In this paper, Dr. Richard Teague examines the shortcomings and inaccuracies of his colleague Dr. David Briske's claims against Allan Savory's methods.
The knowledge base used by Briske et al. stems from a very poor understanding of Holistic Planned Grazing and poorly executed grazing experiments. To make sweeping statements such as “The Savory method cannot green deserts or reverse climate change” is particularly misleading. It ignores the fact that many ranchers operating in low rainfall areas from 10 to 15 inches, areas so bare of vegetation that most people would call them desertified, have managed to restore vegetation, ecosystem function, and productivity using Holistic Planned Grazing when even complete removal of livestock had failed to achieve any restoration.
He continues:
Most research cited by Briske et al. has been short-term and has examined the issue from a reductionist viewpoint that has not included the critical influences of scale or used the best management strategies of Holistic Planned Grazing to achieve sound animal production, resource improvement, and socioeconomic goals under constantly varying conditions on rangelands. Concentrating only on differences in productivity without meaningfully taking into account negative impacts on the environment can lead to misleading extrapolations. Such conclusions cloud rather than enhance knowledge about sustainable grazing management and have no relevance for practical grazing management applications. Further, published multipaddock grazing research from Australia, southern Africa, Argentina, and the United States (omitted in the reviews by Briske et al.), 1) conducted at the scale of ranching operations, 2) adaptively managed as conditions changed to achieve desired ecosystem and production goals, and 3) measuring parameters indicating change in ecosystem function has arrived at the opposite view to those expressed by Briske et al.
(...)
In summary, it is hard to fathom how scientists can ignore the superior outcomes achieved by conservation award–winning ranchers who use either Holistic Planned Grazing or well-managed multipaddock, time-controlled grazing. Good science involves actively seeking information that refutes any hypothesis, not rigidly defending a particular hypothesis and viewpoint against any dissenting viewpoint or published data.
Clinging to past viewpoints and techniques based on a limited and small subset of knowledge on the subject of rangeland grazing management is not helpful. The knowledge base used by Briske et al.1 stems from a very poor understanding of Holistic Planned Grazing and poorly executed grazing experiments (see the work of Teague et al. ).2 To make sweeping statements such as “The Savory method cannot green deserts or reverse climate change” is particularly misleading. It ignores the fact that many ranchers operating in low rainfall areas from 10 to 15 inches, areas so bare of vegetation that most people would call them desertified, have managed to restore vegetation, ecosystem function, and productivity using Holistic Planned Grazing when even complete removal of livestock had failed to achieve any restoration. Only if the comment refers to true deserts receiving almost no rainfall would the statement possibly be true.
Savory Institute is a U.S.-registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. EIN: 45-4134319
Fonden The Savory Foundation is incorporated in Denmark. CVR-nr: 43597205
Land to Market is a U.S. public-benefit corporation with majority ownership by the Savory Institute. EIN: 88-2589299
We respect your privacy and will never spam or sell your information.
You can unsubscribe at any time.
