A

Too be honest all it has done is enrich the people in power. During a drought in 1994 I saw bags of food aid that was meant to be given out free being sold by govt and only to the people who had party cards.

To blame cattle for methane is crazy. Cattle have the same digestive system as bison, elk, deer, reindeer, caribou, yaks, wildebeast, the antelopes of Africa and America, sheep, goats, etc. There are fewer cattle in the USA today than there were bison in 1491, (a great book by that title, by the way), yet studies of ai trapped in ice cores shows that there was much less methane in the atmosphere then. There were also many more large herbivores around the world then, or even a couple hundred years ago. Or a hundred years ago than there are now. Atmosphere scientists in Colorado were unable to detect methane in the presence of cattle, but were surprised to find high levels leaking from natural gas (methane) and oil well, and also from pipelines in towns and cities. There are also now many more cesspools processing human waste anaerobically, both in sewage treatment plants and septic tanks. Rice paddies, and natural wetlands are also major sources of methane. Now, of course, thawing permafrost and methane that had been trapped underwater in ice is being released...

The problem is that methane data was gathered in a reductionist manner. It failed to view it as a cycle where cattle also are involved in the breakdown of methane . To understand really what I’m talking about see the work of soil microbiologist and climatologist Walter Jehne. He has plenty on KZfaq.

@@davedrewett2196 didn't know that but reductionist thinking sure pollutes all science including nutrition science. Yup, coulda guessed if I'd'a thought less reductively myself ☺

With more vegetation, the C02 problem is addressed. Savory spoke on the methane question--that it's re-absorbed back into the soil.

Trackerdoc he’s a liar.

@@bashful228 No it's not.

@@bashful228 You havent looked well enough into his work with open mind then

​@@Gustav4 i know the founders of the permaculture movement. I know what of it is sensible and where Savory hypes it up and simply makes shit up. he's admitted as much on video when being asked for evidence in front of a university lecture theatre audience he dodged the question and said, 'i don't have any evidence or science or papers or even a demonstration farm i can show you to prove what I'm saying is true. I'm simply offering people a direction to follow, a different way of thinking'. well guess what? there's other ways of think that aren't bigAg and aren't slippery Savory. he's not the first to say flogging the shit out of the land has bad consequences. there are many saying that and showing better ways including Savory's methods (basically cell grazing on a fast rotation which is labor and infrastructure intensive and unfeasible in the Australian outback). Where he comes unstuck is his claims around GHG accounting. He's in polite terms, full of shit on that front. He dismisses the methane issue as trival even though methane is 100x as potent as CO2 over ten years and the global methane stock is rising aster than the CO2 stock. He waves his arms and says the only, *the only*, way to save mankind and natural systems from CC is farming livestock under HM. This is a crock of the first order. If we returned all pasture lands that were put on cleared woodland and clear forest with rewilding the drawdown would be significantly higher than HM. Then we could use the majority of cropping which currently is used to feed animals to feed starving people and put it back into the soil to build carbon or make biofuels from it. Savory wouldn't hear of such a thing, because it's not his faith based ideology to think in those terms. His need to eat meat means he has to find an environmental justification for the production of his food. The world can go to hell as long as livestock producers remain king of the ag world. There are farms using HM in Australia today, calling it regenerative ag by including nitrogen fixing pasture crops to build the soil and the drawdown is about half the emissions they produce using conventional 100 year accounting (which minimises the methane because it's only around for 12 of those 100 years). using 10 year GHG account the methane footprint is 4x that. so they're only offsetting one eighth of the methane production. Some of the methane may mix into the air and even be drawn into soil to be eaten by methane digesting bacteria, but mostly being lighter than air it will rise to the troposphere and stratosphere where it's a potent GHG. in the troposphere methane is also a precursor to tropospheric ozone, another potent GHG. Savory knows non of this and remains blissfully ignorant in his egotistic fantasy. Who else could be so egotistical as to kill tens of thousands of elephants on a whim? To name an institute after themselves and pay people sing his praises in testimonials like he's running an advertorial school?

@@bashful228 I had a good long answer written down to you but accidentally deleted it... But basically, I suggest you throw out all your prejudices and your huge ego of insisting you know it all, and get his book for a proper understanding of the Holistic Management framework. I'll leave a link for it here. islandpress.org/books/holistic-management-third-edition

It seems that you have summed up Mr. Savory's ideas - which he has proven over many decades and many thousands of acres on several continents - quite well. By somehow thinking we humans are not part of the natural world... by taking our air, food, and water for granted... we have been destroying the ecosystems that provide us with everything we need. We can continue to exploit the resources of the planet until it is too late; we can continue to be a destructive force - or we can become functional parts of the ecosystems of the Earth, and help restore what we have damaged. The future depends on the choices we make today.

Bison - and elk, and pronghorn, and deer, and caribou... in North America. Yes, caribou once extended to the region now known as the USA. Moose may not have migrated as much as bison did, but they were important large herbivores, now reduced to a few handfuls of animals. Most people are unaware that bison also lived in the eastern part of what is now the USA, and that much of the Eastern Seaboard was savanna. They also don't understand that deer prefer the suburbs to the degraded woods, because there is more to eat in suburban lawns and shrubbery. The forests with huge mature trees and layers of understory, including shrubs and grasses, that these animals thrived in are gone.

Jana Oh the difference is we now run much more intense numbers of livestock on rangelands (and in feedlots) than natural systems had grazers by kilogram per hectare (or per acre). check out the data on terrastendo.net. Paul exposes many of Allen’s falsehoods. Savory is correct about the need for holistic principles and the (now obvious if you watched this video) principle of short grazing, long resting of pasture. the rest is mostly bullshit which he has turned into a month making enterprise. Savorys contribution is as a slick politician selling a mix of BS and truth. i have way more respect for Elaine than Allen.

Jefferdaughter yep grazers and forests aren’t friends. some areas could maintain forest coverage, others circuler to grazing. it all came down to geology and climate (and to some extent predation based on geology and climate).

@@bashful228 " the difference is we now run much more intense numbers of livestock on rangelands (and in feedlots) than natural systems had grazers by kilogram per hectare (or per acre)" bullshit

His wife, Jody Butterfield, might object.

@@Jefferdaughter He lives in Africa, he can have more. LOL

Petroleum has never been cheaper and it's in every single product you buy.

Search youtube for Allan Savory. Many examples from Tanzania showing "before" and "after" landscape. Millions of acres transformed from barren land to green pastures and fields.

Helen Wood savory isn’t your man then. he’s all about the sell.

He's all about practical application. Study his work.

Did you find what you were searching for?

Yes, by using the benefits that properly managed livestock gives us.

Holistic Planned Grazing which is part of the Holistic Management Framework, is a planning process. Rotational grazing, mob grazing, short duration grazing and so on are all systems that doesnt work. You need to have the movement of the animals put down on paper. HPG process can teach you how do to the planning right. Here is a few examples of such a grazing chart: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/j5-jgLykrq6aZ3U.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z92GdKtqtdHNeIU.html Here Allan explains what it is. savory.global/holistic-planned-grazing/

The difference between rotational grazing and planned grazing is that planned grazing puts an emphasis on what is required for the soil/grasses to optimally recover.

"Clearly, something else is at play" - sugar and other plant-"food"

Cron Kite if the whole world followed a carnivore diet, apart from more HD and cancers, we’d have climate catastrophe. we might have one anyway. this hooves breaking up the soil bullshit is totally unproven also. in fact in Australia’s fragile soils it’s the leading cause of erosion and soil loss.

Like having your first dump in the wild

weird he thinks you can’t crop and get carbon in the soil. it’s easier than with livestock to have cover crops. this guy is so blinkered. you can make money from livestock, sure, but they don’t do anything green manure crops don’t. and they have the negative impact of methane emissions.

so he basically has no idea about climate change and ignored methane and enteric fermentation.

There are countless others who have and are doing this in the USA and around the world, though they are not all on KZfaq. Gabe Brown in North Dakota shares his story of how he shifted from being a conventional chemical and tillage based crop farmer to a regenerative approach integrating livestock, pasture, and crops with no plowing and no synthetic fertilizers or 'cides': 'Treating the Farm as an Ecosystem' kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q7udfMeilaqaXXU.html Greg Judy is restoring land using cattle, sheep, and hogs in Missouri: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jZx4eq6E29DPZYU.html Joel Salatin and his family massively increased the soil fertility on a worn out farm in Va. using no fertilizer and no seed, just managed grazing: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iK6bfLiUtKiWpnU.html Jim Gerrish has a number of 'how to' talks on managed grazing on KZfaq.

Look into Sara Keough's work, the way the animal was raised has a lot to say of how healthy food it produces.

"Meat is not carcinogenic!!! " Plants are. All plants are toxic...

Seems like the ranchers would jump at this on a purely profit basis. It would save them $. Less spent on fertilizers, supplementary food, healthier cattle from more nutrients in the soil.

Who cares what you expected... The title is true, your brain misled you.

Your face mislead you.

@@sizlax - Oooooo! How brilliant your retort! We are all stunned by your intellect. (This is sarcasm.)

While the title appears perfectly appropriate, does the talk not mention how government policy and law have promoted the highly destructive industrial agriculture practices, (among others) while hindering or obstructing regenerative agriculture?

@@Jefferdaughter Strongly implied. He is doing a presentation at Harvard to grow awareness for this issue.

If you really want people to take this comment seriously please provide sources.

Here´s the same answer I posted on your other comment. Some of the criticism says that the lifestock were reducing their weight during the first phaze of there grazing in a new area. I don't see anything wrong with that as this will solve the problem longterm. The cattle are improving the land so when they get there the next time, they will have more grass to eat. This will continue on and on. I't the same as you'll have less money when you´re building your own house. When the house is built you can live there for 100 years with only a small cost.

I guess weakened livestock is good? if you want to reintroduce predator populations as well but I don't see many ranchers or nomadic herdsman going for that!

Helen, you are not paying attention. The"clinical" results...that is farmers that start holistic or "mob grazing"in the spring lose little or no weight and in fact pick up weight. See Gabe Browns talks before various grazing conferences.

show us your proof and sources

Bradley From Adelaide methane is broken down in healthy soils lol he clearly says that

There were more bison in North America in 1491 than there are cattle today. Plus huge herds of elk, caribou, pronghorns, and other ruminants. Bison, and these other ruminants, all digest plant matter the same way. Over the same time period, ruminant herbivores have declines by many MILLIONS around the world. How then can cattle be the source of significant amounts of atmospheric methane??? If you do just a little investigation, you will discover that cattle on pasture produce less methane than cattle eating a grain-and-soy based diet. You will also learn that healthy pastures on healthy soils absorb and digest the methane. Even in dryland areas, areas that were not being sustainably, let alone holistically or regeneratively - climate scientists could not even detect methane in the vicinity of cattle using mobile laboratories. To their surprise, they discovered large amounts of methane around natural gas (methane) and oil wells, and also in towns and cities, where it was leaking from pipes. Even feedlot finished beef cattle are born and raised and live on pasture for most of their lives. They just spend the last months at an all-you-can-eat buffet. Crop agriculture produces about 7 tons of topsoil lost to wind and water erosion for every ton of crop yield. Properly managed livestock build soil. Did you miss the part about how effectively grasses pump carbohydrates into soils? They do this to feed the soil life they need to unlock the minerals those plants need to survive and thrive and resist disease and pests. *Grasses put carbon into the soil far more effectively than forests*. Yet, if not grazed and/or tramples, grasses and other plant matter oxidize carbon, nitrogen, etc into the atmosphere. Plant and animals co-evolved and need each other. Crop agriculture is effectively mining the nutrients put into the soil by the interaction of plants with sunlight, soil life, and huge herds of herbivores. There is competition in the natural world, but there is much, much more co-operation and synergy.

What of the human activity that creates methane? Rice paddies are major sources of methane, yet rice can be grown on dry land. Colin Seis is growing cereal grains in pastures, without the use of any synthetic inputs at all. Gabe Brown is producing crops, livestock, pasture in an integrated system - and wildlife is flocking to his land. What about the methane produced by handling human waste in anaerobic systems? And yes, the tanks of waste in water from CAFOS, where animal are separated from their natural relationship with the soil and plant communities they co-evolved with. As one KZfaq title puts it, 'It's not the COW; It's the HOW'. Or the natural wetlands that are probably the largest source of methane on Earth? Should we destroy even more of the wetland ecosystems than we have already? Methane from thawing permafrost, and underwater sources that were frozen are beginning to release even more methane. If we do not have enough healthy grassland soils to digest the methane, what then?

" there's nothing we can do about it (methane)" Why would you want to do anything about it? Methane is a part of nature, every time fermentation occurs in the nature (which is an essential of every ecosystem), some of those anaerobic bacteria participating in the fermentation will produce methane. Biogenic methane as a part of a functioning biologic system is GOOD.

more like fertile grasslands

I believe he refers to André Voisin.

"GhG that is 86x more potent than CO₂ over twenty years" which is a bullshit. "and methane stocks have risen three times faster than CO₂ since preindustrial levels" due to leaks of the oil/natural gas industry... it has NOTHING to do with cows...

Magnus Rasmussen boy aware of any such research but i would note nutritional and health sciences literature relating to food is mostly funded by lobby groups, the biggest being, contrary to popular myths about the sugar lobby, the rancher and livestock lobbyist. so you really need an expert in the field to adjudicate on the method and conclusions of any such papers. you’ll find papers recommending every single “food” and beverage for sale in the USA if you look for it.

"you know who is influencing the USDA?" - the seventh day adventists (anti-meat) - the big food industry including big-sugar (and including adventists hold companies like Kellog's) - the big petrochemical companies including monsanto which profits from the f*cking plant-agriculture - the big pharma including pfizer who profits from chronic diseases caused by eating the f*cking plants and plant sh*t like sugar