TED Conversations

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?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Mar 6 2013: Stephen,
    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....
    • Mar 9 2013: Sam are you perhaps missing the point of Mr. Savory's talk? It wasnt about the most efficient means of rasing cattle but rather about reversing desertification. Your focus on grazing systems seems to overlook the point entirely.
      Perhaps it is simply the conversation thread that you disagree with.
    • Mar 9 2013: Please correct me if I am wrong dr. Fuhlendorf, since I am not working in your field, just curious.
      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?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.