Activity 3.3 - Regenerative Agriculture Part 2

 1.0 Point of View 

It evident that the authors of the articles are strongly opposed to Allan Savory’s position on combating desertification. Ketcham, Brisk, Bestelmeyer, and Brown, all seem to be frustrated with how Savory misconstrues information regarding desertification, climate change, carbon fixation, and grasslands. This is clear when Brisk, Bestelmeyer, and Brown write, “Mr Savory’s oversimplification of rangeland function and denouncement of science in order to promote extravagant claims regarding his grazing method— reversal of climate change and desertification—potentially weaken the credibility and position of the rangeland profession relative to other scientific disciplines and with policymaking groups” (2014). It is quite irresponsible of Savory to be disregarding years of scientific studies and evidence in order to make his argument. The authors acknowledge this irresponsibility on Savory’s end, and it is apparent that they are worried that the misinformation will ruin their reliability and create more of an environmental issue.  

2.0 Purpose 

The authors seem to have good intentions and are just not buying what Savory is selling. It can be inferred that the authors goals are to inform the public about the lack of statistical information and studies that support Savory’s methods. The authors are adamant on critiquing Savory because they want to make sure that the expert’s real scientific research and studies are still regarded as credible and trustworthy. Brisk, Bestelmeyer, and Brown state, “The tactic of discrediting science detracts from progress toward this goal, because it continues to oversimplify the complexity of rangeland systems and to promote narrowly focused technological solutions” (2013). The authors are worried that Savory’s methods being popularized might lead the fight against desertification in the wrong direction. If research for solving climate change, desertification, and carbon sequestering beings to focus on methods that are unable to provide statistical proof, resources and time will be wasted.  

Similarly, the authors want to warn farmers and other people that might be interested in Savory's methods. Ketcham writes, “The attraction for ranchers is Savory's promise that they can double, even triple, stocking rates while improving soil and vegetation cover. But the tales of success are self-reported and anecdotal” (2017). It is obvious that the authors also do not want to create any false hope for ranchers that are looking for a way to improve their land. It is unethical of Savory to promise ranchers in need that his method will save their land when there is no proof backing up this claim. Even the pictures Savory provided were not what they seem, and the authors are continuously trying to highlight his lack of credibility.  

3.0 Questions at Issue 

The first problem that the authors seem to write about is the fact that Savory’s basic understandings of desertification, grasslands, and carbon sequestration are incorrect. Regarding Savory stating that all rangelands are degraded, Brisk, Bestelmeyer, and Brown state that “not all global rangelands are degraded, rangelands have a limited capacity to store carbon, and intensive rotational grazing is not necessary to prevent rangelands from degrading” (2014). This goes to show that Savory does not have a refined understanding of grasslands, and his method for solving desertification are based off incorrect information. Savory’s claims that desertification is due to the lack of scientific understanding about grasslands dismisses the many other factors that contribute to desertification. The authors write, “Global rangeland degradation represents a serious concern, but it is often a consequence of increasing human and livestock populations, land fragmentation, changes to land tenure, and poverty, rather than invalid or insufficient scientific information” (Briske et al., 2013). It is dangerous for these facts to be ignored, and the focus on “insufficient scientific information” could derail the research being done over desertification. 

Secondly, Brisk, Bestelmeyer, and Brown point out that Savory’s claim that “periodic trampling by livestock is incorrect in many instances. They write, “Here again, there is no conclusive evidence to support the generality of these claims, and there are several important reasons why disturbing the soil surface is undesirable in many rangelands” (Briske et al., 2014). The authors explain that trampling of the soil allows for more erosion and soil loss, which obviously contradicts Savory’s methods. Savory’s claims seem to be unproven time and time again.  

Lastly, the authors took issue with how Savory made it seem as though his methods would aid in carbon sequestration so greatly that it would solve climate change. For example, “Experimental data from Botswana confirm the importance of soil biological crusts for cycling rangeland C and specifically indicate that intensive grazing, which destroys these crusts through trampling and burial, will adversely affect C sequestration and storage” (Briske et al., 2013). It is obvious that Savory is either ignoring the scientific information on Carbon sequestration, or he just doesn’t know the science. Not only are his methods wrong, they might enhance the carbon sequestration problem. The attitude that Savory’s methods are the only hope for humankind provides false hope for individuals that might be looking for a solution to climate change. This is also extremely unethical.  

4.0 Information 

In response to Savory’s claim that using his methods will lead to such an increase in carbon sequestration that climate change will be lessened, Brisk, Bestelmeyer, and Brown explain that “rangelands would have to sequester approximately 13.6 billion tons of C annually” to offset current emissions (2013). They also explain that “each hectare of rangeland would have to sequester an additional two tons of C each year” which is nowhere near where Savory’s claims require. Similarly, “Grass biomass is about 40% C, so that sequestering 2.5 tons of C per hectare would require that approximately 6.25 tons per hectare (6,250 kg or 12,500 lbs) of dry matter be produced each year” (Briske et al., 2013). These findings blow Savory’s claims right out of the water and directly contradict his methods. 

Savory claims that rangelands are experiencing detrimental, widespread desertification, but Brisk, Bestelmeyer, and Brown explain that this is not true. According to the authors, “rain-fed rangelands are estimated to attain new upper limits on C sequestration in about two decades following major improvements in management strategies” (Briske et al., 2013). This explanation shows that not all rangelands are doomed, and scientists are already predicting improvement. 

 In response to Savory’s claim that grasslands need to undergo constant grazing in order to combat desertification, the authors explained that they found “no evidence that grass cover had declined with 13 years of rest in a noneroding landscape. Erosion and drought can act suddenly in desert grasslands of the southwestern United States to produce widespread mortality of the dominant perennial grass black grama” (Briske et al., 2013). It seems that there are many reasons for why desertification occurs that Savory is ignoring. It is important that each factor is accounted for in order to really figure out the best methods to help soil degradation. 

Savory made it seem as though the trampling of hooves improves infiltration, but the “the soils in this desert grassland are sandy and crusting does not limit infiltration, so the mechanical action of hooves does not increase infiltration” (Briske et al., 2013). The issue of infiltration that Savory claims to be true, is not affected by increasing livestock. This completely disputes Savory’s method of moving bunched cattle around in order to loosen up the dirt and improve soil quality.  

Continuing with carbon sequestration, Savory states that his method of grazing allows for an increase in carbon storage throughout the soil. The authors explain that in their research they “concluded that managed grazing, where soil surfaces are only lightly disturbed, would help maintain a positive C balance in African rangelands” (Briske et al., 2013). This show that when soil is less disturbed, more carbon can be sequestered. Unlike what Savory says the soil does not need to be trampled on, and this process could release more carbon.  

Despite Savory’s assertion that livestock need to be reintroduced to grass lands, Ketcham points out that “two centuries of grazing on the Colorado Plateau catalyzed the most severe vegetation changes in 5,400 years.” (2017) It is evident that grazing can lead to extreme environmental changes throughout ecosystems. Grazing had the capability to change entire landscapes, so it might not be the solution to desertification. 

Ketcham also states that “a study of grasslands in China found that 20 years of grazing exclusion increased soil carbon storage by more than 35 percent. Another study there of semiarid grasslands reported that 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. In Australia, researchers concluded that destocking shrublands for a period of 20 years resulted in net carbon sequestration” (2017). Since Savory bases most of his argument around soil sequestration and its ability to solve climate change, this research shows that his methods are false. The removal of livestock leads to an increase in soil sequestration, and not the other way around. Savory’s methods could increase the release of carbon and make climate change worse. 

5.0 Interpretation and Inference 

5.1 Briske et al (2014). 

The authors conclude that Savory's methods should not be used as a guide to show ranchers how to graze. They explain that multi-paddock grazing might be successful, but it depends on if ranchers have the capabilities and motivation to provide the best outcomes. Grazing techniques are only successful if the rancher puts in the sufficient time and energy to ensure their methods are correct. 

5.2 Briske et al. (2013). 

The authors state that Savory aims to oversimplify the challenge of desertification and carbon sequestration. They explain that his methods ignore the “significant environmental, social, and political challenges to overcome, including human population growth, climate change, poverty, war, and inadequate education” (Briske et al., 2013). They conclude that Savory’s methods shift the focus away from what really matters, and may even accelerate the process of rangeland degradation and climate change. 

5.3 Ketcham (2017).           

       

Although Ketcham himself doesn’t seem to take a stance throughout his writing, he provides accounts from other scientists and experiments that conflict with Savory’s claims. At the end of his writing, Ketcham writes about Dennis Bramble. Bramble concludes that if he were in Savory’s shoes, he would do some “soul searching”. It seems like Ketcham aims to show that Savory is not the breakthrough scientist he claims to be.  

6.0 Concepts 

Identify and explain theories, definitions, axioms, laws, principles, or models you find in the authors' writings. 

There were not many theories, definitions, laws, or models presented throughout the authors writing, but I identified some findings. 

In his Ted Talk video, Savory states that the majority of climate change is caused by land degradation. The authors state that “Fossil fuel combustion, followed distantly by deforestation, land conversion, and degradation are the major contributors to increasing atmospheric C and global warming” (Briske et al., 2013). This is a basic scientific fact that Savory seems to ignore in order to make his methods seem more important.  

The authors write about how difficult it is extremely difficult to help climate change through carbon sequestration from storage in soils and vegetation. The authors also explain that “Rangelands are known to be very weak sinks for atmospheric C because plant production is water limited and more C is often released into the atmosphere from soil respiration than is take up by vegetation, especially during drought periods” (Briske et al., 2013). Savory talked about how his methods could greatly help carbon sequestration, but again, he is choosing to ignore the basic facts about rangelands and their capabilities. This automatically contradicts Savory’s motivation for his methods. 

7.0 Assumptions 

Ketcham seems to feel as though Savory is someone that thinks of himself as a man that has changed the world through his methods. This is evident when Ketcham says that Savory “compared himself, by sly inference, to Galileo” (2017). Ketcham went into this situation already feeling very weary of Savory and his methods. This might make Ketcham feel as though Savory is making these claims in order to become “the man that cured climate change”.  

It is clear that Brisk, Bestelmeyer, and Brown, feel as though Savory is not a true scientist like he might feel he is. The authors know that if you are going to make a claim that your methods can help climate change, then you better have some data to back it up. Savory has nothing. This immediately makes the authors skeptical of Savory, and they might assume that he is ignoring the climate change and carbon sequestration research done before him.  

8.0 Consequences 

Brisk, Bestelmeyer, and Brown seem to denounce Savory and his claims about solving the desertification problem and climate change. They feel as though the popularization of Savory’s methods provides a false hope for communities searching for an answer and might accelerate the very issues he is trying to solve. The authors make it clear that Savory cannot ignore the basic science of soil degradation and soil sequestration, while declaring that he has the answers to both issues. It is obvious that the authors are worried that Savory’s methods will hinder the research for climate change and desertification by making the other scientists seem unreliable. 

Ketcham provides accounts and opinions from other scientists and member of the agricultural community. Through these accounts, the conclusion can be made that Savory need to take a hard look at his methods since so many credible scientists are telling him that his research is unsubstantial. The accounts that Ketcham provides further explains how inadequate Savory’s proof is. 

 

 

 Reference

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