Can we, uhm, all go home and relax now? Because if half of what he’s saying is right, I don’t see how things won’t get much, much better as soon as this gets rolling. A solution for the climate with immediate incentives, and from what I can see, only negligible costs, if any.
So, am I dreaming? Reality check, s’il-vous plaît.
Could you summerize that 22 1/2 minute video, please?
From the linked Ted Talk
Basically, Savory’s point is that we can 1) reclaim arid grasslands through better management techniques of herd animals (i.e., cattle) so that they help the grasslands thrive instead of destroying them, which will 2) reduce global warming vastly because the restored grasslands will have greatly increased ability to absorb greenhouse gases and 3) provide a sustainable living to the poor people in these areas, so long as they stick to good management practices.
Does that sum it up? And wouldn’t that have been a nice thing to put in the OP?
Thank you, and yes.
Yeah, got in a bit of a hurry and just wanted to get it out, sorry.
He’s saying that arid lands, far from having been destroyed by livestock as previously taught, in fact is arid for lack of livestock - manure, plain and simple. He has devised a new way of managing livestock, great big herds of them, that has supposedly worked wonders. Seems this technique is often confused with rotational grazing, an apparently inferior method. It’s hard to summarize much more, really, especially as I’m no agriculturalist and can’t do the details any justice. Watch the talk, see his photos of transformed pastures and hear about his astonishing results.
This Allan Savory? Well . . .
FWIW.
Where is the water supposed to come from?
I’m not going to bother watching the video, I have better things to do with my time. But i already have a passing familiarity with Savory’s work. As other have alluded to, it’s basically just rotational/cell grazing, with a bit of added stuff. And as BrainGlutton’s link notes, cell grazing itself is a highly controversial.
In simple terms, cell grazing is a system where livestock are confined to small areas of pastures at very high densities for short periods of time, and them moved on to another small area. The rational behind this is that grazing animals are naturally nomadic. They move into an area, eat all the grass and then move on. That supposedly gives the grass time to recover before they return. In contrast, modern western grazing confines animals to relatively large areas year round. As a result the animals will keep grazing the grass constantly, never giving it a chance to recover.
This all sounds fine. The problem twofold. Firstly, the the underlying assumptions are largely bollocks. While some grazing animals are naturally nomadic, most are not. You can’t find any natural area of grassland on the planet that doesn’t have a year-round population of large grazing animals. Secondly the experimental evidence doesn’t show any evidence that cell grazing actually reduces grazing pressure or produces more vigourous grass growth.
That’s not to say that cell grazing never work. It indisputably does work in a lot of cases. I have personally seen almost miraculous effects due to the adoption of cell grazing: 25% weight gains, almost complete dominance of pasture by desirable species, huge improvements in pasture yield and ground cover. So their is no doubt that adopting cell grazing can improve productivity and sustainability, which is why it has so many adherents. And I have no reason to doubt that Savory’s method works at least as well.
The issue is *why *it works, or more accurately why it mostly doesn’t work under experimental conditions.
As far as anyone can tell, cell grazing works because it forces graziers to carefully manage their pasture and livestock, and that means they have to carefully monitor their pasture and livestock. The sad fact is that most broad-acre graziers muster their cattle twice a year, and completely ignore them the rest of the time. A shitload of research shows that most graziers have only the vaguest idea about the condition of the livestock except for the few days when they are being yarded, and most have no idea what species of grass are in their pasture, or could even give an approximate estimate of the tonnage of feed available to their livestock.
Because cell grazing uses small paddocks that the stock have to be moved between on a weekly to monthly basis, the pasture and the livestock have to be monitored closely and constantly so the stock can be shifted as soon as the feed is depleted. It is that constant monitoring of the behaviour of the stock and the condition of the pasture that produces the results. As the pasture becomes depleted, the area is destocked. If all the areas are depleted, the livestock are sold or moved to other locations. If there is standing feed, but the animals are losing condition, supplements or parasite are provided until weight gain is restored. In short, the system works because it forces best practice pasture management.
And that is also why cell grazing fails to produce results under experimental conditions. Experimental layouts always control for other variables. So the non-cell system will have exactly the same stocking rates, feed supplements and so forth as the cell system. So while the cell system often works in the real world because it forces a grazier tio change from poor management to best-practice, it never works under experimental conditions because all experimental plots will be under exactly the same management practice.
Which brings us back to the Savory’s claims. They are probably true, as far as they go. They almost certainly do lead to a radical improvement of pasture condition, improved soil cover with reduced runoff and reduced erosion and so on an so forth. I have no reason to doubt that.
The point to bear in mind is that the exact same results could probably be obtained if the graziers had simply gone out once a week and walked around their paddocks to see how it’s holding up and to see how the livestock look. Literally, that’s it. No need for the huge expense of additional fencing and water points and continual stock movement that Savory’s system requires. He could achieve exactly the same results simply by simply walking around with his eyes open.
And because it’s cheaper, that system would be much more widely adopted.
There’s no doubt that most of the world’s grassland’s are degraded, and there’s no doubt that is mostly due to shitty management practices. And I have no doubt that Savory’s technique could rapidly alleviate most of that degradation. The criticism stems form the fact that exactly the same results could be achieved much more cheaply and e easily by following the management guidelines that ecologists have been promoting for at least 60 years.
Of course if people can be convinced to actually follow Savory’s methods, then that alone makes them invaluable. People clearly won’t follow the scientifically based advice of extensionists. We have half a century of proof of that. So if Savory’s system is more palatable to landholders, regardless of why, then it should be encouraged.
It’s a bit like the Atkins diet in that regard. All the evidence proves that the Atkins diet doesn’t have anything to do with biochemistry. It’s simply that people on the Atkins diet consume fewer calories, and any weight loss is entirely due to the fewer calories consumed. That doesn’t mean that it is useless. Quiet the opposite. The fact the people on the diet do consume fewer calories when they won’t on other diets makes it invaluable.
And it’s the same with Savory’s technique. It almost certainly does not work for the reasons he says it does. But it does work by forcing people to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. But if it leads to people doing the right thing, when we know that simply telling them what is right convince them to do it, the I say more power to Savory.
Maybe he’s just a good salesman. Maybe his technique has some psychological appeal that walking around a paddock in the hot sun doesn’t. But whatever the reason, if he can get people to do the right thing, the outcome is the same. We’ve tried educating graziers for over half a century, and it doesn’t work. If ignorance and mumbo jumbo *do *work, then that’s all we’ve got left in our toolkit.
Out of the sky.
In simple terms, improved grass production means better soil cover. That means the water doesn’t run straight off the soil surface and flow away down the creek. That is further complicated because water flowing over the surface fills the cracks and pores in the ground with fine debris, preventing water form soaking in and making the problem worse. The lack of organic matter in the soil also reduced the water holding capacity on most sol types.
You can see the result of this at its most extreme by looking at desert landscapes. When you do get a shower of rain it all either runs straight off, or percolates straight through the soil without being held. As a result the streams in desert areas are mostly ephemeral. You get flash floods and a flow for maybe a couple of weeks, the the stream is dry again.
If you can rehabilitate the soil surface and increase the water holding capacity, the water percolates through the soil slowly and is released into the stream over a period of months. Instead of flash flooding with huge sediment loads, you get a permanent watercourse with almost no sediment.
Presumably the region has no less rainfall than before. He’s trying to return wasteland to grassland with the addition of a reliable and established biocycle. It might or might not work.
Blake: Excellent answer, thanks. Having studied religion myself, I’m a firm believer in the motivational power of ontologically meaningless rituals, so I think being largely ritualistic doesn’t detract much from Savory’s method. Bit of a shame if he doesn’t realise it himself, though, being an expert and all.
By the way, one of the numbers mentioned in the video that really made me optimistic about this, even if it’s only 1% true: He says that because grass on arid lands doesn’t biodegrade properly, it’s burned off. One hectar of this supposedly gives off as much CO2 as 6000 cars, and they’re burning a billion hectars of this in Africa alone. Yeah, it set off my bullshit detector too, but hey, even if off by several orders of magnitude, avoiding this must make a dent in our problems.
The part that interests me about the theory is the effect on greenhouse gases. I have heard about this before. Perhaps to encourage best practices, all those carbon emission fees that countries have to pay under the Kyoto accords could be used to pay farmers who successfully improve wastelands through good management practices a stipend for doing so, over and above their improved profits from bigger and better cattle herds. In places like Africa this would make even the dumbest farmer sit up and take notice.
The problem I immediately see with that scheme is administration. Most countries in Africa are kleptocracies. The money would be intercepted and used to fund the Minister of Agriculture’s Swiss chalet and private jet, rather than going to the farmers.
Little late to this thread and topic in general. Just saw the ted talks video, wanted some answers and here I am registered to ask you a question Blake.
Savory in the video briefly describes the processes involved, and it sounds like the herd serves the purpose of trampling and eating and shitting on the dying grasses during the dry season, which allows the next cycle of grass to grow easier - as opposed to having tall grasses oxidate over a long period, making it harder for the next crop to grow after the dry season.
Pssst. That is not a question.
Huh?
But, what would he do based on what he learned? With the cell system, there are obvious responses. What are the responses without the fencing, etc?
Pssst. That is not a question.
The grasslands of the USA do not have a year-round population of large grazing animals because we killed them all and got rid of the grass. And yes, in almost every case, these large grazing animals move nomadically in herds. Even the smaller grazing animals. I.e., they move in herds from one “paddock” to the next.
As for your statement here…
This is completely false. This doesn’t achieve the same end. Maybe actually watching the video and getting even a passing familiarity of the model would be helpful for you in discussing this topic.
In the end, I am sure the devil is in the details and there are valid criticisms of Allan Savory, but the bottom line is that his methods, on the whole… simply work. And this is being demonstrated the world over, in production (and experimentally) and have been for many years now. By the way, usually the livestock are rotated daily or semi-weekly… not weekly or monthly.
For the first time in many MANY years, soil is coming back instead of being washed away. This achievement (an evolution in our broken agricultural practices) is to be commended. Endless free grazing and (I don’t know why he doesn’t mention this) but endless row-cropping are destroying our soil. Pasture cropping, mob-stocking, and intense rotational grazing (not just rotational grazing) builds the soil and sequesters carbon. It just works.
-t
I could be worse… I was in a doctor’s office today, and read a copy of “Cowboy” magazine.
They actually tried to argue that if beef-raising ranches went away, it would be harmful to the environment. All that productive land would become “wasteland.”
Imbeciles!