Intresting topic, about that Mammoth extinction i think big role Is that smaller herbivors just outcompete him. How can he graze when everything Is grazed to the ground.
Even in the UK you have to manage the land to require it. Take Scotland which is overpopulated with deer so new trees don't grow. Mossy Earth have done some videos on Scotland. And there's one on Findhorn. In dryer areas you probably need a combination of intensely rotated grazing (Roots so deep for US example) and food forest as a route to increasing cover and water retention in marginal land (examples in Senegal). There is no single answer that will work everywhere.
Complete hogwash. No credible scientists takes this person seriously. Yes, modern cattle husbandry practices are destructive. BUT intensive rotational grazing cannot sequester large amounts of carbon and under many conditions, it will degrade the ecosystem. A well-spoken man with an accent; lets believe him!
I wonder why there is no ruminant animals other than cows in those landscapes? Obviously, grazing animals were there... then ranchers exterminated them to steal their ecological niche... keeping them on the landscape perpetuates that sick relationship with nature ranching enforces on the land... too much land that was forcibly stolen from indigenous peoples in the Americas. Now our wildlife is sick... with things like Bovine Tuberculosis that cattle introduced to them. And now they are culling wildlife to protect that ridiculously unnecessary economic asset that is livestock from the diseases they introduced. Not to mention the destruction of natural apex predators that make ecosystems resilient to things like climate change. I am sorry but you are on the wrong side of this debate.
Please keep up your message. So glad for your efforts. Keep calling out the incorrect information that refers to industrialisation, and ALSO refers to industrial non animal producfion. Regenerative livestock (etc) production is full of beautiful, healthy LIFE. Thank you, again!
Well said Seth. I don't know if you saw but there is a short section with a regenerative rancher in the new Netflix twin vegan propaganda thing. I'll write a blog post on it and maybe a video in the next day or two.
I dream of a day when vegan passion can be used to help change the legal issues and fight big Ag that challenges regenerative farming from making the impact that it needs. Also better, reliably kinder slaughter practices, and work on removing chemical overuse and poising theough general use across environment. Wishing you well with your work.
@@em945 I'm right there dreaming with you. Do you have a good paper to cite on the scalability issue? This is basically the argument against regenerative grazing that's given in the documentary (by Monbiot and the rancher himself). The work I've done at the micro level tells me that that argument is false, but maybe there's some data I can cite as well?
@@MeatHeals Hi! Apologies for a slow reply. I also cannot help with any papers to cite. I do not believe there have any serious attempts. I did not see the vegan movie but had heard there was so much misinformation, and more importantly, inaccurate comparisons to the grassfed regenerative systems. I also feel the big focus must be on soil building organically , away from the specifics. Soil is the carbon sink interface and the wealth and health of most landscapes. I also think downsizing of farmland is the only way to work with reliance on tractors etc (which I think need to stay in the mix in a basic level or some level of slavery will return). There seems to constantly be a fallback position that what we are doing with all industrialised production will keep going. It will not, and is causing all levels of problems, importantly dead soil. I am on 100 acres looking after my Family's small cattle farm. I make very little money, but at but at least our land is returning to some level of health with alternate practices. Synthetic stimulant additives ONLY damgage soil cycles. There isn't even an argument. They give the short term illusion of fertily and vitality in the same way as a male gym goer can achieve with testosterone injections and cocaine use. The look masculine and vibrant, but over time, the rest of their biology starts collapsing. (I came from the fitness industry and the falsehoods is the same :). However there has obviously been serious attempts to undermine regen efforts etc by BIG AG. There is an enormous amount of money in machinery, chemicals, and industrialised profit systems that will unlikely go down without collapsing...no different from Big Pharma or Big Banking. I think veganism is not a hindrance, very few people maintain health on this diet. It will become clear to many in the west. The reason for my issue with vegans is that I feel they are amongst the only educated ones with the genuine drive to do what would be required to stand up and do the leg work. As long as they eat a little meat first. The most obvious place I have seen the direct misrepresentation and misinformation about regenerative farming in the US (although I am in Australia) Was during an episode from the YT Channel 'Our Changing Climate'. I think in general the channel is good, but almost 3 years ago, they produced an episode ( I am forgetting the title) that had a thumbnail that basically said OCC had changed their mind on grassfed beef etc. The episode continued on siting a science paper from an Ohio Uni (or similar US University) that did a field study on soil etc applying regenerative techniques. The study (and YT episod) was a farce, starting out saying that rarely fadmers are willing to apply the smaller cell grazing techniques (which is true), so they set up the study with an open plan of paddocks, and allowed the cattle to go anywhere. Even the worst farmers know that ruins the paddocks, and at least have smaller internal options for control. Non herders would not know this. Also they said soil building and carbon collection was created by rootsystems dying in the soil and staying there. This is quite comical, but unless you had listened to how the soil cycle works, you could be forgiven for not picking up. It is the organic matter and the rest of ths soil cycle participants that are the carbon sink, but basically everything else including all the plants and anything eating them, that are also the sink. I hope I have this correct, as i am sounding confident😁, but I had learnt this from a Nicole Masters video. She is a New Zealand Agronomist. She and many other alternative voices brought an enlightened perspective to my care for our paddocks after the nasty drought of 2018 and 2019 down under. I had just turned up here to help an ailing Cousin, and was unimpressed with conventional care of animals and land. I did make a comment on the YT episode and said much of the information was incorrect, I was upvoted quite a bit, but not responded to by the channel producers. I then went to a link of all the supporting 'papers' and articles. The Uni paper was there as well as a number of opinion peices and such. It looked like a Press Release had been sent from somewhere and would capture anyone easily from the climate change or vegan community if they were not aware of technical issues. To be fair to vegans, there is so much poor animal husbandry and industrial sized abuse that helps no one. Not the land, the animals, and many humans suffer to from it. I agree with them. Non animal food the same, and some of the insecticides are so obvious detrimental to systems surrounding spraying, I am at a loss for comment. I think the best voices to help rebuild soil in general are the Savory institute People and similar who are taking a holistic approach, making sure each farm or region is cared for from a big picture perspective. There are so many awesome People doing the work. The best book I think you may like is from Australia is called 'call of the reed warbler' and it is targeted to healthy eaters as well. The other big issue I see is societal unrest. I see areas in Africa (that really need help) have either too many roving sheep herders or have violent herders taking over areas. Regenerate or just sustainable production and genuine landcare can only come as we are on the same page and card for our future generations. Here in highly regulated Victoria, our farm now has a non permitted small industrial business that has moved just upstream and is draining into the waterway our main dam flows from. There are no authorities willing to deal with the man, who is known in the area as an entitled bully. My family are in process of selling. All I can do is pray nothing dramatic happens in this time. This land will likely become 'lifestyle'. So sad. Lack of health in the environment affects us all. Best wishes with your endeavours and any soil you have, improve it! Plant stuff, don't over mow it. Every little bit helps!
doing Johnson Su compost and make extract with special liquid biochar, to keep biology in the soil, we support high MicroCGS basalt to remineralise and include callahan approach to agriculture, the soil and few other things as some do in europe and irish have done since 400 after Christ . seem we need to explore C60 promoted by Buckminster fuller to...as a carrier of biology he predicted...German astrophysicists claimed in the 90s that life arrived on earth on board of carbon C60, i don t know... .I am looking how to merge Biolological ionisation concept as Dr Ream approach very interesting to, we have so much to integrate...each item look to be a part of the puzzle of evolutive life... can introduce key minerals in water through mechanical cavitation reactors to nanoniseor make kind of non polar colloidal to feed compost and worms to intedrate all this..and Jaddam in Korea explain simply how to multiply this biology simply biologically no chemicals....
the issue is manpower, i know no farmers who have time and manpower to make all this i cannot even get them to look at your video we need to find a way to spray this info and make this johnsoson sur available and let it stay at the root of the plants or trees, , on my side i add 15% biochar to johnson sue traditional reactor we are building 150 of those , now we have about 20 assemble by now we have large building 7 story high so reactor on first level heating the other level. we are in the north and weto develop this in canada soon where it is a lot colder.i know many farmers in usa and canada they work terribly hard and they are under extreme pressure from all side even from mother nature...who doesn t always help..
The finished compost can be agitated in non-chlorinated water (rainwater is best) to release the beneficial organisms into suspension in the water. Then, use an in-furrow injector just behind where the seed is planted with a no-till drill. So, the liquid hits the seed on the soil before the machine covers it. Or make a slurry with the compost, cover the seeds with it, and plant them. Dr. Johnson has a seed coat recipe on online.
Right we will never thank Dr Johnson and its wife Su for their deep contribution and their sincerety in their work they are really inspiring, thank you
“Oxidation”. Even George had no idea what he was talking about. Grass fed beef puts out triple the methane of grain fed because the animals live much longer. Allan’s take is an observational one. George is doing math. If you aren’t willing to tackle the math you aren’t dealing with global warming. the exploitation of sentient and suffering beings can’t truly be a solution. Speciesism is akin to racism and genocide. Those horrors are inextricably linked to how humans treat animals. Animal cruelty is a crime in most countries. Allan is the better person? His career began with the slaughter of 40,000 elephants. Oxford has produced multiple studies showing animal agriculture is the direct cause of the irrevocable mass extinction currently happening. The first in 65 million years.
I followed the Oxford lecture as well and you are probably right about animals needed to eat the grass in many areas where the climate doesn’t support woods. But that will solve only a desertification problem in these areas, not the food and climate crisis globally. There are simply too many people walking around, and too many of them who want to eat meat. The ‘big herds’ in Nth America (bison) and Africa (the savanne with zebras, gnus) probably are / were in equilibrium with their environment but that’s largely gone because of the population pressure.
You can understand why George lost his patience. He’s desperately trying to find a solution by working through the data and Allan was offering no data. It’s only the future of humanity we’re talking about here! This wasn’t about winning or losing, but if it were Allan, who’s contributions could have been summarised by saying “ it’s a policy issue” - weren’t very robust
Let’s put numbers of animals and time spent per acre on this topic. I feel this is where so many damaging farms excuse their farming practices by saying their using the Savoury method.
I really like Monbiot. I do have a concern for his health particularly mental health due to veganism. That extreme childlike frustraltion is a veganism trademark. I came from a health a fitness background and had big exposure to vegan health including my own. It always ends badly in breakdown.
I am in Australia and Alan Savory's work has been a total turnaround, also some Auztralians . I was from the city, and I may not of understood the cycles and systems unless I saw it myself overtime. Our paddocks are probably in the best condition they have ever been. We have el nino on the way.
watched the debate, wasn't much impressed with mr.Savory's presentation. That being said his arguments were valid, and mr.Manbiot was just looking at high carbon(the after effect), while mr.Savory was speaking about clean soil and plants as a cure of the illness rather than just trying to reduce the after effects. I saw this argument in the comments and that makes sense, that mr.Savory's solution works only in these dry areas and probably they won't be as effective in a more european like climate.
Putting aside all discussion on both sides, I felt sad that George Monbiot felt he had to denigrate himself by describing Alan Savorys work as being bxxxshxx. If we can't have conversation, discussion, and debate in a respectful way without making gross remarks about the other party, it says more about the speaker than the one receiving the insult.
I wish (if wishes were fishes) that Alan had the ability to communicate these complex, challenging issues in a way that could be more easily digested by the average consumer. Savory Institute and the global Hubs are such an extensive organization with diverse and well educated participants surely we can find a more concise way to communicate the science.
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.
Georges arguments seem self defeating. Its almost as if he sees a future for nature thats devoid of herbivores. If any 'unmanaged' grazing land is returned to a natural state (with predators) it will likely sustain higher biomass of mammals than cattle alone as nature will strike the same balance as man & unmanaged cattle, it will just be a different mix. Net result is more of the net carbon nasties, methane etc, George is so afraid of. As a separate stream to this whole argument the demonisation of carbon is a serious concern because it is used as an invisible threat to generate fear in ill-informed voters and so a tool to control entire populations into smaller and smaller zones. Meanwhile, notice how the super rich are buying up farmland and coastal properties directly in the face of the message they want you to believe.
I really pity Savory, he seems a nice guy with some nice results in specific environments. But now he is lost in a bigger fight with his "toolbox" containing anecdotes only. I already had a hard time trying to read his textbook, but the discussion made absolutely no sense at all. You don't enter the heart of Oxford university to discuss a clear question without understanding that specific question. Especially not, when you yourself define it. Blaming the opponent for sticking to it like most people here do, is absurd.
Allan's level of thinking is so far beyond what most of us can comprehend, we have personally used holistic management to repair land destroyed by row crop farming. Allan was focusing on the issue while George was focusing on a character debate, which shows me he does not know what he is talking about. Holistic management has worked everywhere it has been used properly. Thanks for the work you are doing Seth, take care.
I was not happy with the appeal to authority at the beginning. No Nobel laureate has contradicted the global-warming proposition. Appeal to authority, not science. I'm not sure that that was true at the time he claimed it so. Freeman Dyson and Edward Teller had rejected the hypothesis of human-caused, fossil fueled climate change catastrophism. But now, John Clauser, 2022 Nobel recipient for physics has strongly denounced the whole thing. I am all in for regenerative, localized, agroecology, but I won't join a cult based on bad science to promote my agenda.
A theory put forward recently states that the Sahara desert exists purely due to over intensive grazing. I'm finding your emotions are driving your statements rather than factual systems or solid counter arguments.
Alan in that talk said NOTHING. As a fan, you might be familiar with his other work, but it's my first time (and probably last) hearing this guy, and he's all over the place: elephants, policy, fire, science denialism lite, world war 2 and military approaches. I'd love for him to give an argument supporting his claim. In fact he never even made the claim, I'm just assuming he supports the "Animal grazing is essential for the climate" point, simply because Monbiot opposes it. Just awful, pseudscientific sophistry, it's like hearing Dawkins debate Deepak Chopra.
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.