Activity 3.3 – Regenerative Agriculture Part 2

 
1.0   Point of View

Dr. David. D Briske is coming from a scientist’s point of view. As he states in his article, it is his duty and obligation to “fact check” Mr. Allan Savory and his claims, because this issue is his lifelong profession and study (Briske, 2014). He feels it is his responsibility to review the evidence presented by Savory. In the field of science, there are certain methodological frameworks that one must work with another to prove a theory. Given that this is career, you can see his frustration in having to explain why this theory could potentially be more harmful than helpful. "Claims made Mr. Savory in the TED video are unsubstaniated and represent an unfortunate distraction from legitimate and proven procedures, and outcomes of grazing management"(Briske, 2014).

In his writings, Dr. Briske is clearly against Mr. Savory’s claims. He makes it known, where the science community stands with these over grazing practices. It is also a dangerous concept to discredit science. Dr. Briske and other scientists are aware that theories and claims must be proven through methodical tactics, there must be recordings and data, or some type of scientific evidence to declare such an assertion. 

2.0 Purpose 

The purpose of Dr. Briske and other scientists putting together these readings on Mr. Savory’s TED talk is to state Mr. Savory has no real proof. The information he is spewing is inaccurate and photographs presented by Mr. Savory are misdirected. Given that his TED talk caught such a wide audience, it is important that the record be set straight. This information could set back real progress that scientists attempt to achieve with policy makers and practitioners.

 
His goal is to educate the public on the truth so they are no misinformed. If there were over a million view, according to Sierra article, then that is a high population that could potentially try this practice and have it backfired which is also demonstrated in the same Sierra article when other farmers were interviewed (Ketcham, 2017). These farmers practiced Savory’s philosophy and left their land a mess.

3.0   Questions at Issues
 
Scientists fear that many will believe in Savory’s false hope and ignore the science. Our livelihood depends on it. In Sierra magazine, Ketcham describes the amount attention and appraise Mr. Savory was receiving. There were Michael Pollan tweets, positive reviews from Discover and Skeptic magazine (Ketcham, 17).
 
The fact is, it is quit the opposite. Over grazing would damage the soil, perhaps beyond return. Briske continues to give his scientific facts that some areas need time to recover. He says this when he analyzes the photos Savory showed at the TED talk. The photo of Chaco Culture National Historical Park described as “as an area that is slowly recovering from a historical period of mismanaged grazing, rather than as a consequence of grazing exclusion as indicated by Mr. Savory” (Briske, 2013).

4.0   Information
 
The first point Savory brings up is the argument about how all nonforested land is degraded land. Scientists argue that this is not the case. Author goes on to state that many nonforested lands are well managed. The only degradation occurs due to livestock and human population. As this behavioral pattern continues, rangelands all over the world are rapidly degrading. An estimate of the size of Pennsylvania every year becomes barren.
 
Savory goes off to claim that his grazing method can reduce carbon emissions back to preindustrial days. The author states that this is improbable due to there being other major contributors such as deforestation, land conversion, and degradation (Briske et al., 2013). Explains that even though Savory is trying to cling to the soil carbon sequester movement, that would depend on the plant life and precipitation of the area. In fact, carbon can be released depending on the climate of the rangeland from soil respiration (Briske et al.,2013).
 
The third argument is that Savory goes on to say areas that are degrading, do so because they lack grazing. As mentioned above with Chaco Culture National Historical Park, it was slowly recovering due to over grazing. The other picture was the grassland near Las Cruces International Airport which was barely recovering. It did so, by keeping grazing away and allowing much needed time to recover. Even without grazing, it was so badly damaged it was taking a tremendous amount of time to do so. (Briske et al., 2013) To add intensive grazing could kill it forever.
 
Intensive grazing has been tested and was found that it is not a sustainable solution. Scientists have tested this theory on dominant grass, black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda). In this experiment, they discovered this: Grass cover increases dramatically with rest and intensive grazing delays this recovery (Briske et al.,2013). Even livestock producers are aware of the damage intensive grazing can have on land.
 
Ketcham throws facts such as if there is intensive grazing in areas that have little rain where soil is fragile, the livestock can damage as much to where plants and vegetation will not have the opportunity to recover. 8.4 billion acres on the planet are grazed and 73 percent of the land is degrading (Ketcham, 2017).
 
Cattle grazing has changed the landscape since the 19^th century. In Ketcham’s writing, “Cattle have been implicated in the eradication of native plants, the loss of biodiversity, the pollution of springs and streams, the erosion of stream banks, the exacerbation of floods that carry away soil, the deforestation of hardwoods, and, in the worst cases, a reduction of living soil to lifeless dust” (2017).

5.0   Interpretation and Inference

Final conclusions of the authors.

5.1   Briske et al., 2014

The conclusion is to continue researching multi-paddocking grazing and to not confuse it with Savory’s overly grazing idea of higher stock. That there is not one standard of grazing due to each area’s own delicacy and climate. Adapative management should be left up to the managers monitoring the grazing and its effects on the land.
 
5.2   Briske et al., 2013

Rangeland management and grazing is still being researched. Scientists continue to work with lands all over the globe and cater to what is significant to their land. Many obstacles stand in the way of research such as war, poverty, lack of education, human population growth, etc. Mr. Savory’s grazing philosophies contradicts the science and research and could possible be responsible for further land degradation. Savory’s promotion of his philosophy and false hope will delay global efforts to try and recover rangelands.
 
5.3   Ketcham, 2017

Savory does not have the scientific evidence to support his claims. He has but his word and random photograms. He is promoting a philosophy of hope to farmers who are already suffering a degrading land and will try anything at this point out of despair. This can cause great damage to these dry lands that may never recover.

6.0   Concepts

Savory’s theory is that high cattle grazing will restore the land and make it fertile with biodiversity and sequester a tremendous amount of CO2. The cows will fertilize the soil with their urine and manure. The stomping of the hooves will clear out the crusted debris exposing the fresh and healthy soil.
 
Scientists oppose these claims by stating excessive grazing can cause long term damage. The stomping of crusted soil exposing the topsoil below to weather elements. The topsoil could be washed away by rain or by wind and erosion. Cows also kill off plant vegetation reducing the biodiversity.

7.0   Assumptions

Scientists assume based off their research how irreversible the damage could be if farmers and livestock productions began to implement these Savory practices. These can be especially harsh on delicate land that has already began to degrade, land where it is high in drought, and land with not a lot of plant vegetation. These variables are not taken into consideration is Savory’s methods.

8.0   Consequences

The authors are not against rotational grazing. They are against high stock intensive grazing. They also believe that land should be given an adequate amount of time to recover. They want the public to know the truth and not have their own scientific research mispresented.

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, D. D., Bestelmeyer, T., Brown, J. R., Fuhlendorf, S. D., & Polley, H. W. (2013). The Savory method can not green deserts or reverse climate change. Rangelands, 35(5), 72–74.

Ketcham, C. (2017). Allan Savory’s holistic management theory falls short on science. Sierra.