Don't get into it bro. Oxidize just means "dry" according to this lunatic. Yeah just let the cows and pigs who are about to be murdered, go our onto. This guy in this stupid-ass "respectful" video said that Allan Savory, the leading scientist to plan and instate the largest genocide of elephants (for lack of a much better term) against elephants for absolutely no reason, is a better person than George who literally has broken down in tears on television, after having written ten books about protecting eartts natural beauty and material resources. No one cares about animals, only hiding from truth, honestly, I mean no disrespect about that

You don’t have to eat them. Leave the sick /dead weakest to the lion’s if you want. The point is they need to be used as a tool to improve the land (managed holistically)

People need to understand that not only does the grass grow the cows, but the cows grow the grass. Without either you eventually get neither. If one chooses to be vegan due to locality, spiritual viewpoints or health reasons then all is well and good. But if one is choosing to be vegan because they don't want animals killed then they are being deluded and potentially causing a lot of suffering throughout a chain of events. Prey animals rarely die of old age. The vast majority of a prey population will die from predation, accident (includes fighting), disease and/or starvation. The fastest, often most painless, form being predation as awful as that can be. Unlike predatory animals whose breeding pattern generally reduces naturally during times of hardship, prey populations have no checks on their population growth beyond these circumstances. As such, if you remove predation their numbers will keep rising till they starve, suffer diseases, fight each other, etc and ruin the land needed to support a future generation to boot. Leading to a massive drop in population that takes time to build up again. Using careful management (involving on site observation of the ecological response of the land - holistically, without nitpicking singular details) a farmer can use what could be called "planned predation" to manipulate numbers of animals on the land. Planned population reduction so numbers do not become too many to where they eat the land bare and reduce the land's capacity to maintain life. Regenerative practice allows an increase to where there are enough animals to improve land and encourage biological inoculation. But to regenerate land in a capitalist culture the farmer needs a market for those animals and the best market is food. Unfortunately, animals are not as easy to store and trade as grain is. Many civilisations over thousands of years have trended towards being grain based before collapsing due to the ill health caused by such. Ill health to human, animal and land. But that is another topic. If people want to give prey animals a good life, and heal land, they should support eating land grazed livestock. The more completely land grazed the better (as Monbiot mentioned, even a lot of land grazed animals are finished with grain). These animals won't be as fat as grain fed but they and the land and thus every other species will be healthier in the long run, and continuously. As Savory has mentioned, we do have about 70% of the planets land that could do with more ruminant animals passing over it.

The key thing is that ruminants left to their on devises will overgraze, over populate and destroy their environment. A excellent example of this took place in the Dutch wildlife reserve Oostvaardersplassen. The animals ate EVERYTHING and a mass cull had to take place as they were all starving to death. Of course it would be possible to only have females and neutered males which would stop the over population but won’t stop the selective grazing and re-grazing before the plant has had time to recover, both of which are overgrazing. The answer is to apply predator pressure which changes the behaviour of the herbivores and causes the ruminants to move and form migratory patterns. Ironically Mombiot narrated a film about this explaining how the return of wolves in Yellowstone changed the flow of rivers. The problem is modern life doesn’t allow for large numbers of ruminants migrating across large areas of land under predator pressure (as the bison once did in the US and aurochs 1000s of years ago in the U.K.). Firstly roads and fences are in the way, secondly the human predator conflict would be intolerable. So, if our farmland soils are to be restored using ruminants (you rightly acknowledge this is the best way since those rumens helped build our once highly fertile soils) those ruminants need to be managed in a way that mimics their behaviour under predator pressure: kept in a closely grouped herd, moved to fresh pasture every few hours (generally between 12-48 hours depending on the context) and not returning to that pasture again with the next few months, before it has had time to fully regrow. This kind of management takes effort, time and money. If you don’t like the idea of the ruminants being slaughtered for food that’s fine, but how are you going to mitigate the cost of managing them in the only way that’s proven to restore the soil and not overgraze?

exactly my point! I would have no issues to accept the idea to use 'cows' (in this case) to regenerate the soil... as long as it is an amount that is manageable by 'nature itself' as if they were other "native species' (even though they wouldn't be...), and not use it as an excuse, to put hem in our plates... because we know that plenty corporations involved with animal agriculture are using this approach, (Allan's), because it is convenient: greenwashing...No wonder all ranchers agree with Allan....

Without the ruminants, birds and critters have a place to nest. With ruminants this habitat disappears. Forest means more carbon sequestration, less methane emission.

@@erictorbet8104 i suspect you suffer from lonelyness....anyway , there is a loss of species and that includes birds because they don,t nest where they can,t find food . Yours sincerely

@@erictorbet8104 watch the video : regenerating the high desert with trees and cows . By Stefano Creatini

@@erictorbet8104 and for the vegans who seem to live under the conviction they,re always right i suggest some videos of the consequences of growing quinoa in Bolivian highplane

Allan said a lot, but George Monbiot, much of the audience, you and I (initially) missed his point. The debate's title is "Is livestock grazing essential to mitigating climate change?" It's crucial to note what it isn't: - Will livestock grazing directly reduce global warming? - Will it directly reduce carbon in the atmosphere? - Will it directly reduce greenhouse gases? George Monbiot mistakenly equates climate change with global warming and atmospheric carbon increase, but these are distinct issues. Climate change manifests in various ways: - Regions experiencing more extreme temperature fluctuations, making them inhospitable - Increased frequency of extreme weather events globally - Difficulty farming land due to these conditions - Coastal land loss due to rising sea levels Scientists correlate rising greenhouse gases with global temperature increase, and in turn, with climate change. Thus, they prioritize reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change, a view Monbiot supports. Savory disagrees. He argues that combating desertification is paramount to addressing climate change because: - Deserts experience extreme temperature fluctuations, rendering them uninhabitable - Desertification alters local weather patterns, leading to unexpected extreme weather elsewhere - Desertification decreases land resilience, hindering farming - This leaves only sea level rise as a climate change aspect unaffected by desertification, but losing arable land poses a greater threat than coastal inundation. Savory's "forget carbon" stance isn't dismissing climate change but highlighting his focus on desertification's role. Monbiot misconstrues this as disregarding the debate's theme. However, Savory consistently addressed the core issue. Savory's unconventional approach, rooted in practical experience rather than academic debate skills, frames the issue differently. Ideally the debate should center around "Desertification's Impact on Climate Change and Livestock Grazing's Role." Each side would argue their stance. Monbiot would need to acknowledge that even achieving carbon negativity won't suffice if desertification renders land uninhabitable and unfarmable. Addressing desertification must precede greenhouse gas concerns. Savory proposes that effectively grazing borderline desert land can transform it into fertile grassland, thus combating desertification and mitigating climate change. Monbiot could challenge this by: a) Providing evidence that Savory's grazing method doesn't combat desertification b) Demonstrating that greenhouse gas emissions exacerbate desertification more than improper grazing practices Monbiot's carbon-centric argument left him unable to counter Savory effectively. This also lead the audience to misunderstand Savory's point. Savory's initial hypothetical scenario - assuming zero carbon sequestration and exaggerated animal greenhouse gas emissions - signaled his distinct perspective. Better articulation from Savory or a more receptive attitude from Monbiot could have fostered a more fruitful debate.

The reason they grow corn/soy for cattle is that it uses *less* land (and so less deforestation). If you really prefer that people eat grassfed beef, then beef consumption needs to go way down. That was Monbiot's point about the Knapp reserve.

@@erictorbet8104 for all intents and purposes, it needs to completely stop. With all of England covered in grassfed catrle, only seventy five percent of calories would be provided per person and nothing else. I don't think people would feel comfortable attributing that much of a sense of importance that would be involved in only eating it once or twice a year. I don't even know if every person on earth could hope to get even that much grass fed beef every year. Cattle take a ton of space. And they are beautiful creatures which I really don't believe anybody hates, as suggested by the orator here.

No one asked you, and you have an overinflated sense of self worth.

Actually he's raising livestock in a region that is not natural grassland. So he's not "preventing desertification". And if he really wanted to feed as many people as possible, he'd just grow vegetables and fruit (way more calories per acre than livestock).

@@erictorbet8104 Excellent.

Not sure if you have spent much time looking at what Joel Salatin and his family have done with this farm over a long period of time. When his father first bought the farm it was severely degraded due to bad agricultural practices by previous owners. Over a number of years they have regenerated it to be what it is today but using cattle and other animals. Not sure that vegetables and fruit grow that well on bare rock or heavily compacted soils that they first encountered , please correct me if I am wrong. @@erictorbet8104

We need to end animal commodification... You are in a cult of personality that does not want to stop enslaving animals.

Over grazing is a question of time/recovery of plants, not animal numbers. There are a number of testing plots set up in America in the 60's I believe, where animals were left to "rewild" and enentually got worse over time.

@@rocknrolla257 Okay, but there are also places where they fence it off to keep out cows, and it improves over time. It seems like the whole "regenerative grazing" argument relies on the extraordinary claim that without some sort of grazing the grass will choke itself out and the end result is desert. I'd just like to know if there is proof of this claim.

@@erictorbet8104 I believe in certain climates. Depending on where the place is on the brittleness scale. So where there rainfall and humidity is even throughout the year, yes, if left alone, grasses will break down biologically and regenerate. But in areas of the world where you get 2 or 4 months of rain and then te rest of the year is dry, the plants cannot break down biologically. There's not enough moisture. So they either oxidize, turn to desert. Or, fire has to be used. The plants need to processed through the gut of a ruminent animal in these cercimstances. So yes, depending on the context, and climate etc, livestock may not be necessary.

Grazed land can never become forested. It’s the biggest issue with grazing - 37% of the worlds land can never become biodiverse again.

@@henrydobson9419 so, Savanah grasslands are not biodiverse ? The prairies before westerners, were not bio diverse. There are other biomes in the world that are not forested. I think you're missing the point. That without animal impact, managed holistically, grasslands in brittle environments will oxidize and turn to desert.

I think Allan has a hard time communicating the basics to the uninformed. He's been thinking on a high level on these topics for so long, he's forgotten what it was like to not understand these things. I remember my favorite chemistry professor, when I went back to visit him and complained about my organic chemistry professor, told me that when you really study a topic, at some point a big lightbulb goes on and it all makes sense. Many people can not go back to the way they understood things prior to that lightbulb moment.

I think this was intended for a specialist audience that was already familiar with Alan Savory’s work. People not familiar, have tended to evaluate based on rhetorical proxies. A popular one I saw in the comments was “Monbiot cited more scientific work, so he won.”

As did Monbiot. He dodged the oxidation question like a hot spud.

Well Mombiot was unable to propose a way to stop desertification of the once lush grasslands of Africa. Rewilding didn’t work there, as demonstrated by the steadily decertifying game reserves of the region. Savory’s practices have reversed desertification in many locations in the region. Not only is desertification reversed but the land starts to see increased numbers of mega fauna thanks to the year round vegetation and supply of water.

​@@sookibeulah9331thanks for this. I found Allan's comment "so where is the water?" interesting. The answer he gave was in the animals gut. Then it moves to the soil by trampling faeces. How much is this system limited by water supply? Is 200 to 300 mm a year enough to keep the stocking density required, or do we have to pipe in water from underground or elsewhere?

Why are you convinced that Savory's techniques even work? They're based on the preposterous claim that without ruminants, the land will desertify. Cows are the problem, not the solution. Their methane emissions alone outweigh any possible carbon sequestration.

Precision fermentation pĺus rewilding. Read his book Regenesis.

No one cares what you think.

The reference for fraud: John Carter et al, 2014, Holistic management: misinformation on the science of grazed ecosystems. International education journal of biodiversity, vol 2014, article 163431

GM is nosupporter of industrial ag. Get Regenesis from your local library and start with chapter 3.

@@alistairnewbould8542far better off reading “For The Love of Soil” by Nicole Masters, an actual soil scientist rather than a journalist who selects his evidence to fit his narrative.

@@alistairnewbould8542and there’s been far more studies supporting Holistic Planned Grazing HPG all of which are in the link provided in the description of this video. In the studies the scientists refer to it as Adaptive Multi-Paddock Grazing AMPG to get past the prejudice again HPG. However, but Savory and the researchers say HPG and AMPG are the same thing. If I include the link YT might block this comment but it is easily findable in the description

@@sookibeulah9331 thank you for the references

Found it: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aMubl6qIndK5gp8.html

www.youtube.com/@NatureRecovery

you're missing the monbiot's point, he conceded that holistic management is better than industrial style farming, but it's worse than rewilding

I don't live in Africa but I go often due to work... not in ever place where Allan's ideas were applied: there were positive outcomes...

A common them from all savory cult of personality followers.. theres always something that everyone else "cant understand"... Again, its all bullshit.

But the person swearing is the person who refuses to see what he advocates for will lead to an erosion of our soils, the very thing that supports all life. He advocates for the ultimate ultra processed food grown in vats and a total, final dislocation between food production and nature. Savory’s practices link food production and the restoration of nature through soil regeneration.

Yeah, it bothered me when he said that "mob grazing" is bad. He is so insistent that there's only one way to do things, and that's his way. He seems to really be bothered by people conflating his perfect system with other techniques or strategies that are less than perfect. It doesn't help people understand where he's coming from.

I saw an interview with he and his wife who was a reporter, and she said 'Alan was terrible communication of his systems'. I did not watch this video as I knew what Monbiot would do. The Holistic management does work.

And the theory of GHG effect on global temperature has been tested for 100 years and not nullified.

"And by definition, science can never be settled, it's only science if it can be continually tested and falsified" Sadly, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. _Trying_ to confirm or falsify is the way science works to its final end: knowing better than before. And holy shit, how much more do we know now then before, e.g. right up until the middle ages or even until the start of the 20th century or even until the 1980ies, when Big Oil stopped its own scientists investigating further the consequences of their business. There is no doubt about manmade CO2 climate change in science any longer. Why should there be any doubt anyway, it's about most basic physics, even a child can understand it - well, children would be interested in this, I guess, they will experience the results first hand. If you don't believe in physics btw, I wonder how you imagine your car is working. To find people who believe strongly in our power to manipulate the climate you only need to listen to geniuses like Elon, who are planning to terraform Mars to become a new home for mankind (... just in case, the whole terraforming project of planet Terra went wrong, when we started putting millions of years worth of the suns energy back into the atmosphere 200 years ago).

The work GM does trying to bring trees back into the sheep wastelands counts against your contention of his blindness

@@alistairnewbould8542 using the phrase "sheep wasteland" counts against your understanding of what I said.

Is this an attempt at humor? Or a repeat of the half truths from, for example, 'Cowspiracy'?

Hes addressed that. It didn’t work. Yet institutions all over the world are still making the same mistake by killing off more livestock and wild animal’s. Nobody learned anything!

Indeed his is, and he openly says it’s the biggest regret of his life, a regret he will take to his grave. The point of the cull (overseen and authorised by numerous other scientists) was to stop desertification and preserve the land for the remaining elephants and other animals. Once it was obvious the cull didn’t stop the desertification Savory committed his life to finding the root cause of desertification and preserve the vegetation for the remaining animals. Other people still advocate for reducing animals on decertifying land. Allan is the only person who says the animals are not the problem, it’s our management of the land and the animals that’s the problem. Everywhere his practices are used in brittle environments desertification is reversed and habitats are restored. There are numerous films showing this. In the description of this video is a link to a compendium of peer reviewed papers that prove how and why what Savory recommends works.

No it can't, unless you add the adjective "domesticated" to animals and insert a caveat for certain climates. There's no life as we know it without animals and any vegan farmer worth their salt is going to learn very quickly just how much they need to work with the worms, insects, birds, and other wildlife that are animals.

@@joshuafinch9192 He said "farmed", that's the same as domesticated. Veganic ag does not say remove worms and wildlife from the scene. It just means don't use slaughterhouse products, and use cover crops instead.

@@erictorbet8104 ah, I was mistaken, I stand corrected. I didn't read the word "farmed." Thanks for pointing it out. Not all proponents of veganic agriculture make the distinction, but I was wrong to not read more carefully in this case when care was taken by the OP

@@joshuafinch9192 I specifically said farmed animals. There is no need to bring animals into existence and then kill them to grow crops.

In certain areas yes. But imagine the whole world did that. The Deserts will still continue rapidly and all the problems that brings.

It's all nonsense.

​@@bluecloudsailing I don't think they are all nonsense, but they need to be read carefully to understand the results and not just the highlights provided. For instance one paper of a 20 year multispecies study showed improved C store etc but needed 2l.5 times the amount of land to produce the food the commercial system did. One of George Monbiot's points is the agricultural sprawl destroying habitat. Also need to look at what is being compared, what was the original soil condition. Regenerative ag may have a place as a stepping stone to regenesis. But to be very clear, this is not the same as it being fine to eat grass fed beef, and think you are supporting regen ag