The Savory Method: Difference between revisions

From Climate Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 92: Line 92:
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]].<Ref>https://www.beefcentral.com/news/aus-cattle-company-makes-global-carbon-credit-sale-to-microsoft/</Ref> 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: <Blockquote> '''[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.<Ref>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</Ref><Ref>https://theconversation.com/us-scheme-used-by-australian-farmers-reveals-the-dangers-of-trading-soil-carbon-to-tackle-climate-change-161358</Ref></blockquote> <br><br>  
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]].<Ref>https://www.beefcentral.com/news/aus-cattle-company-makes-global-carbon-credit-sale-to-microsoft/</Ref> 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: <Blockquote> '''[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.<Ref>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</Ref><Ref>https://theconversation.com/us-scheme-used-by-australian-farmers-reveals-the-dangers-of-trading-soil-carbon-to-tackle-climate-change-161358</Ref></blockquote> <br><br>  


A different system of analyzing soil carbon content is necessary to more accurately account for sequestration rates. Researchers have begun developing new conceptual framework 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.<Ref>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</Ref>
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.<Ref>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</Ref>


= Citations =
= Citations =

Revision as of 02:29, 25 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

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"[1]

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.[2]

Critiques

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 know 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.[3][4]

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[5]

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.[6]

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.[7]

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.[8]

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." [9] [10] 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[11] 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.[12]

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.[13]

Soil-Carbon-Loss Feed-Back-Loop

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature20150

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."[14] 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."[15][16]

Methane concentrations began rapidly increasing in 2007 leading some scientists to speculate feed-back loops are perpetuating methane levels.[17] "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.[18]

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.[19] Methane emissions must be reduced by 45% over the next decade in order to limit warming to 1.5 degree celsius.[20] Reducing methane emissions in the status quo is key to slowing down perpetual global heating.[21]

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.[22] 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.[23]

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"[24] 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.

Nitrous Oxide

Soil Health

Livestock grazing has been proven to compact soil[25], reduce infiltration and aeration[26] 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.[27]

1980's Cattle Intensification

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[28] in response to scientific evidence showing that the beef supply White Oak Pastures provides for General Mills was heavily greenwashed. [29] 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."[30]

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.[31]


"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. [32]

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.[33]

"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."[34]

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 differs 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

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.[35] 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.[36][37]



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.[38]

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. ↑ 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.
  4. ↑ 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
  5. ↑ 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.
  6. ↑ https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.pdf
  7. ↑ 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
  8. ↑ 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
  9. ↑ 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.
  10. ↑ 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
  11. ↑ https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.pdf
  12. ↑ https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/34330/1/holisticmanagement_review.pdf
  13. ↑ 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
  14. ↑ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/MethaneMatters
  15. ↑ https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09022022/methane-global-warming-study/
  16. ↑ Sam Abernethy and Robert B Jackson 2022 Environ. Res. Lett. 17 024019 DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac4940
  17. ↑ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00312-2
  18. ↑ https://www.distilled.earth/p/reducing-methane-emissions-is-one
  19. ↑ 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
  20. ↑ https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions
  21. ↑ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02287-y
  22. ↑ https://savory.global/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2015-methane.pdf
  23. ↑ https://www.distilled.earth/p/reducing-methane-emissions-is-one
  24. ↑ 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
  25. ↑ 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.
  26. ↑ Greacen EL, Sands R (1980) Compaction of forest soils—a review. Aust J Soil Res 18:163–189
  27. ↑ 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
  28. ↑ https://twitter.com/allanrsavory/status/1368586780790906885?s=21
  29. ↑ https://plantbaseddata.medium.com/the-failed-attempt-to-greenwash-beef-7dfca9d74333
  30. ↑ https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/climatecollaborative/mailings/1633/attachments/original/PPT-FINAL-Regenerative_Mapping-min_compressed.pdf?1579205603; p. 41
  31. ↑ https://centerforneweconomics.org/publications/greening-the-desert-holistic-management-in-the-era-of-climate-change/
  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. ↑ 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
  34. ↑ https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.pdf
  35. ↑ https://www.beefcentral.com/news/aus-cattle-company-makes-global-carbon-credit-sale-to-microsoft/
  36. ↑ 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
  37. ↑ https://theconversation.com/us-scheme-used-by-australian-farmers-reveals-the-dangers-of-trading-soil-carbon-to-tackle-climate-change-161358
  38. ↑ 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
Retrieved from "https://climatewiki.earth/wiki/index.php?title=The_Savory_Method&oldid=5862"