John D Liu talks about Allan Savory & Holistic Management

Подписаться 41 тыс.

Просмотров 34 тыс.

50% 1

savory.global | Click here to see famous filmmaker John D. Liu, who made the film Hope in a Changing Climate, talk about his first encounter with Allan Savory and what he learned about Holistic Management. He took a subsequent trip to Australia and saw the work of Tony Lovell and Bruce Ward and was thoroughly convinced at the power of properly managed livestock and regenerative grazing. This interview took place at the Savory Institute International Conference, "Putting Grasslands to Work" in London, UK in Aug 2014.
Stay connected:
savory.global
/ savory.global
/ savoryinstitute
/ savoryinstitute
About Savory Institute:
Loss of grasslands leads to climate change, floods, droughts, famine, and worldwide poverty. It’s our mission to promote large-scale restoration of the world’s grasslands through Holistic Management.
Holistic Management is a process of decision-making and planning that gives people the insights and management tools needed to understand nature: resulting in better, more informed decisions that balance key social, environmental, and financial considerations.

Опубликовано:

29 янв 2015

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 87

@christopherharrison2987 2 года назад

John I have long been an admirer of your work, and I’ve been on my own permaculture journey for over a decade now. We need the kind of holistic outlook that permaculture provides to start bringing our ecosystems back into better balance… and find true abundance in the process. In short, it’s time for us to start becoming HUMAN again and find the connections we have to the earth and each other. Thank you so much for popularizing these concepts and “infecting” people with the outlook of permaculture and holistic thinking.

@LKemp-lr1ky Год назад

@John D Liu I do--and have always agreed w/you. We sort our trash, wash our recyclables, use our gray water, save our utilities--except when over 110!! Our home is insulated to the hilt. It won't really help but it helps me. Poor planet. It's still SO wonderful... Thx.

@shawnmulberry774 Год назад

Perhaps this message needs to be reformulated and spread on TikTok because in 7 years just over 30,000 people have watched this video. So this particular message is not getting out there that much and I do like the message. Thank you for this.

@GlobalEarthRepair 5 лет назад

Thank you for posting this! We need more humans like him, actively engaging in solutions.

@AussieAquatic 7 лет назад

In order to take positive actions, we firstly need a plan, and these concepts and practices are able to point us back into the right directions.

@russelltempleton8989 3 года назад

This man is a reporter, he is doing good, look into the Savory Institute, he has been doing this since the 70's.

@ranjanchadha 5 лет назад

In one of John's videos that I watched he holds a position contrary to Allan Savory's on livestock and regreening. According to Allan Savory, to let livestock flourish is the one and the only solution to regreening. I was waiting for John's opinion on that but all he said was he would look into it whereas earlier he has said that we must not allow livestock to ruin the soil.

@jenspetersen5865 4 года назад

You watched the videos that were based on lack of knowledge of Savory's methods. Here he clearly say that Savory's method is valid, and that Liu's earlier views were wrong.

@510Redneck 4 года назад

@@jenspetersen5865 Sure but i'm pretty sure the video that he is referring to was the same one I watched which was originally broadcasted in 2012 , which is well after knowing Allans Savory's research-results in 2009 and yet still held the same narratives that over grazing - cattle was the problem when knowing otherwise..... as in the narrative still remained parroted well after knowing otherwise (for whatever reasoning idk).

@jenspetersen5865 4 года назад

@@510Redneck John D Liu did not know of Savory's research when his video was published in 2012. Savory reached out to Liu when that video was published, and they caught up. John D Liu says that his video came out for COP15 and that he and Savory first had contact app. one week later (1:20 in this video). Obviously John D Liu is one of those "environmentalists" that are more interested in finding the right solutions than in self promotion.

@510Redneck 4 года назад

@@jenspetersen5865 He said under his own admission within this very video that they made contact in 2009.... 3 years prior to the video we are referring too was originally broadcasted. I didn't speak too John D Liu's intentions, merely pointed out reality of him knowing of said research sum 3 years prior to the video in question was originally broadcasted... everyone can draw their own conclusions as to why that narrative still remained when knowing otherwise. Please don't come back and say that it took 3 years to research the research, John is FAR to smart of a individual for that narrative (especially with a direct line to it). "more interested in finding the right solutions than in self promotion."... In his work it has to be both otherwise he would not get anywhere, he would literally have no choice in the matter if he wanted to try to make a real difference because that is just unfortunately the world we live in - how it operates and exactly how he rose to where he is now as a public figure in the field (nothing to hate about). Whether he is sincere or had to change due to research pointing a different direction to save face (or a bit of both) literally makes no difference to me, him changing as research proves otherwise is all that matters..... As MOST all that have a platform to speak won't unfortunately won't (politicians etc..) they ride their cash cow out till their deaths without ever changing regardless if it's beneficial for the planet to do so (unlike him). Again to reiterate: I'm not speaking on behalf of the man's intentions if there even was any, just pointing out what was relayed to us (by them) which many will find strange or misleading and then question the intentions of it all. Peace!

@jenspetersen5865 4 года назад

@@510Redneck While at 1:20 and the next minute he says that they first made contact in 2015, I will not try see 20 minutes of video to find Liu saying what you say he does. I will take the claims he makes that I have heard and documented over your your claim of the opposite. Baseline is that they agree that getting carbon back in soil is the goal, and in reality the right technique is likely very different depending on where in the world you are trying to do it. Maybe you should still plow land in areas where desertification is not a risk. What Savory brings is an ultra low cost practical way of solving a massive problem while producing food, sequesting carbon and turning wasteland into productive land. These are low hangin fruits that are much more practical than electrical cars, wegan diets and all the other fanatic suggestions from the green washing crowds. Air pollution, the decreasing ability of the earths surface to reflect and absorb light and lack bio diversity are critical aspects that we have ways of fixing without harming people.

@Supertomiman 5 лет назад

I'm glad that such an influential man is on board with this. We need to this across vast landscapes, it's not that hard. The economic payoff would be massive, not just the ecological one.

@bashful228 4 года назад

regenerative ag is good, HM is bad because of all the ruminant methane emissions (Enteric fermentation).

@johannesantila5738 2 года назад

@@bashful228 Please educate yourself. Methane is part of natural carbon and water cycle. Forests release methane. Amazon releases more methane in a year than all the livestock do. And it's all natural. Even if the livestock doesn't eat the grass, the grass still releases methane where humidity is present. Creating deficiency in earth's water, carbon, nitrogen etc cycling is a management issue, and a serious one.

@redddbaron 8 лет назад

Very thoughtful discussion. Everyone needs to see this.

@janetmcginty7712 3 года назад

There doesn't have to be a one solution fits all approach. Where grazing makes sense, use it. Terraforming, rotation and fallow, tree planting, composting food waste are other solutions. The point is that the earth can be restored and made sustainable with a plan to do so.

@jossyschwengle5827 4 года назад

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"

@jaykobe8086 2 года назад

we've been focusing on the technology to solve all these environmental issues, but it is also important to think of the solution through the mechanism within the nature

@umaribnal-khattabmalaysia6831 4 года назад

John when you going to start work on Tibet plateau for reforestation and restoring ecosystems in the Tibet plateau ? The Tibet plateau the one of highest plateau on earth if we can restore the Tibet plateau its will bring a lot of benefits to the local community and to the world John.

@Craigdna 8 лет назад

Very interesting as always, thank you for sharing it. I had a question as to whether in permaculture, have we developed or conducted studies on the quantities of carbon dioxide taken in by different species as well as their oxygen contributions to the atmosphere. It seems that an index for this would be very important, even if it was an invasive species(in a controlled environment) that could absorb more CO2, it could be significant in the aggregate, in reducing the levels of atmospheric CO2, couldn't it? I believe in Alan Savory's work as well, but I am definitely not going to think that mixed grazing is going to resolve the problem of making soil more nutritive. It is further beneath the soil that you find micro bacteria/nematodes, etc., at least in digging experiences I have in central coastal California. region. We have oxygen deprived clay that is multiple feet thick, and touching the surface of that is not going to do much. After seeing documentaries that you were involved with John, and how hard people were working turning the soils and mixing laboriously, I will take that route. Big grazer's hoofs can turn soil multiple inches, but I wouldn't think that would be enough. Personally, I believe in a civilian conservation corp, similar to what FDR put forth. This could reduce the drug usage problem with meth and fentanyl, and give youth the experience of being around people from all countries, all having the same goal to achieve. That kind of experience is invaluable. I think that like electricity and water, human beings will take the path of least resistance. We have to have effective organic methods of breaking apart some of these clay soils, outside of Gypsum.

@johndliu2284 8 лет назад

Dear Craig: This is interesting and being discussed in many places. Over historical time humans have moved lots of plant material around the Earth. Most of our food crops for instance are non-native in many places. In sequestration quantity is rather important but quality is necessary. Succession is also rather important. What I've been noticing is that polycultures with large assemblies of indigenous / endemic and also perhaps exotics but ideally not invasive plants are able to rapidly increase soil organic matter and therefore soil carbon. I think that we need discussion, trial and continuous monitoring to know the exact answers. But we should not wait for more data to increase biodiversity, biomass and organic matter.

@bashful228 4 года назад

The issue with ruminant livestock production is methane. Western cattle produce 120 kg of methane a year, bos indicus (asian) cattle 60 kg per year. Sheep less again per animal. Methane is 86x as potent as CO2, so you need a lot of CO2 drawdown for each molecule of methane released by enteric fermentation. Dietary interventions have been extremely limited (and lot cattle actually produce less methane than range fed because of dietary intervention i.e. grain feeding). Beyond Zero Emissions looked at ways to balance agricutural systems to be net zero emission per bio sub-region in Australia. Comprehensive research: bze.org.au/landuse Also, prophylactically, there's a myth going around (propagated by Allan Savoy amongst others) that methanotrophic bacteria in our soils digest all the methane that is available to them, it's totally wrong, If true, the global atmospheric methane stock wouldnt have increased by 250% since 1850-1900 average. The methane moves up in the atmosphere to the troposphere where it reacts to form tropospheric ozone (itself a potent GHG) and then up to the stratosphere where it lasts around 12 years (half life of 7 years)

@bashful228 4 года назад

@@johndliu2284 "Most of our food crops for instance are non-native in many places" more like 100% of them, all ahve been altered through selective breeding (or GMO in a few cases).

@bashful228 4 года назад

@@johndliu2284 permies love invasive species, they only stay invasive until their job has been done as colonisers of barren or poor land in the permaculture perspective.

@christopherharrison2987 2 года назад

Looking through the lens of invasive vs native is incorrect IMO. Rather, we need to look through the lens of ecological niches. Most “invasives” express themselves the way they do because their niche is rapidly colonizing degraded areas and restoring organic matter and biomass for later stages of succession. So if we want to limit the impact of the most aggressive of these species - like kudzu in the southeastern US - we need to intervene and provide the ecosystems with what they need for later stages of succession along with disadvantaging the spread of those species. With regards to the less aggressive ones like autumn olive or purple loosestrife, it’s better to let them perform their function in the ecosystem and allow them to gradually success out - and/or actively moving that process along ourselves.

@bashful228 4 года назад

John Lui needs to learn that methane is 86x as potent as CO2 over a twenty year time horizon and is a big part of the reason Ag in Australia is 54% of GHG emissions including enteric fermentation, land clearing, re-clearing and savanna burning. Revegetation is more powerful than live-stocking using HM, but you can't make easy money the way you are with livestock production. Good on him for being open to study, but read this if you really want quantification of emissions data: bze.org.au/landuse. Most of the country livestock are produced on in Australia is not suited to cell grazing (stock watering points are expensive to put in over these vast distances) and normally see no humans until muster, so the labour requirement for temporary fencing and daily moving of cattle wouldnt be economic. It's pretty sad the livestock industry are lauching a takeover of the term regenerative ag in my view. MLA has not invested any of it's 13 most recent grants into regenerative ag and yet proclaims that the industry will be carbon nuetral by 2030. Only using the kind of accounting tricks the national government is happy to be using I'd suggest.

@bashful228 3 года назад

@@magnusrasmussen951 Alan Savory lies about this repeatedly and so many of you have been taken in. Currently the index used for methane accounting in Australia, USA and most countries on Earth is 25x CO₂. That is about a quarter of the real impact over the next ten years. All these negative emissions claims ignore the true cost of methane (enteric fermentation in ruminants). Or hand waving it away with unproven claims about methanotrophs, bacteria deep down in the soil or ocean (remembering methane rises to the stratosphere very quickly) that consume methane. Methane rises quite quickly in the atmosphere to the stratosphere, very little sinks deep into the soil. These bacteria mostly source their methane from methanogens, bacteria that produce methane when breaking down organic matter in the soil. Over then next ten years (over which climatic tipping points may well be crossed) methane emitted today is 100x as warming as CO₂ pound for pound. Over the next twenty years, methane emitted today is 86x as potent as CO₂. We have yeras not decades to get to zero net emissions and methane being a Short Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCP), mitigation of methane is much more powerful in the near term in cooling the atmosphere and oceans than mitigating CO₂. Don't get me wrong, we need to do both concurrently, but methane can save the ice and possible the remaining coral reefs (GBR will never recover as it was), CO₂ on it's own will not.

@bashful228 3 года назад

@@magnusrasmussen951 you know why Savoury bought an endorsement from a man who documented the harms livestock do to woodlands and savannah alike? to silence his critics. but that doesn't take methane emissions into account. for sure carbon can be sequestered in the ground. But slashing into green manure and cover crops can do it just as readily as ruminant livestock - without all the methane emissions and loss of arable land for livestock feed production!!

@bashful228 3 года назад

@@magnusrasmussen951 can i please recommend to you two excellent video around methane and climate tipping points by Earth Systems climate scientist Bob Howarth at Cornell Uni NY? Climate Change and Tipping Points Bob Howarth. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7H1UKm3uogw.html and this hour long lecture followed by Qs: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qR5TqEyQLJ4.html

@spiral-m 2 года назад

Yes the claims are full of BS. It is much more about profit and taste buds than sanity and ethics

@rob-yt9di 5 лет назад

I`d like to know if the increase in atmospheric CO2 helps these rejuvenations as I understand that higher CO2 helps plants by reducing stomata in plant leaves allowing sufficient CO2 with fewer stomata thus reducing the amount of water loss through the leaves. I am presuming that this would enable plants to survive in harsher dryer climates where water is in short supply. If this is the case then could an argument be made for higher CO2 to remain ??

@zawbones5198 4 года назад

rob Trees work by converting CO2 into O2 (photosynthesis). So the result of more CO2 for trees would be less CO2 by default. Also: many studies have found that CO2 is partly resposible for these harsher dryer climates.

@christopherharrison2987 2 года назад

One of the effects of increased CO2 levels has been an overall decrease in nutrient density for food crops. Which makes sense if you consider the reduced flavor and brix levels of berries grown during a season of over-abundant rain. Note this doesn’t account for the more severe weather patterns and rapid changes in climate analogs resulting from higher CO2. You’re looking at the higher CO2 through a reductive lens that only accounts for a single factor. That’s the view that got us to where we are now. We need to instead view this through a holistic lens, recognizing that we are discussing a dynamic system with more components reacting in different ways than we can possibly keep track of individually.

@wirehead1000 5 лет назад

CO2 is Essential for plant-life. But without a vegetation absorber in the Carbon cycle, CO2 can become a killer. CO2 is a greenhouse gas we need in moderate amounts to prevent catastrophic global cooling which is also deadly to life when taken to extremes. We see that in volcanic eruptions when sulfides and dust trigger short-term 'Volcanic winters'. The Carbon cycle functions when in balance, production equal sequestration. That gives climate stability, and a healthy habitat. I think that far more attention needs to be paid on other acid-producing gasses, especially Sulfur-based aerosols. Besides being deadly in 100ppm low concentrations, they have the opposite effect, being short-term global coolers. Cooling sounds good, but Sulfuric acid rain kills oxygen-based life in very low concentrations. The acid rain scare in the 1960-1980s was a wake-up. Forests in North America and Eurasia were dying from dirty coal-burning power plants, sulfur-rich gas and diesel and sulfide smelters. Only by scrubbing the Sulfides from the emissions were the forests allowed to return to health. Jet fuel releases substantial sulfur still for it is still unregulated because of economics. So-called 'chem-trails' have a lot of sulfides. Pollution is a multi-headed hydra producing a host of interrelated woes which all must be addressed to prevail successfully long-term. A dead plant sequesters no carbon but releases it as CO2 as it decays. There is a Sulfur spike associated with the greatest mass extinction, the Permian, when the planet became a desert and 95% of life perished. Sulfur bacteria thrived releasing more Hydrogen Sulfide (the oil-patch 'sour gas') for Oxygen is poisonous to them. The planet was in a sulfide loop for a while, not an oxide loop. There is strong geological/paleontological evidence that supports this. (ie, gypsum replacing limestone, iron sulfide or pyrite deposits in anoxic water) The terrible result was millions of years of Climate chaos and hot anoxic water, sulfur bacteria heaven, oxygen-breathers' hell. With no CO2 absorption, the temperature spiked providing an ideal environment for sulfur-dependent bacteria. We see these bacteria in sea-bottom 'black smokers, pink water in anoxic environments. I see this as the next major step required to re-greening the deserts, for sulfides kill in low concentrations and can trigger environmental collapse. I would appreciate Mr Liu addressing this topic, for China has a severe sulfide pollution problem from coal. How does that fit into the desertification problem?

@SuperLammens 6 лет назад

I love the work of Allen Savory, but the data show that Carbon is"NOt" the vilain and carbon is not the lever that controls temperature.

@wirehead1000 5 лет назад

@dav1952id 4 года назад

Ah - but I understand that carbon sequestration improve the small water cycle, which reduces the atmospheric water vapour clouds.

@credenza1 4 года назад

I agree. The standard assertions of the climate change industry do not always reflect the facts. John Liu is very interesting to listen to, although he promotes a globalist ideology (with hints of totalitarianism) which is being rejected with increasing vigour in many nations. For Holistic Management to be accepted, it needs to be done within the cultural framework of nation states, not by way of a globalist trans-national imposition from above.

@globalwarming5050 6 лет назад

I hope he came to his senses

@victorbeaulieu9171 6 лет назад

what do you mean?

@globalwarming5050 6 лет назад

That the Savory Institute is bullshit

@victorbeaulieu9171 6 лет назад

It is healing a lot of land around the world, what you problem with that? That your beliefs was wrong and you are too stubborn to change?

@globalwarming5050 6 лет назад

what belief? that Allan Savory is full of shit? or that people who shill for him are cynical ranchers who should get their heads out their ass?

@victorbeaulieu9171 6 лет назад

Are you going to come up with some useful critic or just personal attacks?

@LP-MeAndMyShadow 4 года назад

Save the camel's in Australia.

@adnanakram17 4 года назад

Ship them to saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Jordan and Iran and Zoo of different places.

@TheRoon4660 Год назад

How many elephants did he (Savory) admit to having slaughtered? 60 thousand? But he said he was sorry do that's ok. Blame the ivory poachers.

@SavoryInstitute Год назад

Allan never claimed to have killed the elephants himself, rather his research was used by the government to support their culling program which was enacted after he had left the game department. You are repeating distorted facts about the matter. We have recently updated Allan's Wikipedia page with more details and primary resources on the matter to hopefully put this myth to bed once and for all: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Savory#:~:text=Savory%E2%80%99s%20early%20research,and%20Jody%20Butterfield.

@andybooth5269 4 года назад

Awesome but tell Russia to stop dumping nuclear waste into their lake and clean it up

@mischevious 3 года назад

You tell the US Navy to stop dumping their nuclear waste in the open ocean!

@tiitulitii 3 года назад

There are too many people on the Earth. So, an international agreement for the obligatory one child family policy will be required covering each and every country until the number of people has reduced by 99%. Then, a two child family policy may suffice. Only rain water should be used for irrigation! But, it cannot he done, because we are too many.