Activity 3.3- Regenerative Agriculture Part 2

              1.0 Points of View

Within the first reading, presented by David D. Briske, Brandon T., Bestelmeyer, and Joel R. Brown, the authors are of the mindset that the method of preventing desertification, proposed by Allan Savory, isn’t as fool-proof as Savory claims. They share disbelief in Savory’s method because of the “lack of evidence regarding Mr. Savory’s claims that his grazing method can sequester vast amount of carbon dioxide from atmosphere into soils to reduce climate change” (Briske et al, 2014). They believe that instead of accepting Savory’s method of necessary period livestock trampling, it is better to prioritize the “more viable strategy of adaptation planning to minimize the risk of climate change on human livelihoods derived from livestock grazing” (Brikse et al, 2014). 

The second reading, presented by David D. Briske, Brandon T., Bestelmeyer, Joel R. Brown, Samuel D. Fuhlendorf, and H. Wayne Polleny, takes a look at the “Savory Method” and denounces the idea of its success based on its lack of substantial evidence. The authors of the reading find “all of Mr Savory’s major claims to be unfounded and we express deep concern” (Briske et al, 2014) that his proposition undermines methods with actual scientific backing behind them. They look into Savory’s claims and find that they “are not only unsupported by scientific information, but they are often in direct conflict with it” (Briske et al, 2014). They are of the mindset that Savory’s method is an incorrect approach to the problem posed by desertification, but that it also spreads misinformation because they “oversimplify the complexity of rangeland systems” (Briske et al, 2014). 

Christopher Ketcham, the author of the 3rd article, seemed to be of a similar mindset with the authors of the previous two readings. In his article, he heavily criticized Allan Savory’s method of increased cattle grazing, as a means to stop desertification, due to the large lack of specific scientific evidence and data to prove its validity. Ketcham claims to have met Savory in person to talk about the specifics of how his method benefited landscapes, but Savory refused to provide any statistical data to back up his claims. After reading the article, Ketcham seems to be on the side of science and in the belief that Savory’s method is incorrect due to the substantial lack of proof that it actually works. 

2.0 Purpose

The goals/objectives of the authors of the 1st,  2nd and 3rd are pretty much identical. They all want to bring attention to the inconsistencies of Allan Savory’s method and raise awareness to the fact that a lot of what he (Savory) preaches is wrong. Both readings make Savory out to be a liar about the success and necessity of his method due to how little scientific data he has to back it up. According to both readings, the claims that Savory makes go directly against all current scientific data on desertification, with every study conducted using Savory’s method proving that it is an entirely incorrect approach to the issue. By bringing attention to the holes in Savory’s claims, the authors hope to take people’s attention away from his ideas and back to methods with scientific backing that proves their success. 

3.0 Questions at Issue

The main issue that all of the readings focus on are the false claims of Allan Savory in regards to his method of preventing desertification. The articles tear apart Savory’s claims about how “his grazing method can reverse desertification, climate change, and alleviate human suffering and death” (Briske et al, 2014) due to minimal/no scientific evidence backing it up. Another primary concern that the authors address is the misinformation spread by Savory’s claims. When Savory’s ideas “catapulted into the mainstream in 2013, after he stood on a stage at the TED conference in Long Beach, California” (Ketcham, 2017) he gained a lot of followers worldwide, with many of them beginning to listen to his beliefs. This widespread adoption of his practice caused a mis spread of information to circulate among people, resulting in people straying from scientifically proven methods for the “false sense of hope created by his promises” (Briske et al, 2014). If people continue to adhere to Savory’s methods, then the problems plaguing us will potentially get much worse, not better. 

4.0 Information

The first reading lists many facts that prove the holes in Allan Savoy’s claims. They start of with Savoy’s claim about how his “‘periodic trampling [by livestock] is necessary to prevent degradation’ by minimizing biological crusts that increase runoff and evaporation” (Briske et al, 2014), reporting it to be false due to there being no evidence to support the claim. They even go further to state reasons on why disturbing soil surfaces is a bad idea in many rangelands because of “soil exposure to wind and water erosion, and an accelerated release of soil carbon and a reduction of nitrogen fixing capacity associated with damage to soil crusts” (Briske et al, 2014). The authors then go on to debunk data, provided by scientist Richard Teague and his colleagues, that support Savory’s claims. The data provided by Teague appears to even go against Savory’s methods, stating that “1) soils under multipaddock rotation had similar soil carbon stocks, runoff rates, sediment loss rates, and infiltration rates compared to ungrazed rangeland and 2) the amount of bare ground and peak standing crop biomass were not statistically distinguishable between multipaddock rotation and ungrazed rangeland” (Briske et al, 2014). 

The second reading goes even further to debunk the claims of Allan Savory by providing more scientifically specific information. They first pick apart Savory’s claim about how his method can reduce carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels. They state that this claim is incredibly inaccurate because in “2012, global greenhouse gas emissions were estimated at about 50 billion metric tons (CO2 equivalents; CO2e).1 In order to offset these current emissions, rangelands would have to sequester approximately 13.6 billion tons of C annually.ii Given that there are about five billion hectares of rangeland globally, it is relatively simple to calculate that each hectare of rangeland would have to sequester an additional two tons of C each year. Credible estimates of the potential for rangeland C sequestration are generally less than 0.25 tons C per hectare per year, which is eight-fold less than Mr Savory’s claims would require” (Briske et al, 2014). The reading also challenges Savory’s claims of the ecological benefits of increased livestock grazing. According to Savory, land that is ungrazed will gradually decline and desertify, but scientific research proves this to be untrue, with ungrazed land being more likely to successfully grow compared to grazed land. Additionally, research data from Botswana indicates that “intensive grazing, which destroys these crusts through trampling and burial, will adversely affect C (carbon)  sequestration and storage” (Briske et al, 2014). 

The article by Ketcham provides more observational data in regards to disproving Savory’s claims. According to Ketcham, when meeting Savory in person and asking for specific details about his methods, Savory could not provide any specific data to back himself. Additionally, he found that on an information sheet written by Savory himself, he admitted that “every study of holistic planned grazing that has been done has provided results that are rejected by range scientists” (Ketcham, 2017) because the method produced no results. Ketcham also takes a closer look at the Charter Trials, a study that Savory references as proof his methods are successful. Unsurprisingly, Ketcham found that the trial concluded that Savory’s method “‘failed to produce the marked improvement in grass cover claimed from its application’” (Ketcham, 2017). Ketcham also provides the statements of many known scientists in the field of range science, all of who side against Savory. Scientist Kelsey Brewer debunks Savory’s “win-win” based market-grazing model. Savory states that increasing livestock grazing will result in better soil, decreased CO2 levels, and more livestock for people to sell. According to Brewer, this statement is completely false because it messes with the nutrient cycle. “The moment a rancher puts an animal onto rangeland, the animal is removing nutrients from the soil and converting them into muscle and fat. The moment the animal leaves the land to head to slaughter, those nutrients leave the system, and the net total productivity of the land decreases” (Ketcham et al, 2014). 

5.0 Interpretation and Inference

5.1 Briske et al (2014): The authors’ conclusion of the first reading is that the claims made by Savory are completely unfounded due to the lack of scientific evidence to support them. The authors look into research provided by scientist Richard Teague, and other colleagues, that supports Savory’s claims. They found that not only is the provided research completely unsupportive of the methods Savory advocates, but it instead provides support to their own solution. The authors of the reading suggest that instead of focusing on finding a singular method to work for every situation, we should instead use adaptive grazing management to adjust methods to meet the needs of whatever situation.  

5.2 Briske et al. (2014): The authors’ conclusion of the second reading was similar to that of the first, but put more emphasis on the complete inaccuracies of Savory’s claims. They found that the methods/ideas proposed by Savory had no scientific backing to them, and  spread misinformation about the subject. They reasoned that Savory’s idea of “holistic management” did little more than “divide science and management perspectives…-  weaken global efforts to promote rangeland restoration and C sequestration” (Briske et al, 2014). Their solution on the matter was for people to discredit the ideas proposed by Savory, due to their substantial lack of evidence, and focus more on the methods backed by science. 

5.3 Ketcham (2017): The author, Christopher Ketcham, concluded that the claims made by Savory were false. After meeting Savory in person to talk about his ideas, Ketcham came to the realization that he (Savory) had no evidence to prove what he was saying was true. Ketcham even went further to consult with professionals in the field of range science, only for every single one of them to vehemently oppose Savory’s claims. Ketcham proposes that the best solution to the issue would be to stop adhering to Savory’s methods about increased livestock grazing, but instead go the opposite direction. Science has proven that land untouched by livestock grazing has an increased rate of recovery compared to land that has been grazed, and that is the route people should go for. 

6.0 Concepts

All of the readings closely examine the theories proposed by Savory, such as his theories of “holistic management” and “hoof action”. Savory’s idea of “holistic management” is to manage the complexity of the environment by using livestock grazing to reform landscapes back to abundance. This theory is used in conjunction with Savory's idea of “dense livestock grazing”, which is the idea of significantly increasing the amount of livestock grazing on a plot of land. His theory of “hoof action” is the idea that the trampling of livestock of the Earth’s soil will loosen up the soil, allowing for better filtration of water and nutrients. According to Savory, all of these ideas serve to repair landscapes/rangelands by helping and making them more easily able to grow and support life. 

7.0 Assumptions

The authors of all 3 readings are of the immediate opinion that Savory clearly has no idea what he is talking about because of the huge lack of evidence supporting his claims. The massive “oversimplification of rangeland function and denouncement of science in order to promote extravagant claims regarding his grazing method” (Briske et al, 2014) made them all doubtful of his methods to begin with, but after taking a closer look at his claims, their thoughts were only confirmed. With no evidence found backing him, Savory appeared to have very little idea about how rangeland science actually worked, and many scientists in the field openly spoke against his preachings. Scientist Andres Cibils stated that “‘there are no credible data to support Savory's success assertions’” (Ketcham, 2017), and there are many more oppositions like it. They reason that people should not be so quick/desperate to trust Savory’s methods, since existing science goes against him to prove that his methods will only make things worse. 

8.0 Consequences

This has been stated in many sections before, but the general consensus of the authors of all 3 articles is that the claims of Allan Savory cannot be trusted, taken seriously, and/or put into practice. All scientific research looking more closely into his claims has only come back to prove that his methods don’t work, but in fact only make things much worse. His belief that land left untouched by livestock will inevitably wither away, and that only increased continuous grazing is the solution to the issue is completely false. Current science indicates that land left untouched by livestock has a much greater chance to regrow itself, with a study in China revealing that “20 years of grazing exclusion increased soil carbon storage by more than 35 percent…-carbon levels, variously measured in aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, and grass litter, were as much as 157 percent higher in livestock-free grasslands than in grazed grasslands” (Ketcham, 2017). Not only are Savory’s claims of rangeland regrowth wrong, but the claims of greater carbon sequestration appear to be incorrect as well. The authors reason that Savory’s ideas need to be put to an end before irreversible damage is done to the environment. 

References

- Briske, D. D., Bestelmeyer, B. T., & Brown, J. R. (2014). Savory's unsubstantiated claims should not be confused with multipaddock grazing. Rangelands, 36(1), 39-42. BRISKE_et al_2014_Savory's_unsubstantiated_claim.pdf  

- Briske, D. D., Bestelmeyer, T., Brown, J. R., Fuhlendorf, S. D., & Polley, H. W. (2014). The Savory method can not green deserts or reverse climate change. Rangelands, 35(5), 72–74. On the Web:  https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/4472/RANGELANDS-D-13-00044.pdf 

- Ketcham, C. (2017). Allan Savory’s holistic management theory falls short on science. Sierra. On the Web: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change