestock, studies of numerous relict sites, long-term rested sites, and paired grazed and ungrazed sites have demonstrated that native plant communities, particularly bunchgrasses, are sustained by rest from livestock grazing.

Assumption 4: Large herds are needed to break up decadent plant material and soil crusts and trample dung, urine, seeds, and plant material into the soil, promoting plant growth

... Hoof action is not needed to increase soil fertility and decomposition of litter. It is well-established that soil protozoa, arthropods, earthworms, microscopic bacteria, and fungi decompose plant and animal residues in all environments. Even the driest environments contain 100 million to one billion decomposing bacteria and tens to hundreds of meters of fungal hyphae per gram of soil. Brady and Weil discuss the importance of mammals in the decay process, mentioning burrowing mammals, but not large grazers such as cattle and bison. Removal of plant biomass and lowered production resulting from livestock grazing can reduce fertility and organic content of the soil...

...We found no evidence that hoof action as described by Savory occurs in the arid and semiarid grasslands of the western USA which lacked large herds of ungulates such as bison that occurred in the prairies of the USA or the savannahs of Africa. No benefits of hoof action were found. To the contrary, hoof action by livestock has been documented to destroy biological crusts, a key component in soil protection and nutrient cycling, thereby increasing erosion rates and reducing fertility, while, increasing soil compaction and reducing water infiltration.

Assumption 5: High intensity grazing of these lands by livestock will reverse desertification and climate change by increasing production and cover of the soil, thereby storing more carbon

Among the most recent HM claims is that livestock grazing will lead to sequestration of large amounts of carbon, thus potentially reversing climate change. However, any increased carbon storage through livestock grazing must be weighed against the contribution of livestock metabolism to greenhouse gas emissions due to rumen bacteria methane emissions, manure, and fossil fuel use across the production chain. Nitrous oxide, 300 times more potent than methane in trapping greenhouse gases, is also produced and released with livestock production. The livestock industry’s contribution to greenhouse gases also includes CO2 released by conversion of forests to grasslands for the purpose of grazing....

...Some suggest that grass-fed beef is a superior alternative to beef produced in confined animal feeding operations. However, grass provides less caloric energy per pound of feed than grain and, as a consequence, a grass-fed cow’s rumen bacteria must work longer breaking down and digesting grass in order to extract the same energy content found in grain, while the bacteria in its rumen are emitting methane. Comparisons of pasture-finished and feedlot-finished beef in the USA found that pasture-finished beef produced 30% more greenhouse gas emissions on a live weight basis...

...It is estimated that three times as much carbon resides in soil organic matter as in the atmosphere, while grasslands and shrublands have been estimated to store 30 percent of the world’s soil carbon with additional amounts stored in the associated vegetation. Long term intensive agriculture can significantly deplete soil organic carbon and past livestock grazing in the United States has led to such losses. Livestock grazing was also found to significantly reduce carbon storage on Australian grazed lands while destocking currently grazed shrublands resulted in net carbon storage. Livestock-grazed sites in Canyonlands National Park, Utah, had 20% less plant cover and 100% less soil carbon and nitrogen than areas grazed only by native herbivores. Declines in soil carbon and nitrogen were found in grazed areas compared to ungrazed areas in sage steppe habitats in northeastern Utah. As grazing intensity increased, mycorrhizal fungi at the litter/soil interface were destroyed by trampling, while ground cover, plant litter, and soil organic carbon and nitrogen decreased. A review by Beschta et al. determined that livestock grazing and trampling in the western USA led to a reduction in the ability of vegetation and soils to sequester carbon and also led to losses in stored carbon...

...Livestock are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock removal of plant biomass and altering of soil properties by trampling and erosion causes loss of carbon storage and nutrients as evidenced by studies in grazed and ungrazed areas.[5]

Critiques

Land-use change

An estimated 20–35% of grazing lands globally suffer from some form of degradation.[6]

Grassland-Grazer Relationship

A vital argument in Allan Savory's intensive cattle ranching scheme is predicated around the idea that grasses evolved alongside herds of animals traveling together to escape their natural predators. Savory's arrogance knows no bounds, because his argument is functionally saying he holds exclusive knowledge to the way grasses have evolved and through his unlocking of said knowledge he is able to impart it unto the general public and to cattle ranchers to save the planet.

Grassland Deterioration

According to Allan Savory grasslands begin to deteriorate when ungulates are not grazing the land. Studies have shown that allowing lands to rest from cattle grazing actually improves the health of the area versus intensive grazing. Savory also asserts that biological crusts in desert grasslands are contributing to desertification, but the contrary is true, biological crusts help stabilize soils and protect from wind erosion and carbon loss.[7][8]

Biological soil crusts (BSCs) are key components of drylands that form complex communities of cyanobacteria, lichens, and bryophytes, which are essential for ecosystem functioning and response to disturbance. These communities adhere to and interact with the soil surface in vegetation-free interspaces, and thus, are exposed to particularly stressful habitats with low soil moisture and high UV exposure. Biological soil crusts can be considered a keystone functional component of these ecosystems, as well as ecosystem engineers as they play disproportionately important roles in ecosystem functioning. These roles include: (1) stabilizing soils, thus protecting them from erosion; (2) contributing nitrogen and carbon to soils otherwise impoverished by these elements ; (3) heavily influencing local to regional hydrological processes; (4) notably participating in ecosystem biogeochemistry; and (5) by providing suitable habitat for a diverse and abundant soil microfauna[9]

Biocrusts' effects on the general health of soil varies from region to region, but livestock grazing disturbs and destroys these biological crusts everywhere further debunking the claims made by the Savory Institute.[10]

Biodiversity

Studies in favor of Holistic Management grazing techniques do not take into consideration biodiversity when evaluating the efficacy of said technique let alone do the studies make comparative analysis regarding native species and non-native species before and after grazing has occurred.[11]

Riparian Zones

Are parts of land that are right next to bodies of water such as streams and rivers. These are delicate ecosystems and studies have shown that grazing has a negative impact on these types of land. The negative impacts include trampling of the delicate soils which leads to compaction of the soil in turn reducing water filtration and storage rates of the soil while increasing surface runoff and soil erosion during storms. The negative impacts are compounded when more cattle is introduced and maximizing cattle numbers is one of the main components of Holistic Management.[12]

Carbon Sequestration

A major claim by Allan Savory is that the non-forested lands across the globe are capable of sequestering all the carbon in the atmosphere in effect reversing climate change. Researches studying the Holistic Management technique have shown "...that the potential carbon sequestration of these lands is only about one to two billion metric tons per year (mtpy), a small fraction of global carbon emissions of 50 billion mtpy..." Furthermore, they explain "...that these lands would have to produce much larger vegetation biomass than they are capable of producing in order to sequester human-caused carbon emissions and that much of the carbon is released back to the atmosphere through respiration as CO2. They note that grass cover increases dramatically with rest and intensive grazing delays this recovery; many desert grassland soils are sandy, so hoof action does not increase infiltration; and biological crusts stabilize these soils and protect them from wind erosion and carbon loss." [13] [14] [15] Researchers studying grazing have made it abundantly clear that increased cattle grazing will not result in the promised levels of sequestration asserted by Allan Savory[16] and that the best method for restoring grasslands and increasing carbon sequestration in said areas is by rest and reducing grazing not by increased grazing.[17]

Biological crusts are also important in the cycling of carbon on range-land and studies have shown that intensive grazing destroys these crusts which will result in decreased carbon sequestration and storage.[18]

Soil-Carbon-Loss Feed-Back-Loop

Allan Savory's intensive cattle practice if applied across the globe would inevitably lead to an increase in methane emissions and would lead to an increase in warming in the short term, because of the potent nature of methane emissions compared to carbon dioxide. The increase in methane emissions leading to increased warming would theoretically feed into a soil-carbon feed back loop, because as warming occurs the general consensus among researchers is as warming increases carbon persistence decreases, meaning more carbon is released into the atmosphere.[19] This feedback loop, which the savory method perpetuates would seem to counteract any potential net-benefits of carbon sequestration.

Agro-Ecological Context

"The effects of any particular grazing management regime on livestock productivity will thus be critically determined by the specifics and constraints of climate, rainfall, elevation, soil type, landscape position and vegetation mix. This of course will also be true as to the effects of these factors on soil carbon."[20]

Soil-Carbon Equilibrium

Even if the Savory technique is able to build soils in turn sequestering carbon, eventually the soils will reach a carbon equilibrium and sequestration rates will decline dramatically if not end all together. Therefore, eventually the soils will stop sequestering carbon, but the livestock will continue emitting methane and nitrious oxide, which will eventually counteract any previous sequestration.[21]

Methane

"Methane emissions related to human activity are on the rise. (NASA Earth Observatory image by Joshua Stevens, using data from CDIAC.)"

"Methane makes up just 0.00018 percent of the atmosphere, compared to 0.039 percent for carbon dioxide. (CO2 is roughly 200 times more abundant.) Yet scientists attribute about one-sixth of recent global warming to methane emissions; what methane lacks in volume it makes up for in potency. Over a 20-year period, one ton of methane has a global warming potential that is 84 to 87 times greater than carbon dioxide. Over a century, that warming potential is 28 to 36 times greater."[22] Furthermore, the EPA's models evaluating methane emissions have been reported to drastically underestimate the warming potential of methane and its accounting of the greenhouse gas "is “arbitrary and unjustified” and three times too low to meet the goals set in the Paris climate agreement."[23][24]

Methane concentrations began rapidly increasing in 2007 leading some scientists to speculate feed-back loops are perpetuating methane levels.[25] "Methane emissions carry especially large risks of triggering or accelerating these feedback loops due to the fact they cause so much warming in the short term."

In 2021, researchers published a paper showing that record-levels of rain in East Africa caused wetlands in the region to release huge amounts of methane. As the planet warms, many wetlands are expected to get more rain and release more methane.
Melting permafrost is also causing concern amongst climate scientists. In recent decades, the Arctic has warmed about four times faster than the rest of the planet. In this warmer environment, microbes are feasting on once-frozen organic matter and releasing methane and carbon dioxide in the process.[26]

A study published by Xin Lan, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA, indicated that microbial sources of methane—like wetlands, cattle, and landfills—are responsible for the bulk of the recent emissions growth- he postulated that up to 85% of added emissions since 2007 can be attributed to microbes.[27] Methane emissions must be reduced by 45% over the next decade in order to limit warming to 1.5 degree celsius.[28] Reducing methane emissions in the status quo is key to slowing down perpetual global heating.[29]

The savory institute claims there is no correlation between increased concentrations of atmospheric methane and livestock cattle grazing and used a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency to support their claim.[30] While there are natural processes contributing to methane emissions there is no denying that anthropogenic emissions of methane have drastically increased since the industrial revolution alongside expanding industrial agriculture.[31]

A solely grass diet produces more methane than a grain fed diet, because grass contains less caloric energy per pound, which requires cow's rumen bacteria to work longer breaking down and digesting the grass meanwhile the stomach's bacteria is emitting methane. "Comparisons of pasture-finished and feedlot-finished beef in the USA found that pasture-finished beef produced 30% more greenhouse gas emissions on a live weight basis"[32] Drastically increasing the amount of livestock grazed on a grass diet would logically increase the amount of methane that is emitted into the atmosphere during a time when decreasing methane, in every way possible, is key to slowing global warming and halting feed back loops perpetuating the release of methane into the atmosphere.

... although the warming impact of a given tonne of the gas may be transitory, if the source of the gas continues to exist, so do the effects. For a steady rate of methane release – as emitted by a constant number of cattle – the warming effects of a tonne of gas emitted tomorrow, replaces the dwindling effects of the tonne of gases emitted today. This means that the warming effect of methane in the atmosphere persists even if it does not increase. In reality of course, the number of cattle being raised is not constant, but increasing. As a result, the warming contribution from methane release is not just persisting, but increasing too, albeit slowly as livestock production efficiencies improve. Note that the gains in ruminant livestock efficiencies achieved through feeding, breeding and husbandry often also mean an increase in fossil fuel dependence.[33]

Nitrous Oxide

Nitrogen

Advocates of intensive grazing claim livestock add nitrogen to soils, but the reality is that they are not adding new nitrogen, but simply redistributing nitrogen already present in the land acquired through eating forage.

Soil Health

Livestock grazing has been proven to compact soil[34], reduce infiltration and aeration[35] and increase runoff, erosion, and sediment yield. Allan Savory's assertions that cattle grazing is necessary to break down organic matter into soils, help plant seeds, and incorporate manure/ urine into soils ignores already occurring biological processes- resulting in the same alleged benefits of Holistic Management techniques.[36]

Industrial Breeding

In Who Really Feeds the World? Dr. Vandana Shiva critiques industrial breeding as a harmful aspect of industrial agriculture for two reasons:

1. "Industrial breeding focuses on yields of one or two global commodities, not on the diverse crops that people actually eat. Here, the focus is on quantity per acre rather than nutrition per acre, when in fact, nutrition per acre has been reduced as a result of industrial agriculture." 2. "Industrial breeding, including genetic engineering, uses natural resources intensively and wastefully. If productivity was defined on the basis of resource use, industrial agriculture has very low productiity and undermines food security by using up resources that in a sustainable system of produciton could have been directly used to produced more food." [37]

Understood in these terms, industrial breeding is central to Savory's system of rangeland management. The explicit goal of Savory's system of rangeland management is to increase both the total and per capita amount of cattle grazing across the planet. His focus is explicitly on the quantity of cattle per acre, without accounting for nutrition per acre. Compared to (nearly) all other protein sources, grass-fed beef is extremely wasteful in terms of excessive land and water use, even under intensive grazing systems. 5-10x as much protein per acre (or more) can be produced with numerous polyculture cropping systems that effectively build soil organic carbon while raising a wide range of plants and/or animals in a diverse food system.[38]

Reductionist Thinking

Furthermore, the Savory Method is based on reductionist and mechanistic thinking, managing land holistically only relative to supporting intensive (cattle) grazing. Adaptive multi-paddock grazing, by definition, functions by reducing a whole grassland into parts which are then rotationally managed through the mechanism of mobile fencing. Such a paradigm of mechanistic and reductionist thinking is how Dr. Vandana Shiva defines a Monoculture of the Mind:

"A Monoculture of the Mind imposes one way of knowing - reductionist and mechanistic - on a world with a diversity and plurality of knowledge systems, These knowledge systems include the knowledge and expertise that come from practice, experience, and working with nature as a partner."[39]

Rather than working with grazing animals as partners as Indigenous peoples have for millennia, the Savory method views livestock mechanistically, as tools to be used. Pablo Borelli, creator of the Savory Institute's EOV protocol, describes the industrial breeding of cows for "regeneration" in these terms:

“The cow, in addition to being a tool to produce calves, contributes to regenerating soils...”[40]

Within this paradigm, Borelli's strategic vision as the CEO of Ovis 21 and in partnership with Ruuts is to increase the application of the Savory Method 100-fold across Argentina to encompass the management of ~150 million acres of Native grassland. [41]

The mechanistic reduction of grazing animals to livestock tools was a central feature of Allan Savory's widely viewed, promoted, and discredited 2013 TED Talk:

"We have to use large ungulates mimicking nature of old as a tool in some manner, and that today in practical terms means livestock, we must add them to our human toolbox."[42]

He appeals to this paradigm frequently in interviews:

"They’re not part of the solution, the solution is impossible without them. It goes deeper than what you’re saying. You see, look at it this way, humans have to use a tool."[43]

And again, in a presentation for the Capital Institute in 2015:

"By using a holistic framework with an overarching context to guide management and by using livestock as tool, results became consistent and have been ever since."

"It is possible to reverse global man-made desertification contributing to climate change. What makes it possible is adding livestock in as a tool."

"For over 300 years in Europe, military leaders fighting battles had to manage extremely complicated circumstances that were changing all the time and had to work out how to come up with the best possible plan right away... They have to plan these complex situations for a whole year or more. How on earth can we do that? Oh, it’s so logical: just put it on a chart... After that you can plot where to put the animals to get them in the right place at the right time with the right behavior while using them as tools to address desertification. Lo and behold, that simple! I designed it, did it, and it worked. It worked immediately because it had 300 years of experience behind it, and I can say to you with all sincerity that I am not aware of a single failure in now over fifty years if people do it this way."[44]

The derivation of this mechanistic relation with grazing animals from European military strategy and arrogant reckoning of this method as infallible firmly identifies the Savory Method as a subset of the militaristic and hegemonic violent knowledge paradigm Dr. Vandana Shiva defines as essential to industrial monocultures in Who Really Feeds the World?[45]

Ecocidal Imbalance

Visualization of 2018 study in The Guardian.

Due to livestock intensification (above all of cattle), and the mass killing of ~85% of wild mammals, the biomass of livestock mammals currently outweighs the biomass of wild mammals by 15-1, and accounts for 60% of all mammalian biomass. Cattle make up the majority of this, and have historically been a significant driver of biodiversity-destroying deforestation. The industrial breeding of cattle accelerates, rather than rectifying, this planetary ecocidal imbalance.[46][47]

1980's Cattle Intensification

In 1987, organizations such as Earth First! and Defenders of Wildlife publicized the failures of the Savory Method as applied in the arid southwest of U.S. Occupied Turtle Island over the previous decade since Savory fled Rhodesia into exile:

Despite the way it is advertised, HRM has been implemented almost exclusively by livestock ranchers and their government agencies in order to increase numbers of livestock and, therefore, profits. Most public range allotments where HRM is practiced show little or no environmental improvement; many HRM ranchers have increased livestock numbers, but not without harming the vegetation. Again, consider the words of (Defenders of Wildlife Southwest Representative Steve) Johnson:

"Several ranches in Arizona are now into their fourth or fifth year under HRM and under Savory's direct guidance. One example is the Dodson Allotment on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.... In late August of 1986, Forest Supervisor Nick McDonough examined the Dodson Allotment and found that there '... was not enough grass left to carry the cows through the winter, or any reserve left for wildlife or plant vigor.' The rancher was forced to move his cattle to another allotment that had been intended for winter elk range... [T]he results of recent research in the November 1986 issue of the Journal of Range Management, if accurate, strongly refute the claim that grazing systems such as HRM halt erosion and desertification. Five studies in Texas and New Mexico find that short duration, high intensity grazing as recommended by Savory caused a decline in the water infiltration rate and an increase in sediment production or erosion. Instead of making the soil more permeable, soil compaction was occurring, causing greater water runoff...

In direct opposition to Savory's ideas, one study concluded that "... rest, rather than intensive livestock activity, appears to be the key to soil hydrologic stability." One of the best examples of long-term rest from cattle grazing is in the National Audubon Society's 8000 acre Research Ranch, near Elgin, Arizona. The Research Ranch is a natural antithesis to Savory's teachings that rest from livestock grazing is bad for a "brittle" environment. For nearly 20 years, cattle have been absent from what was formerly intensively grazed. Vegetation now covers 80% of the land surface of the ranch - up from 20% in 1969. Short-grass has been replaced by tall- and mid-grass. There are many more flowering plants than found on lands where grazing still occurs. The increase in cover and vegetative diversity has supported an increase in diversity and population size of birds, small mammals and insects.... Southwestern geological history does not support the thesis that there is a need for "herd impact," as defined by Savory. According to paleontologists, none of the arid southwestern states have had large herbivores present for at least 10,000 years. The last one, in fact, was the giant ground sloth. Buffalo were not found west of the Texas Panhandle or south of Wyoming. The deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep native to the arid Southwest were never numerous enough to generate any "herd effect" that even comes close to that of the buffalo on the Great Plains. The vegetative response of areas such as Audubon's research Ranch to the banning of cattle is a further indication that many of the native plants did not evolve in the presence of large herbivores, and do not benefit from the impacts of such grazing today.

The weight of all available scientific evidence regarding livestock grazing in an arid environment - such as today's Southwest - shows that grazing is far from benign. This is a boom and bust land. Native species are adapted to wait out the extremes of heat and aridity and take full advantage of the periods of heavy rains. The land is simply not capable of furnishing a steady state of resource withdrawal, such as the 10,000 pounds of plants consumed each year by one cow.[48]

Response to Critiques

According to Allan Savory, scientific evidence against his methods is irrelevant because holistic management "cannot be peer-reviewed." He has made this argument several times, perhaps most recently on Twitter in March of 2021[49] in response to scientific evidence showing that the beef supply White Oak Pastures provides for General Mills was heavily greenwashed. [50] White Oak Pastures is a "frontier founder" of the Savory Institute Land to Market program, which has inaccurately advertised WOP's products as "carbon-negative beef."[51]

Savory has also argued that his method has never failed in 50 years because it has "300 years of experience" derived from European military planning behind it.[52]


"Studies commonly held up as supporting HM used HM paddocks that were grazed with light to moderate grazing, not the heavy grazing that Savory recommends. Further, long-term range studies have shown that it is reductions in stocking rate that lead to increased forage production and improvements in range condition, not grazing system." Additionally effectiveness studies of Holistic Management have consisted of ranchers and farmers already committed to the practices and livestock producers who have had negative experiences with Holistic Management are generally omitted from studies. [53]

Allan Savory has created a niche agricultural science that allegedly cannot be refuted, because the system is applied differently in every circumstance, but there are ways to analyze the efficacy of the framework, despite the assertions made at the Savory Institute:

When addressing the application of HM or any other grazing systems, practitioners, including agencies managing public lands, private livestock operations, and scientists, should (1) consider inclusion of watershed-scale ungrazed reference areas of suitable size to encompass the plant and soil communities found in the grazed area, (2) define ecological (plant, soil, and animal community) and production (livestock) criteria on which to base quantitative comparisons, (3) use sufficient replication in studies, (4) and include adequate quality control of methods. Economic analysis of grazing systems should compare all expenditures with income, including externalized costs such as soil loss, water pollution, reduction of water infiltration, and carbon emissions and capture.[54]

"Mr Savory’s attempts to divide science and management perspectives and his aggressive promotion of a narrowly focused and widely challenged grazing method only serve to weaken global efforts to promote rangeland restoration and C sequestration. The false sense of hope created by his promises, expressly regarding some of the most desperate communities, are especially troubling. Scientific evidence unmistakably demonstrates the inability of Mr Savory’s grazing method to reverse rangeland degradation or climate change, and it strongly suggests that it might actually accelerate these processes."[55]

Appropriation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge

Allan Savory is able to side step valid criticisms of his grazing technique by saying his method is a holistic approach to ecological management and there are differences from application to application. This epistemic lens is a hijacking of Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge and acts as epistemological justification to ignore scientific criticism.

See also: Savory_Institute#Buffalo_Branding

Holistic Management's Research Portfolio

Based upon analysis of the Savory Institute's research portfolios of 2013 & 2014 researchers, at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, concluded:

Based on the material reviewed here, there is only indicative evidence for the general superiority of holistic grazing over other grazing systems or no grazing. There is definitely not enough evidence to support broad generalizations concerning the performance of holistic grazing in different conditions. In addition, it is not clear what causes the positive outcomes in holistic grazing; nutrient input to depleted soils, high stocking densities over short periods of time, the adaptive management, the commitment and expectations of ranchers, or other factors.

The review of the research portfolio of the Savory Institute shows that there are a number of scientific studies that show that different types of rotational grazing systems performs better than conventional continuous grazing or no grazing, in a number of aspects. It appears that under certain circumstances practitioners of holistic grazing achieve better results than their conventional counterparts. Results from the few existing review studies do not, however, conclusively confirm these positive findings. Further, it should be noted that the studies included in the research portfolio are relatively limited in time, space and amount of analysed data. To some extent results point in different directions and the changes are in most cases relatively small.[56]

Desertification and Deforestation

TreeLoss.jpg

The UN has defined desertification as a “diminution or destruction of the biological potential of the land which can lead ultimately to desert-like conditions.” "Commodity-driven deforestation was the dominant driver associated with 27 percent of gross global tree cover loss between 2001 and 2015, equivalent to a deforested area approximately a quarter the size of India... This type of loss exemplifies the definition of deforestation, as it reflects a permanent conversion of forest cover into something else. In this class, trees are cut down to make way for activities like agriculture, mining, and oil and gas production."[57]

More than 75 percent of Earth's land area is already degraded, according to the European Commission's World Atlas of Desertification, and more than 90 percent could become degraded by 2050. The commission's Joint Research Centre found that a total area half of the size of the European Union (1.61 million square miles, or 4.18 million square kilometers) is degraded annually, with Africa and Asia being the most affected.
While land degradation has occurred throughout history, the pace has accelerated, reaching 30 to 35 times the historical rate, according to the United Nations. This degradation tends to be driven by a number of factors, including urbanization, mining, farming, and ranching. In the course of these activities, trees and other vegetation are cleared away, animal hooves pound the dirt, and crops deplete nutrients in the soil. Climate change also plays a significant role, increasing the risk of drought.[58]

Regen Network and Microsoft

In January of 2021 the Regen network verified and sold carbon credits to Microsoft generated from an Australian cattle ranch: Wilmot Cattle Company owned by the MacDoch Group.[59] The method Regen utilizes to analyze soil carbon levels mostly involves using satellite imagery and little on site soil samples. Concerns with the soil-carbon analysis done by the regen network include:

[1] The dry weight of soil in a known volume, also known as “bulk density”, is a key factor in calculating soil carbon stocks. Rather than bulk density being measured from field samples, it was calculated using an equation. We examined this method and determined it was far less reliable than field sampling. [2] Estimates of soil carbon were not adjusted for gravel content. Because gravel contains no carbon, carbon stock may have been overestimated. [3] The remote sensing used by Regen Network involved assessment of vegetation cover via satellite imagery, from which soil carbon levels were estimated. However, vegetation cover obscures soil, and research has found predictions of soil carbon using this method are highly uncertain.[60][61]


A different system of analyzing soil carbon content is necessary to more accurately account for sequestration rates. Researchers have begun developing new conceptual frameworks to analyze soil carbon content which takes into account functional complexity of different soils and also accounts for carbon persistence (carbon re released into the atmosphere due to natural processes.) A comprehensive model is necessary to accurately predict soil carbon sequestration rates and without a new model verified carbon credits will not be rooted in reality.[62]


"Studies based on a small number of soil samples and/or measurements during short periods of time should therefore be considered highly uncertain (including all forms of “visual inspections”). It should also be noted that the knowledge underpinning soil carbon models has changed a lot over the past decade, and is still evolving (see, e.g., Dungait et al. 2012), which further indicate the involved uncertainties."[63]

Philosophy

Allan Savory's entire philosophy is predicated around a 'holistic' evaluation of the land and responding accordingly. While this may seem like a sound philosophy the major problem, which is the heart of the technique, is the mass intensification of livestock grazing. Beginning a holistic technique of land management with livestock intensification ignores other well established modes of agroecology and permaculture that have stronger foundations in scientific literature and have been utilized by Indigenous Nations for thousands of years.

Livestock will likely play an important role in reversing the detrimental effects of industrial agriculture, but the method of intensification will have detrimental effects on soil health and the environment as a whole. Instead of livestock intensification a method utilizing permaculture/ agroecology that integrates animals on a smaller scale would be more effective to overall health of land and the environment and would simultaneously contribute to Food Sovereignty.

Beyond the efficacy of livestock intensification another problem with Allan Savory's vision is it's dependence upon private property and capitalism. A true holistic vision of environment regeneration would not be limited to privatized plots of property, but would consider the environment as a whole, which is not confined to privately owned plots of land. An epistemological lens rooted in private property will short circuit any potential benefits of Holistic Management, because it will be limited to specific plots and therefore will not be truly "holistic."

Citations

  1. ↑ http://standardsoil.com/our-approach/amp-grazing/
  2. ↑ https://savory.global/tony-coote-memorial-lecture/
  3. ↑ https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/greening-the-desert-holistic-management-in-the-era-of-climate-change/
  4. ↑ John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, George Wuerthner, "Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems", International Journal of Biodiversity, vol. 2014, Article ID 163431, 10 pages, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/163431
  5. ↑ John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, George Wuerthner, "Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems", International Journal of Biodiversity, vol. 2014, Article ID 163431, 10 pages, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/163431
  6. ↑ Godde, C., Garnett, T., Thornton, P., Ash, A. and Herrero, M. (2017). Grazing systems expansion and intensification: drivers, dynamics, and trade-offs. Global Food Security
  7. ↑ Marticorena, B., G. Bergametti, D. Gillette, and J.Belnap. 1997. Factors controlling threshold friction velocity in semiarid and arid areas of the United States. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 102:23277–23287.
  8. ↑ Barger, N. N., J. E. Herrick, J. Van Zee, and J. Belnap. 2006. Impacts of biological soil crust disturbance and composition on C and N loss from water erosion. Biogeochemistry 77:247–263
  9. ↑ Concostrina-Zubiri L, Huber-Sannwald E, Martínez I, Flores Flores JL, Reyes-Agüero JA, Escude A, Belnap J. Biological soil crusts across disturbance–recovery scenarios: effect of grazing regime on community dynamics. Ecol Appl. 2014;24(7):1863-77. doi: 10.1890/13-1416.1. PMID: 29210244.
  10. ↑ https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.pdf
  11. ↑ John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, George Wuerthner, "Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems", International Journal of Biodiversity, vol. 2014, Article ID 163431, 10 pages, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/163431
  12. ↑ John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, George Wuerthner, "Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems", International Journal of Biodiversity, vol. 2014, Article ID 163431, 10 pages, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/163431
  13. ↑ D. D. Briske, B. T. Bestelmeyer, J. R. Brown, S. D. Fuhlendorf, and H. W. Polley, “The Savory method cannot green deserts or reverse climate change,” Rangelands, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 72–74, 2013.
  14. ↑ John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, George Wuerthner, "Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems", International Journal of Biodiversity, vol. 2014, Article ID 163431, 10 pages, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/163431
  15. ↑ Nordborg, Maria & Röös, Elin. (2016). Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method; https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/34330/1/holisticmanagement_review.pdf
  16. ↑ https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.pdf
  17. ↑ Nordborg, Maria & Röös, Elin. (2016). Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method; https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/34330/1/holisticmanagement_review.pdf
  18. ↑ Thomas, A. D. 2012. Impact of grazing intensity on seasonal variations in soil organic carbon and soil CO2 efflux in two semiarid grasslands in southern Botswana. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 367:3076–3086
  19. ↑ Crowther, T., Todd-Brown, K., Rowe, C. et al. Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming. Nature 540, 104–108 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20150
  20. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20201111221411/https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf
  21. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20201111221411/https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf
  22. ↑ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/MethaneMatters
  23. ↑ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09022022/methane-global-warming-study/
  24. ↑ Sam Abernethy and Robert B Jackson 2022 Environ. Res. Lett. 17 024019 DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac4940
  25. ↑ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00312-2
  26. ↑ https://www.distilled.earth/p/reducing-methane-emissions-is-one
  27. ↑ Lan, X., Basu, S., Schwietzke, S., Bruhwiler, L. M. P., Dlugokencky, E. J., Michel, S. E., et al. (2021). Improved constraints on global methane emissions and sinks using δ13C-CH4. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 35, e2021GB007000. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GB007000
  28. ↑ https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions
  29. ↑ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02287-y
  30. ↑ https://savory.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2015-methane.pdf
  31. ↑ https://www.distilled.earth/p/reducing-methane-emissions-is-one
  32. ↑ John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, George Wuerthner, "Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems", International Journal of Biodiversity, vol. 2014, Article ID 163431, 10 pages, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/163431
  33. ↑ Garnett, T., Godde, C., Muller, A., Röös, E., Smith, P., de Boer, I. J. M., zu Ermgassen, E., Herrero, M., van Middelaar, C. E., Schader, C., & van Zanten, H. H. E. (2017). Grazed and confused? Ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question - and what it all means for greenhouse gas emissions. FCRN. https://edepot.wur.nl/427016
  34. ↑ Greenwood, K. & McKenzie, Blair. (2001). Grazing effects on soil physical properties and the consequences for pastures: A review. Animal Production Science. 41. 1231-1250. 10.1071/EA00102.
  35. ↑ Greacen EL, Sands R (1980) Compaction of forest soils—a review. Aust J Soil Res 18:163–189
  36. ↑ John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, George Wuerthner, "Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems", International Journal of Biodiversity, vol. 2014, Article ID 163431, 10 pages, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/163431
  37. ↑ Who Really Feeds The World? Vandana Shiva, p. 49
  38. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20190825052302/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land
  39. ↑ Who Really Feeds The World? Vandana Shiva, p. 43
  40. ↑ https://chsrl.com.ar/2021/03/11/gestionando-el-pasto-casi-duplicaron-la-produccion-de-terneros/; translated from Spanish by Google
  41. ↑ https://news.agrofy.com.ar/noticia/197616/us-100-hectarea-empresa-argentina-que-paga-incentivos-productores-regenerar-suelos-y
  42. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sBDnXi0PAI
  43. ↑ https://drronehrlich.com/032-allan-savory-fate-civilisations/
  44. ↑ https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/greening-the-desert-holistic-management-in-the-era-of-climate-change/
  45. ↑ Dr. Vandana Shiva, Who Really Feeds The World?, Chapter 1: Agroecology Feeds The World, Not a Violent Knowledge Paradigm
  46. ↑ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study
  47. ↑ https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html
  48. ↑ Foreman, Dave, et al., eds., Earth First! 7, no. 8 (23 September 1987). Republished by the Environment & Society Portal, Multimedia Library. https://www.environmentandsociety.org/sites/default/files/key_docs/rcc00098005-7-8_2.pdf; "Free Our Public Lands!" by Lynn Jacobs, p. 20-23
  49. ↑ https://twitter.com/allanrsavory/status/1368586780790906885?s=21
  50. ↑ https://plantbaseddata.medium.com/the-failed-attempt-to-greenwash-beef-7dfca9d74333
  51. ↑ https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/climatecollaborative/mailings/1633/attachments/original/PPT-FINAL-Regenerative_Mapping-min_compressed.pdf?1579205603; p. 41
  52. ↑ https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/greening-the-desert-holistic-management-in-the-era-of-climate-change/
  53. ↑ John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, George Wuerthner, "Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems", International Journal of Biodiversity, vol. 2014, Article ID 163431, 10 pages, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/163431
  54. ↑ John Carter, Allison Jones, Mary O’Brien, Jonathan Ratner, George Wuerthner, "Holistic Management: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems", International Journal of Biodiversity, vol. 2014, Article ID 163431, 10 pages, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/163431
  55. ↑ https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.pdf
  56. ↑ Nordborg, Maria & Röös, Elin. (2016). Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method; https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/34330/1/holisticmanagement_review.pdf
  57. ↑ https://www.wri.org/insights/when-tree-falls-it-deforestation
  58. ↑ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/desertification
  59. ↑ https://www.beefcentral.com/news/aus-cattle-company-makes-global-carbon-credit-sale-to-microsoft/
  60. ↑ Zhang, Y.; Guo, L.; Chen, Y.; Shi, T.; Luo, M.; Ju, Q.; Zhang, H.; Wang, S. Prediction of Soil Organic Carbon based on Landsat 8 Monthly NDVI Data for the Jianghan Plain in Hubei Province, China. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1683. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11141683
  61. ↑ https://theconversation.com/us-scheme-used-by-australian-farmers-reveals-the-dangers-of-trading-soil-carbon-to-tackle-climate-change-161358
  62. ↑ Lehmann, J., Hansel, C.M., Kaiser, C. et al. Persistence of soil organic carbon caused by functional complexity. Nat. Geosci. 13, 529–534 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0612-3
  63. ↑ Nordborg, Maria & Röös, Elin. (2016). Holistic management – a critical review of Allan Savory’s grazing method; https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/34330/1/holisticmanagement_review.pdf
Retrieved from "https://climatewiki.earth/wiki/index.php?title=The_Savory_Method&oldid=8861"