This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Campaign to get the UN to offer training to livestock owners and landowners in Allan Savory's Holistic Management techniques.
The biggest challenge in implementing Allan's ideas and methods is to get livestock owners and land managers to take up these ideas. To my knowledge Allan's TED talk might be the biggest platform this method and idea has ever had.
Allan and Holistic Management International have a huge amount of resources and teaching methods that they have developed to help people implement this very simple solution. Much of this is documented in Allan's two books as well as other material. However they would not appear to be especially well funded and the cost of the training is reasonably high.
The TED community has the opportunity to ride on the back of the interest this talk will hopefully spark and start a campaign get the UN and other large bodies to offer funding to Savory's organizations to train trainers. Currently the cost of training for Holistic Management International's Certified Educator Training Program is $7,700 which is comprehensive. According to the website there are only 19 approved mentors for this program.
The world is in desperate need of thousands of these educators who are able to spread the word and the ideas in their localities.
The cost of training 10,000 educators in this program would be $77,000,000. On a world scale this is nothing, but the impact these trainers would have would be incredibly far reaching and an extremely efficient use of money.
This is the biggest platform that THe Savory method has ever had and the if the TED community is able to in some way act on this, the results could potentially be astonishing!
Any ideas?
Coco Gordon
anthony holmes
Savory's methods provide one thing, a mass quantity of livestock which do not provide a developing community with the nutrition necessary to thrive, the intensive work involved in managing livestock is not justified by the end result. Whereas a Permaculture system incorporates many species, is self sustaining and provides abundant bio-diversity, shelter, produces it's own mulch and restores natural ecological systems and hydrologic cycles. With this system, as has been demonstrated, you can grow an abundant amount of fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds and herbs without the incorporation of livestock. Retrieving MUCH higher yields with minimal input. It is a win win scenario for everyone involved! I'd say it's a MUCH better option than Savory's.
Permaculture is a branch of ecological design, ecological engineering, and environmental design which develops sustainable architecture and self-maintained horticultural systems modeled from natural ecosystems. Learn more for yourself! Watch "Green Gold" or look it up. http://youtu.be/YBLZmwlPa8A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keQUqRg2qZ0&list
anthony holmes
James Hardiman
I ordered, and just received the two books (listed at the bottom of the post). I'm only a few pages in, but I am already seeing that, as important as the range management is, under standing the decision-making process is prior, and prime.
I am looking forward to seeing, and joining in, discussions with people who have read both books. There's more to Allan Savory (and all the many people working with him) than you can pick up in a 20-minute video, however good.
Guess what I will be doing onthe four-hour flight from Orlando to Denver tomorrow!
Benjamin Barrington
Mr Savory's methods definitely need to have the weight of the United Nations behind them. I suggest that someone start a campaign with the website Avaaz. http://www.avaaz.org/en/. Well worded campaigns on Avaaz garner huge attention and can generate large petitions.
Robin Palmer 10+
Additionally, Mr. Savory’s newest hair brained hypothesis flies in the face of widely accepted research about the root causes of desertification - including global warming, short-sighted over-planting, feeding methane releasing livestock instead of adopting vegetarianism, and deforestation.
I am a foster mother to a couple of orphaned baby elephants at the Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. Both of them were rescued after having witnessed poachers murder their mothers for their tusks. Some of the orphans die of grief. The ones who survive are greeted and surrounded in a literal circle of love by the other orphans, trunk to tail. The Sheldrick Wildlife Trust is the only organization that releases orphaned elephants back into the wild. After two years of care, they are ready to return to the African wilderness. The Sheldrick graduates send a subterranean message to each other, and then arrive from miles away to “pick up” the newest member of the herd.
If Allan Savory feels any guilt for his grievous crime against nature, he can help -http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust. It is my fervent hope that the TED organizers would choose to invite real humanitarians like Dr. Daphne Sheldrick, Dr. Jane Goodall, Ric O'Barry - Dolphin Project, Dr. Con Slobodchikoff, among others. Please add to the list - I will be happy to forward it.
Don Anderson 20+
You should thank him, because if not for his work your elephants would likely grow up only knowing a hard life in a desert.
Benjamin Barrington
Margriet O'Regan
How do we contact the UN ??!!! How do we contact Al Gore?
Andy Lee
One more thought, how would continuous light stocking work as a means of restoration in a blighted area? Would that not require continuous feeding of the animals to prevent death by starvation until the landscape could produce a susatainable level of forage? How would continuously grazed and unrested pasture regenerate?
Savory Institute
Here are some basic principles underlying Savory's work in using livestock to mimic the herds and predators that once co-evolved and existed with the grassland environments. Beyond these basic, the planned grazing process helps a livestock owner work out the greater details needed to really work with the complexity of a landscape, weather, livestock health, wildlife moving in and out, etc.
Grasslands need two things - disturbance and grazing that removes the leaf and then leaves the plant to regrow leaf and rebuild root. When we use larger areas and/or lower densities and longer periods, the density is insufficient for the disturbance needed on the soil surface, the plants get regrazed before they can recover their leaf and root. Also, over time, the animals go back again and again to the new green shoots coming up, thus, grazing the plant to death (because it needs to recover leaf and root); other plants get no grazing (because the animal will most often choose the greenest freshest leaf) and these ungrazed plants end up with too much dead material on top, can't get sunlight to their growth points and die of "over rest." In your first example, the smaller, higher density on a quicker move will likely be healthier than the lightly stock, larger area scenario. On your second thought, light continuous stocking is what these grasslands have had for a very long time and they are, under this practice, deteriorating. So, it has not proven to be an effective approach to restoring a blighted area. One might have to feed animals if the area is truly blighted. The important point, thought, is that if you want to restore the site, you need to change the management; need to get disturbance, dung and urine in high concentrations and keep the animals moving so they can find sufficient forage. They then leave behind them a mulched, fertilized landscape ready to capture moisture (if it rains) and set seed. (Shannon Horst, co-founder Savory Institute)
Sam Fuhlendorf
there is confusion over many of these topics that are balled up in history. Mr Savory claimed that the world was over-grazed but understocked--e.g. the world should be heavier stocked-- with bunches of animals. The research in the report and many many papers suggest that light stocking is the answer. It is a function of biomass/forage produced and how much a cow consumes. If you use it all then there is nothing left to cover the ground. I am simply -- as the link argues-- that these decades of data that suggest light stocking rates are the most sustainable, regardless of their distribution, is correct.
As for the adaptive management-- there is no question that adapting is critical- in fact adaptive management is an oxymoron. The issue-- one should adapt with stocking rate not rotating your cattle. Think about it-- 100 ac produce 2000 lbs of forage - you want to leave half of it- cattle stomp some- insects and wildlife eat some so generally the rule of thumb is take about 30% - that leaves you 60,000 of forage-- a cow eats 26 lbs a day so 9,490 per year-- woohoo you get 6.3 cows..... it doesnt matter if you rotate them / stake them / put them of hover crafts. Now, the adaptive management comes in-- if it doesnt rain you only get 3 or 4 cows-- if it does rain you get 8 cows.
This is all the range scientists have been saying for years. Rotating does not grow more grass....
Andy Lee
Perhaps it is simply the conversation thread that you disagree with.
Cees de Valk
Quoting from Rangeland Ecol Manage 61:3–17 | January 2008 co-authored by you:
When stocking rate was less for continuous than rotational grazing, 75% (3 of 4) of the experiments reported greater animal production per area for rotational grazing (Fig. 1B).
This coincides exactly with what Allan Savory is claiming, is it not? So where is the disconnect, I am wondering?
In particular since there was no difference in plant production as your Figure 1 shows (which is somewhat misleadingly described as: " When stocking rate was less for continuous than rotational grazing, 75% of the experiments (3 of 4) reported either no differences or greater plant production for continuous grazing"). According to your own hypothesis, one would have expected crop degradation due to higher stocking rate. But it did not happen.
I was also wondering, how long did these experiments last? That tends to be all-important in ecology, e.g. effects of ocean pH change on corals. Might it be the case that practical management experience covers longer periods of time than the experiments cited? And what about the initial conditions for the experiments?
Sam Fuhlendorf
No one has given any scientific evidence. I am a scientist so that is the evidence that I believe in. I am sorry if extremely confounded offended you-- I should have said - COMPLETELY confounded-- In other words from a scientific perspective---impossible to interpret.
I have worked with many of the people discussed here and have only seen ethical problems from those that tend to profit from these ideas---- e.g. not the research scientist but instead some of those that are selling a product.
Sam Fuhlendorf
Thanks. I know the Kerr WMA well. I would say this land is amazing because it is moderately stocked. This is one of the advantages of science where stocking rate and grazing system is controlled for. These studies show that it is all about stocking rate rather than system. The Kerr area is outstanding but as a study it is extremely confounded.
Adam Sacks
I think you've made your point. You are one of Briske's colleagues and you share a firm and apparently unshakeable point of view. Despite comments from people with years and decades of experience that differ from yours, you are not going to change your mind. We get that.
It is clear that no matter how many times others present well-supported evidence or point out that you, Briske, Holochek, et al. misunderstand and misrepresent Savory's work (intentionally or not), it will make no difference to you. It is also clear that you know all the arguments from the Holistic Management camp, you've interpreted them to suit your purposes with a win-the-debate-no-matter-what approach, and you've decided to reject them wholesale. That is, of course, your right.
However, I for one would welcome thoughtful critique of Holistic Management based on actual empirical evidence - that is, impartial observation of actual practice by experienced rangeland practitioners like Jim Howell and Allan Savory himself. But until you are willing to do that, I would have to say that so far your contributions are, to use your derisive terminology (apologies), "extremely confounded."
Perhaps you would consider a modicum of restraint, if not objectivity.
Thanks!
Sam Fuhlendorf
I am not saying this hasnt been studied. It has extensively. It has just been found to not work.
I am a researcher on this topic and I can tell you that it is one of the complete topics that have been researched. It is not only not supported by research but it is conclusively rejected.
Christina Allday-Bondy
Among the benefits he documented was a dramatic decrease in soil erosion and increase in effective rainfall. In one small catchment area of less than 300 acres, a hurricane driven thunderstorm dumped 90 million gallons of water over a period of 5 hours. The runoff water was CLEAR and not one crossing fence was damaged. By 1990 browse, grass and forbs had reached a record high in the areas managed with grazing. And vireos and warblers demonstrated huge population increases because Donnie had worked out a way to use the cattle as bait for nest-predating cowbirds.
Yes, there is a chasm between some of the older research and direct experience of Holistic Planned Grazing. Most of that research looks at HM grazing mechanically - as a recipe, and it is far from that linear.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r1L5uMGs3AKFRYwOhBxamHkMNcA818qx
Richard Morris
it does not specifically mention Savory or HM but there is a rotation system which involves burning, a short graze followed by 60 days rest. Quite a few other interventions seem to have been carried out. Burning isn't something I've seen mentioned by Savory.
It seems to me this is typical of lots of management. There is no one formula which can be applied world wide. Each site needs its own management regime. This might be why the academic results are mixed. Its also why a UN resolution is a bad idea. Blindly putting lots of animals on sites would do more harm than good.
Christina Allday-Bondy
Allan maintains that fire is ONE tool in the Holistic Management toolbox. I think he would say that in most cases it has been misused and so does not deliver the long term results possible with livestock. It also generates compounds much more damaging to the atmosphere.
In the case of the Kerr, small controlled burns are followed relatively quickly by livestock, which is a somewhat refined application of both tools that tested out as delivering the complex habitat mosaic that the Kerr is managing for. (FYI, Donnie Harmel died about 10 years ago; and for political reasons Texas Parks and Wildlife is loathe to step into anything appearing to be an endorsement of HM.)
I agree that each site needs its own management regime. But what we know is that, in seasonal moisture environments, livestock are a critical component of management that fulfill a role other tools do not. Timing of the livestock tool and it's use with other tools varies from site to site.
Personally, I would not dismiss a UN resolution out of hand. It depends on what it says.
Margriet O'Regan
Savory Institute
That said, Colin's post on behalf of spreading Allan's ideas and becoming certified is very welcome and appreciated. Savory Institute offers both accreditation training and a program for establishing regional training and demonstration that we call Savory Hubs. Please get in touch with us at contact@savoryinstitute.com for all the details. Thank you again, Colin and thank you to the TED community for the humbling wave of support.
Savory Institute
Sam Fuhlendorf
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1045796.pdf
Margriet O'Regan
Stephen Hallett
If I'm completely wrong about that, not to worry - the report continues: "However, the potential contributions of grazing systems to broader conservation goals and ecosystem services, at landscape or regional scales, and their potential interactions with adaptive management have yet to be evaluated." (p57-8)
Given that one of Mr. Savory's primary arguments appears to be concerning stocking rate (he wants a *lot* of animals on an area) and that his purposes are directly related to "broader conservation goals and ecosystem services" I think this particular report has very little to offer the debate within this thread.
At the very least, I would argue that until large scale controlled trials are conducted of Mr. Savory's particular method - not just any "prescribed grazing" method - you cannot convincingly argue that his method has been disproved.
Colin Gordon