The Savory Method: Difference between revisions

From Climate Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 25: Line 25:
'''Assumption 3:''' <Blockquote>...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...<br><br> ...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...<br><br> ...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.</Blockquote>
'''Assumption 3:''' <Blockquote>...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...<br><br> ...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...<br><br> ...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.</Blockquote>


'''Assumption 4:'''
'''Assumption 4:''' <Blockquote>... 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...<br><br> ...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.


= Sources =
= Sources =

Revision as of 01:58, 21 February 2023

A system of intensive cattle ranching developed by Allan Savory, also known as or categorized under these names:

  • The Savory Grazing Method
  • Rotational grazing
  • Multi-paddock adaptive grazing
  • Regenerative grazing
  • Holistic resource management
  • Time controlled grazing
  • Short-duration grazing


Critiques

The efficacy of Savory's method of cattle grazing is predicated on five assumptions:

(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;
(2) grasses in these areas will become decadent and die out if not grazed by these large herds or their modern day equivalent, livestock;
(3) rest from grazing by these large herds of livestock will result in grassland deterioration;
(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;
(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.[1]

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"[2]

The response to the Savory method's assumptions are summarized below:

Assumption 1:

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:

...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:

...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:

... 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.

Sources

"The Savory Method Can Not Green Deserts or Reverse Climate Change A response to the Allan Savory TED video" https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.pdf


"The Regenerative Ranching racket": <https://medium.com/@unpopularscience/the-regenerative-ranching-racket-fe6cce917a42>

"How Big Ag Bankrolled Regenerative Ranching": <https://jacobin.com/2022/03/big-agriculture-funding-regenerative-ranching-amp-grazing-soil-carbon>

^^^ Discusses, among other issues, Shell Oil's financing of "Soil Carbon Cowboys" in 2015, the first such documentary. Re: offsets, greenwashing & ties to Savory Institute. see also: <https://robbwolf.com/2016/03/18/sustainability-part-2-the-game-changers-of-small-ag/> & White_Oak_Pastures#Shell_Oil

Re: GHG emissions (incl. Methane), soil health, hoof action, biodiversity: <https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbd/2014/163431/>

Re: General Mills & White Oak Pastures: <https://plantbaseddata.medium.com/the-failed-attempt-to-greenwash-beef-7dfca9d74333> <https://twitter.com/NicholasDCarter/status/1362341002946748421> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKjQfn-HR6g>

Underestimation of emissions from extensive/intensive grazing (& Methane): <https://www.issuelab.org/resources/36458/36458.pdf>

Re: 'discounting' Methane from cattle: <https://twitter.com/NicholasDCarter/status/1335967274247876609?s=20> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aEKVErYpvXM7Nxx5xBkCI1POi1xomTD9/view>

Re: Kiss the Ground documentary: <https://plantbasednews.org/opinion/kiss-the-ground-last-ditch-effort-keep-meat-relevant/>

Key report - "Grazed and Confused": <https://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf> <https://theproof.com/animal-vs-plant-agriculture-in-the-era-of-climate-change/>

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[3] in response to scientific evidence showing that the beef supply White Oak Pastures provides for General Mills was heavily greenwashed. [4] 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."[5]

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.[6]


Citations

  1. ↑ 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
  2. ↑ 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
  3. ↑ https://twitter.com/allanrsavory/status/1368586780790906885?s=21
  4. ↑ https://plantbaseddata.medium.com/the-failed-attempt-to-greenwash-beef-7dfca9d74333
  5. ↑ https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/climatecollaborative/mailings/1633/attachments/original/PPT-FINAL-Regenerative_Mapping-min_compressed.pdf?1579205603; p. 41
  6. ↑ https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/greening-the-desert-holistic-management-in-the-era-of-climate-change/
Retrieved from "https://climatewiki.earth/wiki/index.php?title=The_Savory_Method&oldid=5731"